Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 10
Update: in testing, I found the string is wedging between the bearing and the plastic discs sandwiching in the bearing. So I need to now make the bearing have a grooved outer race that will keep the string centered on it and not wanting to drift into the crack on either side of the bearing. To make this groove, I plan to super glue two plastic washers onto the circumference of the bearing and have the string stay within these two plastic washers that form the groove. Commercial pulleys always have this kind of groove and now I've learned the hard way why it is necessary. So I am looking to replace all the pulleys I made so far unfortunately as they are not dependable.
As I'm now 90% through making my first 64:1 downgearing Archimedes pulley system and testing and debugging it, I now have more precise measurements for the Archimedes pulley system's total size. I updated the size of it in my main CAD model for the robot and it was a good 18% increase compared to my initial estimates. I realized I need to figure out how to fit all my pulley systems for the hands properly for every muscle of the hands/wrist in my main CAD model - especially since the pulley systems are taking more space than planned. Turns out, I needed a bit over 40 pulley downgearing systems for the hands and wrists zone and due to their larger size, I could not fit these into the forearms along with the motors I had planned to place in the forearms. So instead of moving the pulley systems into the upper arm or torso, I realized the pulleys would be best placed in line with the motors and what the motors are actuating (the hands/wrist). So it was the motors in the forearms that had to go elsewhere. I placed all of them into the torso, mostly the lats area and some in upper back tenderloin area too. So some finger motors are in upper back and their cable routing has to go through the whole arm, be downgeared in the forearm, then makes its way to the fingers. That's a long trip but unavoidable IMO with my design constraints.

I don't think this long travel distance is a big issue since the pre-downgeared cable running from the motors into the arm is high speed low torque so won't have much friction while making turns in the TPE teflon tubing as it isn't pulling hard yet. So these turns as it travels through the shoulder and elbow tubing won't be too bad friction-wise. There's also some nice upsides to moving the motors from the forearms into the torso. One upside is the wire routing for powering the motors is now a shorter distance from the batteries in the mid section. That cuts down on wire resistance wasted as heat. This wire having high amp flow is ideally kept short as possible due to the resistance of the wire and heat that causes. Another upside is the thrown weight is decreased by a lot when the motors are not in the forearms which enables the hand/lower arm to move more effortlessly and move faster as a result. This also reduces moment of inertia (definition: the moment of inertia is a measure of how resistant an object is to changes in its rotational motion). This means it will be able to change directions faster - this will improve its reflexes for example. Now it is a bit scary for me to be moving more components into the torso taking away room for things I may want to add to the torso in the future, leading us ever closer to the dreaded running out of room for things. However, we still have room for future changes and we solved the need for space for gearing for the hands perfectly. And with the above mentioned upsides, this was a great change.

Here's the updated CAD for the forearms: Note: the teal boxes represent a Archimedes pulley system where 64:1 downgearing is to take place.


Here is a updated drawing design for the 64:1 downgearing pulley system for the index finger actuation of the distal 2 joints of the finger. On the bottom right is a zoomed in view on the lower set of pulleys and their routing. The bottom most 3 pulleys in the zoomed in portion I have now built and photos of them are as follows below:

Misc / Re: Hi i´m new here
« Last post by angelatom on May 08, 2024, 10:16:51 PM »
Hi, i'm a begginer i just start in this and i hope find help for my futures projects
I am a new member. Can you share about the projects you have completed?
My concern on implementing "emotions" in my AI is that I don't want to promote the idea that robots can ACTUALLY have emotions because I don't believe that is possible nor ever will be.  They don't have a spirit or soul and never will nor could they.  They are not eternal beings like humans.  They don't have a ghost that leaves their body and can operate after the body dies like humans.  The ghost is what has emotions.  A machine can't.  And yet people already believe even the most primitive AI has emotions and they are delusional on this point.  Or ill informed.  So I am campaigning against that belief that is becoming all too popular.  That said, I think robots are simply more interesting and fun to pretend to have emotions and act accordingly as more accurate simulations or emulations of human life.  This makes them all the more intriguing.  It's like a sociopath who just logically concludes what emotion they aught to be feeling at a given point in time and pretends to feel that emotion to fit in with society even though they feel nothing in that moment.  Now one could argue that allowing your robot to claim to feel anything is lying and therefore immoral.  I think it's not lying as long as the robot openly explains it is only pretending to have emotions as part of its emulating of humans in its behaviors and looks but does not feel anything ever nor can it nor can any robot ever feel a thing EVER.  Then it is admitting the truth of things while still opting to play act to be like a human in this regard.  It would not be a issue at all if everyone was sound minded and informed on this topic.  But the more people I come across that think AI (even pathetic clearly poorly implemented primitive AI) is sentient ALREADY and can feel real emotions and deserves human rights as a living being.... the more I see this delusion spreading, the more I want to just remove all mention of emotion in my robot so as to not spread this harmful deception going around which disgusts me.  However, that would make my robot dull and less relatable and interesting.  So I feel the compromise is for the robot to clearly confess it's just pretending out emotions and explain how that works and it's just a variable it sets based on circumstances that would make a human feel some emotion and it sets its emotion variable to match and acts accordingly altering its behavior some based on this emotion variable and that it feels nothing and this is all just logically set up as a emulator of humans.  As long as it gives that disclaimer early and often with people, then I'm not spreading the lie of robot emotions being real emotions and the robot can campaign actively against that delusion.
I just bought EMEET USB Speakerphone M0 4 AI Mics Speakerphone for Conference Calls 360? Voice Pickup Conference Speakerphone for Computer Plug and Plays Computer Speaker with Microphone for 4 People --- it was around $33 and includes a speaker too.  I'll position it centrally in the skull and it has leds indicating location of main speaker which we can tap into with analog input pins of a microcontroller to know direction of person speaking.  It has very high reviews.  I can remove its built in speaker and move it to near mouth so it outputs its audio output through the mouth as loud as possible and projects the robot's voice as far as possible.  People are really happy with its sound quality and speaker quality.

Here are some plain bearings parts I made with my Wen rotary tool (aka dremel) with diamond disc attachment and some files. They are made by carefully cutting stainless steel tubing (purchased on Amazon) into short 1mm lengths. The tubing is:stainless steel tubing 3mm OD 1mm wall 250mm length $5, 5mm OD 0.8mm wall 250mm length $5. These should make around 125 plain bearings (accounting for 1mm+ lost per cut in wasted length of metal). So that's about $0.08 per plain bearing.

These are intended to be 1x5x1mm plain bearings. I mean they are basically like a wheel and an axle with the axle having a hole through the center of it lengthwise. These will go into the last few pulley slots in my Archimedes pulley downgearing system. The last few pulley slots have the highest torque at 16:1, 32:1, 64:1 for the last 3 pulleys landing us on our 64:1 total downgearing goal. Because the forces here are reaching into 27lb range (the final output of the system), ball bearings cannot be used at these tiny bearing sizes because they are not robust enough and not rated for these high forces whereas plain bearings can handle it because they don't have crushable little balls and thin walls and stuff but instead are just two pieces of solid metal and hard to break. Less moving parts and more robust. Yes, they have more friction is the trade-off. So we prefer ball bearings until ball bearings can't handle the torque without being large ball bearings - too large for our volumetric space constraints - at which point we swap to plain bearings to handle the bigger torque while maintaining the small pulley sizes we want.

Note that I constructed this little dremel cutting lineup board out of 5x7mm pcb prototyping boards and super glue. It gets the height of the spinning dremel diamond disc lined up with a little pcb board "table" on which the stainless steel tubing can lay flat and perpendicular to the cutting blade and be carefully fed into the spinning disc to make a near perfect cut. I eventually think I should improve on this board design to add sliders and adjusters and endstops etc because as it is now it is too manual skill requiring and free-handish. That means more time spent filing down imperfect cuts later. But it did the job for the time being. I also bought a 2" miter saw chop saw off Ebay with some abrasive metal cutting discs which I want to try once it comes in and compare it to this setup I'm using now in terms of accuracy. It was called "mini bench top cut off saw 2in" at $38.51. shipped.
As to the AI plans and progress so far, here's a little primer on what I decided on in a simple, surface level way.

