Spherical Motor Creation 84
There's an interesting story concerning the development of a circular based-motor. What's interesting about this motor is that it can spin to apply force in three dimensions -- some researchers at Johns Hopkins unveiled it recently. It looks pretty cool -- many magnets involved in it.
Re:Usefulness? (Score:1)
Physics. (Score:1)
Re:Usefulness? Spherical Joint! (Score:1)
Re:Foolish. We need lifelike robots... (Score:2)
There are few things that humans need. A good smack upside the collective head would be a good start. Robots are ok, and graceful robots will be fun, but they won't change the stuff that really matters, and more leisure time (for whom? the rich who own the robots, that's whom) is not going to solve our problems.
Technology as a panacea has fallen flat on its ass, and I don't think anybody here can name me a technology that has fulfilled this oft-repeated promise of turning our lives from Pb into Au.
More involvement and commitment to building up the fund of the Common Good is the only "solution" to improving life for everyone. And no system that produces these machines is going to care much about that. So, three guesses what this technology will be use for?...
You got it. Weapons.
Isn't it nice to have a mechanism that can accurately track a moving object in three dimensions without the "wiggle" of traditional solutions? Whether its on the nose of a refitted A-10 or on a mobile SDI particle beam carrier, this will give Air Force-types around the world wet dreams and the cold sweats.
Sure, you could use it for telescopes and civilian rocket motors and benevolent articulated thingamadoohickies, but this stuff will be expensive in its first couple of generations, and by the time it gets down to us it will have been heavily patented. (Even though public money was invested in the research phase.) The forms we will be allowed to use it in will be tightly-controlled by corporations. Nothing unprofitable may exist.
What we need isn't dancing robots. It's the freedom to rip off these ideas for ourselves, and pass along the benefits. We need to grow up, take some fucking responsibility, and stop playing "Hollywood" and "Wall Street"... two of the sickest games we've ever dreamt up. I support the theft of intellectual property. I would like some anarchist group (Open Source will do) is hard at work reverse-engineering this as I write. Hope springs eternal.
thex23
Thieves. Liars. Poets.
Re:Usefulness? Spherical Joint! (Score:2)
Re:Did anyone else notice... (Score:1)
Re:Foolish. We need lifelike robots... (Score:1)
(Granted, it sort of depends on how you define "technology".)
Medicine certainly qualifies as technology. We wouldn't know a fraction of what we do today without such technological advances as microscopes and radiology.
um - sex droids? (Score:1)
pr0n.
Once it becomes possible to build a realistic sex droid, (oops - already there, realdoll.com, well, for necrophilliacs that is) it will be THE driving force behind robotic technological development. Unfortunately, the cost of use will probably be so high that they'll be more expensive than human hookers for some time.
Re:Count of dimensions ? (Score:1)
I think they are counting roll, pitch, and yaw as three dimensions.
OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
Robot Wars (Score:1)
Anyway, this'd make a really cool propulsion system for Robot Wars (or whatever it's called, I haven't seen it enough). Especially (mostly) symmetric designs would benefit, such as a HypnoDisc-like design with a heavy rotating disc and some sharp edges. Or maybe a HypnoCone would be better to allow for the electronics underneath, but still. The only control that you need is a trackball
Of course the controlling electronics (and software) are hell to build... think about compensating for that heavy, rotating disc
--
Re:Foolish. We need lifelike robots... (Score:2)
Dwarf wheet.
Land survay and scientific laying of irragation (my great grandparents could barely make a living on 100 acres of farm land, their decendents use the exact same 100 acres and have not just plants but also dairy cows)
A vast many other improvments that allow the current population to live (twenty years ago we couldn't have made enough food). .
Oh, fire was good. The wheel wasn't bad either, but not as good as fire.
Go read slouching towards utopia if you want more examples, and a well reasoned argument about where technology is taking us (some slower then others).
Jeee... (Score:1)
What about cars? (Score:3)
Suddenly the engine is the tires. :-) The only engine you'd need on the car itself would be something to generate the power for the magnets.
