1
« Last post by artbyrobot1 on Yesterday at 06:21:56 AM »
I just came up with a cool alternative way to downgear a 2430 BLDC motor that might work. Here's a illustration of the cheap downgearing idea:  So basically, I figured what if I could remove the N20 motor from its gearbox/"gear set" by cutting it free or w/e. But I keep its center axle in place cutting away only everything else. You'd then presumably have a metal shaft as a entrance to the gearbox and a metal shaft exiting the top of the gearbox. I then turn that metal input shaft and output shaft into pulleys. I feed my 2430 motor output shaft pulley/winch into the input shaft of each of 4 N20 motor gearboxes, evenly distributing the load. Each gearbox downgears my 2430 motor 150:1. Each gearbox chatgpt said could handle about 5-6lb load but this can't be sudden or fast direction change this is really pushing it. But it seems 4 gearboxes should handle most of what we'd want from a 2430 motor. And the fact we can fit them all within the height of the motor output shaft default length and within the width of the 2430 motor diameter for the most part seems it would be a pretty significant downgearing for very low space taken as the cost. You could even locate a few more gearboxes off the motor anywhere and have those fed further distributing to them the load if only 4 gearboxes was not enough to handle expected forces. The cool thing is supposing we did this, it would cost us four N20 motors which is $0.80x4 = $3.20. That is VERY cheap for a gearbox as I read that a planetary gearbox for it would be like $25-30! And the planetary gearbox would take up WAY WAY WAY WAY more space which is highly coveted in our application - space we can't afford to spare. And the great thing is these little gearboxes you can fit ANYWHERE into a nook or cranny since they are so tiny... and you can use as many as you want to get up to the total forces you need them to handle as a collective. Seems like this could be a cool technique. I want to give it a go. Any thoughts? Note: this would be something I'd try on the Dinah robot where I'm using metal gears despite the noise these create since its a lower budget simpler robot I'm doing just to get something done faster for a change. My Adam, Eve, and Abel robots will be going pulleys to downgear to make them very quiet in operation as has been the plan forever.
2
« Last post by artbyrobot1 on October 11, 2024, 10:45:43 PM »
So today I went ahead and extracted this metal skeleton from a male love doll I had bought some months back to use as a base form from which to sculpt the appearance of another robot. I bought it mainly wanting the already decent human appearance it offers in the TPE body and face that can act as a starting point for sculpting a robot. This is better than having to begin sculpting from scratch in clay and making a mold or w/e. Just a shortcut for me. I bought a decent used male love doll for a few hundred dollars which was a bargain to say the least. The shipping alone had to be close to $200+ so it was priced WAY below the cost of the raw materials if I were to try to buy 50lb of TPE rubber. I intended to melt down the massive amount of TPE rubber once done using it to assist in the sculpt of another robot and use that melted down rubber to create the skin for a robot. So those ideas were I had planned for this doll. However, now that I have decided to use the skeleton for a robot build - now I'm REALLY maximizing that little investment! So after 4-5 hours of carefully removing the skin from the frame, I have it all off. I made a few tears here and there in the doll from rough handling during the skinning process and the lack of experience at this, but it went well overall. It was a very physically demanding job to separate the skin from the frame since you had to pry at it, cut it, and peel it and the whole time it fights you wanting to snap back to its original shape. I am quite sore but glad I got it done in a single day. Here's a photo of the skeleton I just extracted and will be modding and using for Dinah:  Now, having gotten the skeleton out and analyzed it carefully, I noticed it does not have the ability to shrug, so I'll have to add a hinge on both sides to enable that movement. Also, its bar where the tibia and fibia would be is not proportional in length to the bar that acts as the femur. I can see that they made the doll taller by just adding length to the tibia/fibia bar rather than proportionally adding height throughout the robot. So its proportions are off due to their laziness or oversight. In any case, I have to modify ALL the proportions some I think to match the proportions of my Eve base mesh sculpt. The neck is also quite hard to bend so I might have to add a couple hinges to it. All the nuts for every hinge on it are welded into place to prevent them backing out so I will have to grind off all these welds so I can loosen the nuts to disable posing and instead have all joints freely moving to reduce friction. I will have to add proper fingers and a palm. I will 3d print these bones for the fingers. TheRobotStudio is using Feetech SC0009 servos for the fingers. I'm planning to substitute in three N20 66rpm motors in place of each Feettech SC0009 servo. By combining three of these N20 motors, I am able to surpass the total torque of the SC0009 servo but after factoring in the size of our respective output winches, mine will be about 