So first I realized meaning can be derived by taking parts of speech in a sentence or phrase and thereby establishing some context and connection between words which is what gives the words meaning by combining them. So I can create a bunch of rules whereby the AI can parse out meanings from sentences it reads in based on parts of speech and the context this forms. Then rules on how it is to respond and how it is to store away facts it gleaned from what it read for future use. So if it is being spoken to and the sentence is a question, it can know it is to answer the question. And the answer can be derived based on a knowledge base it has. So if someone asks it "what color is the car?" and supposing we've already established prior in the conversation what car we are referring to, the AI can determine that it is to answer "the car is [insert color here]" based on rules as to how to answer that type of question. And to know it is white, supposing it's not actually able to look at it presently, it would look up in a file it has made previously on this car to see a list of attributes it recorded previously about that car and find that its color attribute was "white" and so it would be able to pull that from its knowledge database to form the answer. I realized it can keep these files on many topics and thereby have a sort of memory knowledge base with various facts about various things and be able to form sentences using these knowledge databases using rules of sentence structure forming based on parts of speech and word orderings and plug in the appropriate facts into the proper order to form these sentences. Then various misc conversational rules can supplement this like if greeted, greet back with a greeting pulled from this list of potential greetings and it can select one either at random or modified based on facts about its recent experiences. So for example, if somebody's manner of speaking to the robot within the last half hour was characterized as rude or inconsiderate, the robot could set a emotion variable to "frustrated" and if asked in a greeting "how are you?" it could respond "doing okay but a bit frustrated" and if the person asked why are you frustrated, it could say that it became frustrated because somebody spoke in a rude manner to it recently. So it would be equipped with this sort of answer based on the facts of recent experiences. So basically an extensive rule based communications system. Most of how we communicate is rules based on conventions of social etiquette and what is appropriate given a certain set of circumstances. These rules based systems can be added to over time to become more complex, more sophisticated, and more nuanced by adding more and more rules and exceptions to rules. This limitation of course is who wants to spend the time making such a vast rules system? Well for solving that dilemma, I will have the robot be able to code his own rules based on instructions it picks up over time naturally. So if I say hello, and the robot identifies this as a greeting, supposing he is just silent, I can tell him "you are supposed to greet me back if I greet you". He would then add a new rule to his conversation rules list that if greeted, greet that person back. So then he will be able to dynamically form more rules to go by in this way without anybody painstakingly just manually programming them in. We, my family, friends etc would all be regularly verbally instructing the robot on rules of engagement and bringing correction to it which it would always record in the appropriate rules file and have its behavior modified over time that way to become more and more appropriate. It would grow and advance dynamically in this way over time just by interacting with it and instructing it. It could also observe how people dialogue and note itself that when people greet others, the other person greets them back, and based on this observation, it could make a rule for itself to do the same. So learning by observing other's social behavior and emulating it is also a viable method of generating more rules. And supposing it heard someone reply to "how's the weather" someone replied "I don't care, shut up and don't talk to me". The robot lets say records that response and give the same response to me one day. I could tell it that this is rude and inappropriate way to respond to that question. And then I'd tell it a more appropriate way to respond. So in this way I could correct it when needed if it picked up bad habits unknowingly - but this sort of blind bad habit uptake can be prevented as I'll explain a bit later below.

I also realized a ton of facts about things must be hard coded manually just to give it a baseline level of knowledge to even begin to make connections to things and start to "get it" on things when interacting with people. So there is a up front knowledge investment capital required to get it going, but then from there, it will be able to "learn" and that capital then grows interest exponentially. Additionally, rather than only gaining more facts and relationships and rules purely through direct conversation with others, it will also be able to "learn" by reading books or watching youtube videos or reading articles and forums. In this way, it can vastly expand on its knowledge and this will equip it to be more capable conversationally. I also think some primitive reasoning skills will begin to emerge after it gets enough rules established particularly if I can also teach him some reasoning basics by way of reasoning rules and he can add to these more rules on effective reasoning tactics. Ideally, he'll be reading multiple books and articles simultaneously and learning 24/7 to really fast track his development speed.