Remember, you saw it here first. So dig back here when someone tries to patent this. :)
Re:Usefulness? Spherical Joint! (Score:4)
First, an "omnidirectional" wheel. Ok, for this you do not need 3D as 2D will be sufficient. Plus you need a pretty clean surface, else the motor suspension = drive axis will be clogged up with dirt. A smooth "wheel" (=ball) will be better for high motor efficiency, but will increase slipperiness, too. So I guess directly using this drive as motored wheel is not the best choice.
Second, yu can cinstruct a spherical joint similar to the human hip or shoulder joint. With this you limit the movement arc to a cone with ~140 degrees opening. Spherical joints are especially interesting for major static/suspending joints - like hip or shoulder. But there are the shortcomings of this design:
The major problem will be the low torque and missing self-locking. Self-locking means, that the system does not have to use energy to keep the joint in that position. Excellent example for this is the worm-gear: nearly completely self-locking and high torques possible. In comparison this 3D-"freely spinning" joint is a (low power) direct driven, low-torque, non-locking.
As you have to use distributed permanent (=low power) magnets, the torque cannot be increased much (compared to classical e-motors with exclusively electro-magnets). Plus - as you need a high number of e-magnets - the motor is quite heavy.
All in all a nice idea, but not a good choice for most current uses IMHO.
Camera Mount (Score:1)
Articulating joints? (Score:1)
Usefulness? (Score:2)
Re:Usefulness? Spherical Joint! (Score:2)
There might of course be lots better ways than a real stirling engine at that scale. Perhaps even a microwave antenna pickup (then you could use a maser). This still would introduce inefficiencies, and it doesn't address the locking problem (brake shoes, perhaps?) And the absolute torque would be partially dependent on the amount of power transmitted (and that could be lost as heat).
A tricky design problem with lots of room for incremental improvements. Could eventually be quite interresting. Probably only suited for certain scales of activity, but it could eventually get to be quite useful for things between the size of a match-head and a terrier (caution: This is a wag with no calculation behind it!)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Mobile robots, yes. Human-like motion, why bother? (Score:1)
I accept that the sensors for light, sounds, ambient/atmospheric chemicals should be up high to get more range, so some kind of a head is useful, but a low center of gravity aids stability, reducing power requirements for balance and fine position control.
If you want to use these spherical motors for propulsion, they should be used as feet at the end of four (or more) legs. On level terrain, they can be powered so the robot rolls along on them, like castors on a chair; on rough terrain, they would be locked onto their supports and the robot would climb like a goat or an ant. Dinging the rotor out of true with an especially hard step would be a problem, but perhaps that could be corrected by changing the strength/firing pattern of the magnets.
Re:Apply this invention to IT (Score:1)
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Double No. (Score:1)
And slaves are expensive. The southern states of the U.S. confederacy were all industrially backward and committed to their slaves because that was where all their money was wrapped up. A free man operating a capital investment in machinery is far more productive than a slave. Pre-industrial revolution societies are the only instances you will find of slaves being economical for a slave holder.
Growler
Re:What about cars? (Score:1)
Sounds like just the thing for the 21st century!
foreach (unpack 'C*','aonjixfghklceyrqtuwxvdbpz') {
Re:Tracking floors... (Score:2)
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
Better Games (Score:2)
Somebody get this guy a PlayStation!
Re:Usefulness? (Score:2)
Gearbox? (Score:1)
Otherwise, the strength of the motor depends entirely on the strength of the magnets, which would limit its usefulness.
--
Patrick Doyle
Did anyone else notice... (Score:2)
This sounds wrong to me - they have great minds working on this, but no one in a long time thinks about placing the magnets equally distant from each other (sorta like, uh, I don't know - like a NORMAL AXIAL MOTOR?)...
They also go on to say that the math to equidistantly place the magnets was difficult, but did anyone see that the pattern looked similar to that of the vertices of a geodesic sphere? The math for creating geodesic spheres has been around for quite a while...
