Society of Robots - Robot Forum

So the idea to move a portion of the pulley system stuff over to the torso is now out because I've been kind of talked out of it so I'm putting that aside for now. Going to actually try to do that stuff within the forearm. Also instead of a fishing sinker I'm going to try to use an elastic cord made for making bracelets for kids. I think that will be enough force just to keep tension on the line that is being unreeled. Doesn't have to be much I don't think.

I'm also considering just hand testing my pulley systems for now. So disconnecting them from the motor shaft entirely so I can just do testing to see how things feel and can observe things easier way quicker and with less hassle. And when I do go to test by way of motor, I'm just going to use a brushed motor and connect a lab power supply by hand with alligator clips so I can avoid messing around with microcontrollers and firmware and custom motor controllers entirely which is a bunch of rabbit holes I want to avoid as I just secure testing my pulley designs for now. I don't want to get hung up in a year or two of electronics stuff just so I can test my pulleys which would be so stupid and annoying. I need to get my testing iterations done as soon as possible without distractions and longer delays. Once I am happy with the pulley's performance and they pass all my tests and everything seems solid then we'll go ahead and connect it back up to the BLDC motor and then will worry about the custom microcontroller and custom motor controller and all the firmware or whatever at that time and will be doing that with the confidence of a big win with the pulley systems giving us momentum as we enter into those rabbit holes of electronics.

Also, I recently stumbled upon a VERY much simplified version of my miniature pulleys. So up to now I've been using 1x3x1mm ball bearings to make tiny pulleys and been variously perfecting this approach but it is still not THAT small and is a bit complex to make and we have to make literally THOUSANDS of these to do the whole robot. That presents a bit of an issue due to the large work that requires. At least until mass manufacture of them comes in one day perhaps. But while DIYing that, it's alot to deal with making SO MANY somewhat challenging to make things. That said, my proposed EVEN MORE miniature and WAY WAY WAY simplified to make pulley is to just use a single fishing hook eye. Literally, that's it. I can use a tiny fishing hook eye and use that as my very first pulley for the 2:1 16" long Archimedes downgearing systems in the torso. This will cut down on size taken dramatically and complexity of its build. It will make the pulley basically failure proof too. The way it will EVENTUALLY fail is by the rope rubbing it enough to cut it in half. But I think the rope would fail before the pulley would fail and so that doesn't matter then. You'd replace them both at once on routine maintenance. No need then to worry about that eventuality. And the ridiculous ease of manufacture of such a simple pulley makes replacing it trivial. I also think that using this just in low load, high speed, low force early pulley downgearing stages is a non-issue since the friction with such a low load on the first downgear or two will be so trivial that the string itself would fail WAY before it would slice through the metal (acting like a saw over time). I think it would take literally MANY years due to the super low friction at these low forces. Now I'll still use the ball bearing style for later stages of downgearing where the loads go way up, but for the first stage or two I think this will work just fine.