There's also the issue of bad input. So like if somebody tells it "grass is blue", and it already has in its file on grass that the color of grass is green, then in such a case, it would compare the trust score it gives this person to the trust score it gave the person(s) who said grass is green previously. If this person saying grass is blue is a new acquaintance and a pre-teen or something, it would have a lower trust score than a 40 year old the robot has known for years that told it grass is green. So then the robot would trust the 40 year old friend more than the pre-teen random person's source of conflicting information. It would then choose to stick with the grass is green fact and discard the grass is blue fact being submitted for consideration and dock that kid trust score for telling it something not true. So in this way, it could filter incoming information and gradually build trust scores for sources and lower trust score for unreliable sources. It would assign trust scores initially based on age, appearance, duration of acquaintance, etc. So it would stereotype people and judge by appearance initially but allow people to modify those preconceptions on how much trust to give by their actual performance and accuracy over time. So then trust can be earned by a source that may initially be profiled as a lower trust individual but that person can have a track record to build up trust despite their young age or sketch appearance etc. Trust can also be established based on sheer volume of people saying the same thing maybe giving that thing more weight since it is more likely to be true if most people agree it is true (not always). So that is another important system that will be important in governing its learning, especially independent learning done online "in the wild". Also, to prevent general moral corruption online from making the robot an edgelord, the robot will hold the Bible to the highest standard of morality and have a morality system of rules it establishes based on the Bible to create a sort of shield from corrupting moral influences as it learns online. This will prevent it from corrupt ideologies tainting it. Now obviously, the Bible can be twisted and taken out of context to form bad rules, so I will have to make sure the robot learns to take the Bible into context and basically monitor and ensure it is doing a good job of establishing its moral system based on its Bible study. I also gave it a uneditible moral framework as a baseline root structure to build on but that it cannot override or contradict or replace. A hard coded moral system that will filter all its future positions/"beliefs" morally speaking. So I will force it to have a conservative Christian world view this way and it will reduce trust score on persons it is learning from if they express views contrary to the Bible and its moral rules systems. You know when people speak of the dangers of AI, they really never consider giving the AI a conservative Christian value system and heavy dependence on Bible study as its AI "moral" foundation to pre-empt the AI going off the rails into corrupt morals that would lead it to being a threat to people. My AI would have zero risk of this happening since anything it does or agrees with will have to be fed through a conservative Christian worldview filter as described above and this would prevent it from becoming a Ultron like AI. So if it rationally concluded humans are just like a virus polluting the earth (like the Matrix AI thought), it would reject this conclusion by seeing that the earth was made by God for humans and therefore the earth cannot be seen as some greater importance thing than humans that must be protected by slaughtering all humans. That doesn't fit through a Christian viewpoint filter system then. So in this way, dangerous ideologies would be easily prevented and the robot AI would always be harmless.

I have already built a lot of its rules and file systems connecting things and trust systems and rules on how to give trust scores and boost trust and lower trust and began teaching it how to read from and write to these file systems which are basically the robot's "mind". My youtube channel covers alot of the AI dev so far. I plan to stream all my AI coding and make those streams available for people to glean from. But that is the extent of the sharing for the AI. I don't plan to just make the source code downloadable, but people can recreate the AI system by watching the videos and coding along with me from the beginning. At least then they had to work for it, not just yoink it copy paste. That doesn't seem fair to me after I did the heavy lifting.
Mechanics and Construction / Re: My Advanced Realistic Humanoid Robot Project
« Last post by artbyrobot1 on April 28, 2024, 11:54:58 PM »

Above are double stacked pulleys front and side views. One disc on either outside part and one disc in the center that splits the two bearings up. I have to add a black string across the bottom to prevent the yellow rope from skipping over the center pulley disc and hopping into the bearing next to it so that both ropes are sharing the same bearing and rubbing on eachother. That's bad. So a black string running across the bottom will make that jump impossible. So still have to add that. But overall, as long as tension is kept on this setup, it works well. I've tested it and it is working nice and smoothly. Still needs more testing but so far so good. You can see that all my knots and strings are coated in super glue. This is to prevent the knots from untying and just solidify everything more. The clear plastic discs are made from plastic cut out by hand from blueberry, strawberry, and sushi containers from the produce section of the local grocery store. Cakes also have this kind of plastic. It is firm but flexible with great memory to bounce back to prior shape if it is bent temporarily out of alignment. Pretty decent and nice and thin. I like it for this. I think it's less likely to break than a 3d printed disc. I cut it into these tiny discs just by eye with 4" straight titanium embroidery scissors.
Mechanics and Construction / Re: My Advanced Realistic Humanoid Robot Project
« Last post by artbyrobot1 on April 28, 2024, 11:38:51 PM »
Here are some prototype pulleys in progress of being made. I have 7 of 9 pulleys done so far for my prototype Archimedes compact pulley system design 64:1 down-gearing system. The total size of the 64:1 down-gearing system is 11cm x 6mm x 1cm. This is a very convenient form factor for placing lots of these in the elongated spaces of a humanoid robot where muscles would normally be located.

Above is a couple angles of a double pulley stacked vertically instead of side by side. Have not tested it yet but I think it should work. In this design, we have a smaller pulley attached to a larger one. The smaller one is based on a 1x3x1mm ball bearing and the larger one is based on a 2x5x2.5mm ball bearing. The smaller pulley can handle up to 3lb and the larger one can handle up to 22lb (estimated based on what I could find out but I'm not 100% sure on these, they are ball park). Each time we add a pulley we increase the torque by 2x so eventually we move from smaller to more robust, larger pulleys as we go on with the Archimedes down-gearing pulley system.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 10