I am not saying this couldn't be a useful invention - but something just seems odd that it took so long to create (looking at it, I bet you could build one yourself using parts from a hardware store, All Electronics, and the pet store - for hamster play balls)...
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Re:Realistic/anthropomorphic (Score:1)
ligament based motors? (Score:2)
Of course one of the biggest limiting factors would be a highly limited range of motion, but unlike the human arm, it's possible for this configuration to be locking (through the use of worm drives for the wheels tugging on each ligament.
The main reason I bring this up is because the space shuttle's robotic arm was mentioned, which I don't believe requires continuous circular motion.
Course I'm still waiting for the mechanical tenticles with whip-like mobility, and the strength of locking steel. Still sci-fi I guess.
-Michael
picture (Score:1)
Re:Foolish. We need lifelike robots... (Score:1)
I don't ever remember hearing that claim, but I'll take a stab* at it.
Immunization.
(Granted, it sort of depends on how you define "technology".)
A couple of days ago, I had to go to the emergency room after attempting to prepare dinner myself. As the nurse was sticking a needle in my arm, all I could think of was, "Boy, I sure am glad I'm not going to die of tetanus." I'm also glad I'm not going to die of influenza, measles, etc. like so many of my ancestors.
* This is a pun. You have to read the whole post to get it, though.
Re:crack whore moderators (Score:1)
Re:What about cars? (Score:1)
Not cars.
Cars travel in straight lines. Wobbling about is handy for parking, but for travelling any distance more than a few vehicle-lengths, choosing a direct route is more efficient.
Secondly, what about suspension ? Putting extra mass into the wheels themselves is a bad idea.
If this thing becomes valuable as a means of transport, then it will be in something we've hardly even thought of yet (like Ginger, Bunty, or whatever it's called), not as a minor tweak to the vehicles we know.
I think it might make it into small autonomous pallet trucks.
Re:What about cars? (Score:1)
Perhaps it is time to update that old conspiracy theory to 500 miles/gallon?
Q: What are the most efficient vehicles in history?
A: The ships Columbus used. He got thousands of miles per galleon.
So.... (Score:1)
Re:Usefulness? Spherical Joint! (Score:1)
A more interesting take (Score:2)
Re:Usefulness? (Score:1)
The motor could hold the weight of the arm up. It would constantly be burning power, but this would be no different from the manner in which a human arm works.
Apply this invention to IT (Score:4)
-DVK
Re:Force Feedback? (Score:1)
It's been done - robot eyeball (Score:2)
Medical Uses (Score:1)
Re:Spherical motor, damnit! (Score:1)
mmm .... fluid motion (Score:1)
Sweet! (Score:1)
Re:Realistic/anthropomorphic (Score:1)
But that's not all of them.
Think about entertainment industry, or very very simple human tasks (not that they must be that simple for the robot, but they are wayyy too boring for a human, still, a 'human presence' is somewhat 'required') like opening an hotel door. Things like that.
Anyway, I think the best applications (in the robot field) will be the ones using this motor to asist human rather than replace them. This should sometime lead to some much better prothesis, or to 'enhancments' (not talking about arm replacement, but rather some sort of strong armor.
For example, to work very deep under sea, or in outer space, or whatever, having a human working, but assisted, in the way the armor he wears is 'active'.
oh well.. you get the picture
AD&D, Role-master... (Score:1)
How to uniformaly place n points on a sphere.
And has much as 80 !! wow !!
Now years ago, lots of us RPG fans were playing with the famous 100 faces dice.
So I suppose those guys never played RPG
Now how are we supposed to trust that kind of people ??
They probably have only evil uses for their motor
Wait wait !!! they admit it !!!
They pretend to have us play pingpong on our computers.. Arrrgggggg
Re:Did anyone else notice... (Score:1)
Distributing the points equidistantly is difficult
The vertices on a geodesic sphere you are talking about aren't even close to be equidistantly distributed (unless you are talking of a restricted set of points, not 'n'). they are symetrically distributed, and well enough to model the sphere for the purpose, but if you use those vertices to solve the magnets distribution problem, you will run into problems
There is simply no math solution to the problem
The only way you have to equidistantly distribute n points on a sphere right now is with a computer simulation.