13% slower than his. This is fine by me because his robot hand designs are always extremely fast in finger speed and I can get by 13% slower than this. The purpose of swapping in N20 66rpm motors for the Feetech SC0009 motors is to cut costs and I just have a ton of them already and have been itching to use them. The Feetech SC0009 servo is around $11 and my N20 66rpm motors are only around $0.80 so 3 of them is $2.40. So that's $8.60 saved ever time I do this part alternative strategy. Well the savings is a bit less since I then have to supply my own motor controller H-bridge chip and potentiometer to read joint angle. So maybe only $8 saved. However, from what I gather, the Feetech SC0009 requires a serial adapter board to run it and doesn't use PWM but uses serial. I do NOT like this AT ALL in terms of my preferences and the adapter boards were $13 each and only serve 4 servos. That will add up quickly. So I'm actually saving that cost too. I prefer my microcontrollers to pwm directly to the h-bridge with no middle man software whatsoever to maximize my control. TheRobotStudio is using 3 different sizes of Feetech servos in his approach. You can see the wrist servo is much bigger in his CAD model. I am operating under the assumption I can cram TONS of these little N20 66rpm motors and use more than one of them per joint. So I can use as many as I need to get to the torque I require. I will use L298N motor driver h-bridge chips with these N20 66rpm motors to drive them. This chip can safely power 2 N20 motors per channel and has two channels. It's VERY cheap maybe like $0.15 per chip I think - don't remember. I'll use Arduino mega to send out the pwm. I'll use 10k ohm 3 pin wheeled potentiometers to read the joint angles and these will be coupled to the joints by fishing line which will translate the joint angles over to the potentiometers whose values will be read in by the Arduino Megas. So a lot of my own designs for control and sensory input I'm sticking with for this project but using various elements of Hope-Light for a hybrid approach and swapping in different actuators whenever I feel inclined.
3
« Last post by artbyrobot1 on October 11, 2024, 10:44:37 PM »
TheRobotStudio on YouTube is doing an open source robot called "Hope-Light" and inviting his viewers to follow along with his progress . I have decided to follow along, although I will be modifying his designs as I go to customize it more to my liking. He expressed he wants this to be a open source community to advance humanoid robotics development in the DIY space and usher in the wider adoption of humanoid robots in more homes across the world. He's excited for what this can mean for global productivity and quality of life improvements it can bring if executed well. I like this vision. My decision to follow along with his project is to pick up a extra head of steam in my own humanoid robot building projects by utilizing his experience and formal education in robotics engineering as a legit decorated world class humanoid roboticist. A world leader in the field. By following his open source project loosely, I can get a breath of fresh air by skipping past the bang my head against the wall dead-ends and regular difficult hurdles and just get results. Sort of like fast food drive thru. It will be a relief for me. And confidence booster. To see something really happen at a faster pace for a change. Now none of this is to say I'm abandoning my existing projects. They will all go on as planned without interruption. This will be a parallel journey I will share. I will certainly learn a ton and can apply what I learn to my other projects. I will have this Hope - Light robot adaptation be named Dinah. I'll use Eve's base mesh for the external appearance. The two females can look similar in build but have different faces. This robot will use to some extent TheRobotStudio's design philosophy and approach for the Hope-Light project. This means it WILL use metal geared brushed DC servos and it WILL use non-human-like bone structure, but I will still give it human-like realistic silicone skin and it will use the exterior exoskeleton shell of the Eve robot I 3d modeled already. One downside to this Hope-Light parallel implementation is that because it uses metal gearing it will be loud in its operation. So it will never be able to pass for human in public. That's okay though. My other designs are reaching for that aim and my other designs are still the intention for Adam, Eve, and Abel. So that vision remains alive. And will continue. But this noisy robot will still be a great learning experience and capable of doing useful work including helping me build my other robots, chores, manufacturing products, cooking, etc. It will probably do most of the things the Adam, Eve, and Abel robot can do but not be as strong, fast, and articulated. So it will probably not play sports well or do rock climbing or various other serious physical strenuous types of work. But the long list of things it should be able to do is still enough for it to be awesome. A great thing is that it won't be so experimental and outside the box like my previous solo approaches. This one will be designed to a small degree by a real professional so it will happen way faster and more surely than mine. Although I am finding I am changing his design so much it's not really his design at all anymore but my own. However, I still plan to retain a significant number of strategic decisions, placements, and organization following his lead. My other designs are more of a pipe dream shooting for the moon. Going more similar to this open source one designed by a real pro is more of a "sure thing". Not that I don't believe I can achieve my more ambitious designs, but just that they are admittedly a taller order and more crossing fingers about them is all. I really think building a top tier legit walking and talking full humanoid is going to legitimize my journey more in my own eyes and give me a better resume to bring MORE hope toward my own robot builds. Just seems like doing this is a no brainer. Here's a early design progress image from TheRobotStudio who is currently designing Hope-Lite in Solidworks.  