I think I've solved it! So first, I want real force working on the extension aspect, not some wimpy spring. I already said there's a lot of frictions that extension system has to bust through to work. And I'd hate to have a very strong spring anyways since when grasping, the motor would then be fighting against a strong spring for extension which is a huge inefficiency that works to weaken the grasping action significantly at that point which is bad design frankly. So we want IN DEMAND opposition for the extension rather than a constant opposition of a spring fighting against the grasp attempt of the motor. We also want the motor that does the grasping to actively rotate in reverse direction rather than freewheeling in order to not have to fight it's static friction caused by its magnets which is significant. This means we either have to go with a two motor system - one for grasp direction of the joint and one for extension direction of the same joint (HORRIBLE WORST CASE SCENARIO BUT POSSIBLE IN A PINCH) or we need to go BACK and refute the notion that the motor is unable to operate two separate pulley systems for extension and grasping functions coming from a single motor attached to two pulley downgearing systems. Which would entail the motor turning clockwise to create grasping and counter clockwise to create extension. The problem with such a proposed system is that in theory it was said to be impossible due to the inevitable derailment issues and tension issues that this would invite. I am proposing we tackle those issues it invites head on rather than avoiding them entirely like we were trying to do for quite a while now. It is a VERY tall order to get that to work but that would be the best possible scenario IMO. It is great if we can get it to work since we tap into the full power of a single motor to do both flexion and extension and we then kill two birds with one stone. All the friction issues with the tubing and pulleys is solved by the motor when it reverses directions and actuates the opposing pulley system. We just have to have slack in the line due to the different diameter mismatches of the two different winding directions we face and also have to have that slack pulled taught by some mechanism to prevent slop that causes derailments. I really want to press for that HARD now. But to do that I really have to scrap the winch in place pulley idea basically I think. Well not necessarily - even that I think can be worked out but is higher risk and harder than my current favorite new, novel solution. So we can reattempt winch in place stuff perhaps in the future but I want to set it aside for now. My newest idea is for that first large run-out downgear to be 2:1 and use regular Archimedes pulley system approach but to put that pulley into the torso and have a weight hang off the bottom of it or have a VERY tiny motor attach to the bottom of it that is to place tension onto it regularly to remove all slop. This can be a motor the size of my pinky fingernail perhaps (not sure though). OR a weight. I lean toward using a weight now since that would be easiest I think to pull off. I got the weight idea from studying the cable machine for triceps at the gym the other day. I can have the same type of weights or something similar to those used by gyms. But doesn't have to be adjustable like those but same concept.

Granted one downside to this approach is what if the robot is laying down or upside down wouldn't it not have weight able to pull down by gravity then? So to solve this I can have 3 weights perhaps, one for each possible direction: upright robot, upside down robot, laying down robot... actually 2 weights should be fine: laying down and upright. Hmm... well if he's laying on back or stomach the weight would have to pendulum or slide past a central point to the other side of robot on a track. Yeah that should work! So 2 weights I think can do it. If upside down he's screwed we'll say. He won't use fingers in any direction change way until he flips back around upright or sideways if doing a cartwheel or handstand for a bit. That is a fine tradeoff. Right now I'm thinking a straw with lead tube in it as the weight or something like that. Even considering just using a fishing sinker perhaps at the moment. Have to think on this more...

Ok so a few minor updates:

I have decided that since I am employing tension springs to actively work against the motors in a constant tug-of-war while the motors try to grasp, I'm losing grip strength based on that. To make up for that, I'm going to use a separate motor for the distal-most fingertip joint and the second to distal-most fingertip joint rather than have a single motor do both of these joints. I made these adjustments in my CAD. I will have to change the tubing setup for the grasping tubing of the index finger to reflect this change too. This will also give the fingers even more precision and dexterity in the end - not to mention a massive boost in strength - so it's well worth it.

I also decided to use n20 gear motors for the axial rotation of the base of the fingers instead of BLDC motors like everything else since these will only be used when doing the tiniest of micro adjustments and rarely employed - so a little gear noise once in a blue moon for this precision work on a tiny scale should not be that bad. So that's 4 N20 gearmotors going in. These are being used just to save on space taken and pulleys needed a bit. I'm putting these 4 into the forearm in location pictured.



Next, when the spring is pulling, I noticed the TPFE guidance tubing goes from straight and relaxed to wavy under the tension. It is trying to compress under the friction which is what causes this. In the worst cases, Will Cogley's robot hand project had this same issue and the tubing literally compacted so much near the ends that it developed wrinkles/folds where it was crushing the tubing and destroying itself under the pressure. Mine is not to that extreme but this is WHY people put metal coils around the tubing for bike brakes to prevent crushing forces onto the tubing. I don't think I will need this but I might put it in certain places as a last ditch effort if needed later. That said, to prevent some of this compaction stuff on the spring's tubing, I'm going to be using TWO tubes which will divide up these forces causing this by 2. Sharing the load between them evenly. So the tension spring will have two fishing lines coming off of it and two tubes to guide that line to the finger joint where it does it's thing.

I recently dug an old PackBot 510 out of storage and want to get it running. Ultimately, I'll probably replace the guts and build out a custom system, I thought it would be fun to get it running "stock". I have the original controller laptop with Windows 10 on it, but no software. I believe these things used "Aware 2" from iRobot. Anyone know where I could get this?