You could for example randomly put n electrically charged particles on the sphere (same charge of course), and run the physics simulation until stability is reached, wich will give you the desired result. (I think that's the method they used to model the 100 faces dice)
Or you could try some other incremental approches, again, randomly distributing the n points and run some kind of algorhim that would move all the points trying to minimize diostances, or something like that...
Still, I agree with you it is to be noticed that this was a major problem to solve
While the maths to solve the problem are in fact so complex they don't even exist. (we don't have a general formula to diistribute the point, neither have we a recurent algorithm.. nothing.. (afaik))
But..
In the article, for the purpose of building this motor, it is clearly an engineering problem, not a mathematical one.
A good aproximation obtained with any method (but not the model you would get from 3DS or whatever) that aproximately distribute the points with as much precision as you need is just enough and I think any student in computing science should be able to solve it without too much trouble
Re:Usefulness? (Score:1)
Another possible use (Score:1)
I wonder why nobody thought of it... Such an arm can be used for making artificial limbs (for humans and robots). One of the problems of the existing motors is that they achieve too few degrees of freedom.
The motor is the joint: Surface-wave motors (Score:1)
How to use them.... (Score:1)
Combine this with iBot or Ginger... (Score:1)
Re:Usefulness? Spherical Joint! (Score:3)
Perhaps a battery, capacitor, or something of that nature could be used inside the ball, along with a coil of sorts, so that induction could power internal electromagnets. The coil would input the energy into the battery/capacitor, (with a AC to DC rectifier) wich in turn would smooth the current flow, then on from there to the coils inside the sphere. There surely has to be a way to do that without interfering with the magnetic fields associated with motion. A high frequency switching between the motion magnets and the charging magnets perhaps? That may even allow the electromagnets themselves to recharge the battery, a regenerative system of sorts. As the AC current switches between posative and negative current, a simple diode could allow one way to charge the battery, and the other swing to charge the magnets. I suppose that some inefficency has to be accounted for, that would be almost like perpetual motion, so some coils could do double duty while others are strictly charging coils, and could provide current to the battery/capacitor on both cycles.
It may help extract more torque from the system, but without some sort of physical gear reduction, it will probably still consume high power while having the ability to do very little work. Still and all, it's range of motion and accuracy may prove to be more important in many applications than sheer power.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Another article (Score:1)
Re:What about cars? (Score:1)
Re:What about cars? (Score:3)
I thought about this too - but then I remember where I had seen this before: Dominion Tank Police! Yeah!
I think some of the other commenters made a mentioning about suspension - yeah - it would make for a very bumpy ride on roads, but for things like hospital beds, wheelchairs, etc on smooth floor, I imagine they would be fine.
Other applications could be for a forklift that could move about with 90-degree turns without the need for a transmission!
Computational Complexity (Score:1)
By mounting a straight "arm" on a spherical motor, is it easier to set the end of that arm to a given (x,y,z) on that sphere that the end of that arm moves through than it is to do the same with the more complex robot arm?
I would imagine that yes, it is, but you are also only capable of positioning the end of the arm on a sphere, so even if you were searching, the dimension of the search space is reduced from the more general robot arm, so does this matter, really?
Basically, what I'm getting at it is that I took a neuroscience class once, and it's really amazing how easily the brain can position your limbs with such great precision. Apparently, most of the computational horsepower needed to walk is located in the base of your spine, just fairly small bundle of neurons. I always wondered how brains and such could solve this IK problem with such ease while computers struggled with it so. Could it be because biological systems use this different limb-positioning method?
jeb.
Someone once told me that he read that all memes are false.
Re:What about cars? (Score:2)
Oh no, I can see it now. Ford, distressed over the entire mess with their Ford Explorers and the Gravestone tires takes a page out of Sun's book, and unveils their new motto...