You'll note he fused the distal knuckle of 4 fingers so they are permanently partly bent. This was a decision to cut down on complexity but in my preference, I'd rather have that functionality. You'll also note that it cannot pronate or supinate the wrist. That takes away a TON of functionality which is not my preference. So my robot will add this function back. That said, as I was studying how to add pronation and supination without a ulna and radius bone, I stumbled across the simple and effective design of posable love dolls' skeletons. I realized they have pronation and supination in their stock skeletons, so I decided I will use that kind of skeleton for this project. They are simple, very strong, welded steel construction with heavy duty hinge systems. To be posable, the hinges are quite stiff, so I will need to loosen all hinges to reduce friction. They are a hollow lightweight tubing style. Actually not that heavy.
4
« Last post by artbyrobot1 on October 09, 2024, 09:54:19 PM »
I came up with a design for a way to do all my downgearing 64:1 by way of pulleys that is so downscaled that it can fit onto the top of the 2430 motor and achieve the full 64:1 downgearing for BOTH directions of travel. Here's a photo of the design drawing I made which roughly approximates what this will look like in theory:  Here's a closeup detail photo of one of the pulley downgearing stations pictured above:  Here is a photo of a thumb tack and #3 fishing crimp sleeve I bought on Amazon which will act as the basis for the downgearing pulley station:  Note: what an IMMACULATE FIT this was! I was looking through my junk bags for a sleeve for my thumb tack and nothing was a snug fit but when THIS came in the mail for the unrelated fix I mentioned earlier for the other pulley system, I knew it was perfect for the thumb tack when I saw it! It's the perfect plain bearing! So the 64:1 downgearing system will start with two fishing lines (0.08mm in diameter 6lb test braided PE fishing line) wrapped onto the output shaft of the BLDC motor in reverse directions - one clockwise and the other counter clockwise. These strings will then travel to each of 6 downgearing stations that will each double the previous torque achieved. So downgearing station 1 will double both of the string's torque and downgearing station #2 will double that bringing the total torque to 4:1 torque. Station 3 - 8:1 torque, station 4 - 16:1 torque, station 5 32:1 torque, station 6 64:1 torque. Each station is made up of a stainless steel thumb tack with a #3 fishing crimp sleeve placed over the tack shaft forming a plain bearing pulley system. Little plastic discs will separate the various sections of this pulley system up. The discs plastic will be strawberry containers clear plastic from the grocery store (same as they use for lots of fruits, cakes, deserts, etc, the clear thin flexible plastic). The 2x torque is achieved by the string wrapping a 2x diameter pulley and a 1x diameter pulley. So every other section of the downgearing station will be 2x in diameter for this to work. Each downgearing station will be clockwise or counter clockwise rotating depending on which string it is downgearing. As the torque increases, the total wraps happening at each station decrease because the string travel is decreasing in distance by 1/2 the previous station's distance of string travel. At each station, as this phenomena occurs, a stronger fishing line can be used that is larger in diameter as needed. So only the first couple stations will use that 6lb fishing line but later stations will swap to stronger stuff since higher torques are getting involved at that point. The thumb tacks I considered welding together or brazing together. I considered Oxy-Acetylene micro torch welding, large soldering iron brazing, micro tig welding, pulse welding with a jewelry welder, spot welding, etc. But all of these approaches I am not that experienced with. I think I'll try brazing first and if I struggle with that I'll move to fiberglass and superglue where I have the most experience. My intention is to join each downgearing station thumb tack into its neighbor at the base and get them all to form a flat plane for stability and precise positioning. I intend to prepare the stations all together off the motor. Then when it is one solid structure with all of them glued to their neighbor and all pulley plastic discs added, at that point I can attach the whole assembly onto the 2430 BLDC motor top and suture it into place there. The teflon guidance hose attachment guide structure will also have to be part of this assembly for easy and secure attachment of the teflon hoses at the end.