"Ford. The engine is the tires."
-thomas
torque? (Score:1)
Spherical motor, damnit! (Score:1)
Range of motion? (Score:1)
Re:Tracking floors... (Score:1)
Cinnamon Roll (Score:1)
Re:What about cars? (Score:1)
"// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"
Tracking floors... (Score:4)
Think about it, you couldn't just have loose bearings beneath you - you'd need something that held its position and could move any direction to correct your movement to make it feel as if you're on solid ground.
If you could make them about half the size of marbles, wow, the possibilities would be endless. That one idea of the spinning discs on tables to rearrange things is already outdated. This would rock!
Foolish. We need lifelike robots... (Score:4)
That's going to happen to humanity eventually. We keep packing more and more into less and less (for example, more schooling in shorting time frame - you easily knew twice as much by your senior year in HS than your parents).
We're going to need to take the smaller and more trivial tasks off our hands. There will be no alternative. What's the solution? Certainly not a group of people engineer to be simple/stupid (Brave New World), but rather, machines.
Right now, robots are unfriendly, imposing, and insanely clumsy. We *need* them to be able to move and act naturally as we do. We need them to not be scary. We need them to be more fluid. They'll inevitably have to interact with us in a personal fashion.
And if you're still unconvinced, think about the applications of robotics technology with fluid, human-like motion in medicine. Wouldn't it be nice to give amputees brand new arms that move flawlessly when compared to the real thing?
I'm tired, so I'm not going to go on any longer... but wow, the possibilities!
why so hard? (Score:1)
thanks in advance to the replies.
My .02,
Re:Foolish. We need lifelike robots... (Score:1)
As much as we need sexbots [slashdot.org].
Have you ever wondered about the rate in which our technology increases? It keeps doubling. Do you ever ponder that there might be a threshold where we reach critical mass? Something moving so fast and so furious... it simply falls out of our control?I think this is the reason why we have Luddites.
That's going to happen to humanity eventually. We keep packing more and more into less and less (for example, more schooling in shorting time frame - you easily knew twice as much by your senior year in HS than your parents).I see your point. Unfortuneately, the reason why we're packing so much info into our heads is because the educational system is flawed. Parents these days want their kids to experience everything there is to this world so that those children can achieve their full possibilities as scientists, engineers, etc. Yet, educators have failed in allowing kids to sample these careers without packing all that knowledge into the ciriculum. The point is, nowadays, people need to specialize in something and work as a cog in this machine we call society because of all that knowledge to soak up. Much like robots are made specialized in one activity (welding metal, placing resistors, etc.)
We're going to need to take the smaller and more trivial tasks off our hands. There will be no alternative. What's the solution? Certainly not a group of people engineer to be simple/stupid (Brave New World), but rather, machines.Right now, robots are unfriendly, imposing, and insanely clumsy. We *need* them to be able to move and act naturally as we do. We need them to not be scary. We need them to be more fluid. They'll inevitably have to interact with us in a personal fashion.
Or, what we need are robots to replace humans. That way, workers won't call in sick, slack off (ie read Slashdot), sue the company, etc. It's easier that way.
And if you're still unconvinced, think about the applications of robotics technology with fluid, human-like motion in medicine. Wouldn't it be nice to give amputees brand new arms that move flawlessly when compared to the real thing?I still think people would rather have sexbots.
Re:ligament based motors? (Score:1)
Computation for muscle movement is HIGHLY distributed, begining with the cells and moving on up from there.
The nice thing about this spherical motor is that it simplifies the computation required to move the limb. Torque and locking can be addressed by using electromagnets on the inside ball as well as the socket (doesn't do 100% sperical movement, but you only need that for a wheel application), keep the ball large compared to the length of the lever attached to it, and use a friction collar to lock the ball in one place on command.
Whiplike tentacle can be made with sections. Sections include a ball at one end and a socket with friction brake at the other. Control electronics in each section track a reference on the ball and report back to a central processor, giving joint angle for each section. power and com lines run down the center of each section, just like the human hip joint.
Now all we need is a job for the tentacle to do, right?
This is fun stuff, eh?
Mobile robots, yes. Human-like motion, why not? (Score:1)
There's a lot of interesting info available at the Artificial Muscle Research Institute [unm.edu] (free registration required).
Force Feedback? (Score:1)
Realistic/anthropomorphic (Score:1)
Spherical motors could also be used to create omni-directional gears, even tactile sensations. For example, a computer trackball that uses a spherical motor could actually provide resistance against pushing fingers to create the impression of raised braille dots. "You could create the sensation of bumping into a wall in a maze game, or even the feeling of a ball hitting a racket in a game of computer Pong," says Chirikjian, whose basic science research was funded by the National Science Foundation.
This is, theoretically, the solution to the technical gap betwen us and realistic movement.
But is realism, the mimicry of non-motorized movement, where we want to go?
I for one would not care for Data the android, whose humanlike motions can now be created with these motors. I want robots that perform a task well and are kept separate from human intellectual, athletic and creative work.
No basketball playing robot.
No ballerina robot.
The Braille application is the sort I support. Use the third dimension to convey more information in computerized systems, instead of using it to conform technological devices to human standards.
Transportation (Score:1)
Re:Did anyone else notice... (Score:1)
That sounds like a bogo-sort [chaosrift.com]. I find it hard to believe that this is the best we have, that there are NO methods to distribute a set of points (the first time, not recursively). Does anyone know for sure?
-Jason-
Applications Years Away? (Score:1)
If they can use a PC to guide the motor, I'm sure they could find something much smaller right now that's capable of doing the job. Apart from that, sounds like there could be many applications in the control systems area - and I don't mean gaming systems, although a healthy mass-market will help to push the costs down.
--
applications (Score:1)
Re:Transportation (Score:1)
Re:ligament based motors? (Score:1)
Re:ligament based motors? (Score:2)
It's not really the ligaments that pull and move our arms or legs, it's the muscles contracting and relaxing that do the movement. The ligaments determine the range of motion and the limits to that range. (I've torn both ACL's now so I know what ligaments can and cannot do). For instance, your ACL (in the knee) allows your knee to swing front to back, while the MCL (connects inside of femur and shin bone) keeps your knee from bowing inwards. I believe that there has been research done on sending electric current through a type of synthetic, fiberous material to make it 'flex' just like a muscle, but it's been a long time since I read about it. Of course, all that's needed for a synthetic ligament is a sort of very durable rubber (just like GI Joe or other toys have rubber bands connecting some of their parts together). Anyone know where more info on this research exists?
spelling. (Score:1)
No. (Score:1)
Nonsense. We know as little as our parents did. In any case, technology is non enhancing most people's understanding of the world at all-- it is decreasing it. All these new advanced communications media are just overloading us with information. A person now has much more information available in very little time, but doesn't understand more than previous generations.
We're going to need to take the smaller and more trivial tasks off our hands. There will be no alternative. What's the solution? Certainly not a group of people engineer to be simple/stupid (Brave New World), but rather, machines.
Anthropologists who study technology have found this to be a total myth. Machines don't really save time. They alter the fabric of daily life in many manners, and the time they "save" ends up being used for some other thing-- for instance, working to pay for the machine, commuting, and many other things. A more concrete example-- washing machines don't really save time, because they bring not only a decrease in the time needed to wash cloths, but new social standards of what is acceptable cleanliness in dress, manufacture of clothing, and many other things that neturalize the time "gained".
And anyway, it will always be cheaper to enslave people to miserable jobs than to make machines do them.
Re:the market (Score:1)
He writes about tons of stuff he knows shit about to an audience which typically includes a fair number of people who know more than him about whatever he's talking about (assuming that what he's talking about is not the senseless "g**ks" crap). He never says anything that hundreds of people have not said before much better than him.
Count of dimensions ? (Score:1)