5
« Last post by artbyrobot1 on October 08, 2024, 09:18:17 PM »
By popular demand, here is some math I did regarding the motor and pulleys for the finger actuation.
64:1 downgear ratio
24 inches total draw onto motor shaft 24 / 64 = 0.37" draw at finger joint
2430 motor 5900kv at 12v RPM = kV * V RPM = 5900 * 12 RPM = 69600
69600 / 60 = 1160 revs/second 1160/2 = 580 revs / half second
580/2 = 290 revs / quarter second
if motor reels around 1cm / rev then in quarter second it reels 290cm...
and 30cm = 1 foot so 290/30 = 9.6ft/quarter second maybe it only reels 3/4 of
that? even so... around 9.5ft/quarter second - and quarter second is the
speed of a human finger moving... we only want to reel 24 inches... and
it is reeling 9.5ft so if it only reeled 24 inches that would be human
speed... so if it only reeled 60cm that would be human speed... but it
reels 290cm... around 4.8x human speed!
now for strength at this 64:1... an online google search said a 2430 motor
can pull 60 g cm... 120 g at 1/2cm 240g at 1/4cm maybe we are around
between 1/4cm and 1/2 cm away from shaft of motor on average... so 190g at
that distance... 190g is 0.42lb... 0.42 lb * 64 = 27lb
so a single finger joint can do 27 lb dumbell curls ALONE - well wait since
it's lifting a lever at the joint, it is much lower than this maybe 1/5
of this so 5.4lb dumbel curl is more realistic...
now this is all for torque at efficient natural movement speed...
what about stall torque - IE how much can it just HOLD in place like rock
climbing dead weight it can't move but can hold steady?
it's stall torque is around 280 g.cm compare that to its normal torque
of 60 g.cm so 4x... so it can HOLD steady around 20lb! that is about what
my finger can hold steady for a single finger tip!
6
« Last post by artbyrobot1 on October 06, 2024, 05:54:33 AM »
Ok so my solution is to sew a fishing hook's eye into the bone sleeve snugly with upholstery thread as a anchor point. Then I will draw my braided PE fishing line through this eye and back down. Instead of tying it off with a fancy knot which acts as a weak point or concentrated stress point, I will use a fishing crimp sleeve to crimp the rope off on itself. Similar to crimping two pieces of wire to eachother with a electrical crimp tube. Supposedly fishing crimp sleeves are used to avoid knot tying and offer even more integrity than a knot can while maintaining fishing line integrity more than a knot can. No weakness is introduced to the line like knots do. A side benefit is this crimp also protects the line from abrasion and acts as a physical standoff so the line isn't rubbing the bone sleeve as much which can cause micro abrasions and weaken it over time. I bought #2 and #3 fishing crimp sleeves which were around $6/100pcs on amazon.
7
« Last post by artbyrobot1 on October 02, 2024, 07:57:56 PM »
I finished fixing the fishing line on the bottom-most pulley with 5 knots this time to make sure it doesn't untie. I hung the 10lb dumbbell from the pulley system and to my horror, two fishing line points snapped almost immediately in two new spots. These fishing lines were rated 20lb test and 130lb test. How is a 10lb dumbbell snapping them when hung gently? I don't get this AT ALL. I am wondering if it is a quality control issue with the fishing line or false advertising or just a bad manufacturer or what. Any thoughts? This is VERY frustrating and baffling to me. They did not untie this time they literally snapped in half. This is truly baffling.
Update: some more clues: turns out both snap points were within a millimeter from where the fishing line entered into the bone fabric sleeve where it was stitched over and over to tie it well into the sleeve. Perhaps this area just sort of was weakened by the sleeve and tugging at that spot and abrasion somehow? I am thinking I should tie a small metal ring into the bone fabric sleeve and then tie the fishing line onto that ring with a figure eight knot so that the fishing line doesn't chafe on the nylon fabric as much and has that little separation point tying off on the smooth metal. Hopefully that will solve it.
8
« Last post by artbyrobot1 on September 27, 2024, 09:37:33 PM »
   With my existing snatch block and block and tackle style pulley systems tested and working decently at 16:1 downgearing ratio which feels pretty complex and capped out by space constraints, I am now turning my attention back to some prior concepts for rotating in place pulleys I had planned years back and not revisited till now. The basic idea is you have a big pulley and a small pulley attached to eachother one on top of the other and so when the big one winds, the small one moves too and going from a small to a big to a small again (just like gears) gives you mechanical advantage. This is like gearless gears in a way works exact same way as gears except can't go continuously in one direction since its limited by amount of windings you can fit on it. Having a setup like this mounted direct to the motor is a no brainer I think. It will give me a 2:1 or 3:1 downgear straight off the batt and should be fairly easy to make using a 1mm OD x 20mm length stainless steel dowel pin mounted to side of motor sewn into place tightly and then using a little copper tubing for a electrical connector as the rotating sleeve and onto this sleeve gluing down the flanges using the same plastic as what I used for the pulleys (clear sushi and produce containers plastic). That pre-downgearing at the location of the motor will bring our Archimedes pulley system from 16:1 down to 32:1 and possibly 48:1 roughly if we can get between 2:1 and 3:1 downgearing ratio on the motor. I also am considering just doing ONLY these types of rotating in place pulleys instead of the Archimedes pulleys style of downgearing. It might be more space efficient perhaps. I don't know which will be more robust and which will be a maintenance nightmare. I just don't know which is easiest to work with. Also which is easier to make. I have to make both styles and compare. I think the turn in place style may be more space efficient by a long shot but not 100% sure on this. When I do the turn in place style mounted flat onto the robot's bones, I plan to use a flat head thumb tack for this as the bone mounted base and then have the rotating pulleys turning in place over this. The flat head thumb tack can be sewn tightly onto the bone sleeve to secure it in place well. I'm not sure how well this approach will scale to higher forces of larger muscles though. Perhaps it will scale fine if I just make the pulleys bigger. So much to experiment with...
9
« Last post by artbyrobot1 on September 27, 2024, 05:03:17 AM »
 Sorry for the long wait. Got busy with other stuff. Anyways, I completed the full pulley system and just got done testing it. It did not snag once anymore (rope binding between pulley and flanges) because each spot prone to that issue I fixed by putting some clear thin fishing line across that gap and gluing it down on either end. This closed every gap causing issues before and now everything seems to be going smoothly. I just did a big testing session on the pulley system and it was working perfectly (actuating it by hand for now). However, I got very aggressive and tried to attach a 10 lb dumbbell to one end and test that way. Pretty quickly the bottom-most string of the bottom-most pulley snapped. At first I thought the string itself broke in half but it's 20 lb test so a 10 lb dumbbell statically hanging should have been fine. Turned out it was my knot that came undone! I should have tied it a triple knot at least and put super glue onto it too in order to really secure it. Turns out that particular string attachment point I wanted to upgrade to 70 lb test anyways so it wasn't such a big deal. That will be my next step. Once I get that re-secured, I want to test it out with the 10 lb dumbbell and use a digital fish hanging scale to test the real world mechanical advantage. My intention is to find out how many pounds of pulling force I'm using to raise the 10lb dumbbell. It should be WAY less than 10lb obviously due to the mechanical advantage from all the pulleys. This will also tell us how much friction there is in the system which I'm sure is significant but I will know by this test EXACTLY how much is involved. The fact it is all working in general is very promising. The tests went very well just using one hand pulling down as the weight to be lifted and one hand doing the lifting on the other end. The hand I tried to pull down with was EASILY being lifted up. It did like 10-15 trials with no binding, tangles, or issues of any sort. It just WORKED. Too bad I didn't take a short video of the testing before it broke!
10
« Last post by skrak on September 25, 2024, 08:36:58 PM »
Hi everyone,
I would like to become more active in the field of exoskeletons - probably building an exoskeleton.
The questions are somehow always the same with every such project: Why? How come? What for? Pourquoi?
You could help me, focusing on "the right" exoskeleton. I just would like to find out, what makes sense most.
At least I would like to avoid, just building an exoskeleton only for myself. Probably it could be useful for some other people as well.
That's why I've created a short survey (<7min) to shed some light on it.
I would be very happy if you could take part in it and give me feedback:
https://yujp90be53w.typeform.com/to/mOvytIhT
I am very grateful for your feedback!
Of course, if you are interested, I could present the results here.
Best regards
Enrico 
Hi I have filled out this survey. There are a lot of interesting questions here. Hope you find the information useful.
|
|
Recent Posts