Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics

#41

Post by Mithaldu »

kodfodrasz wrote: post #40
Mithaldu wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. In order to lower the torque on a stepper motor you need to have the logic controlling the motor control the torque for every single step the motor takes and that can switch from low to high between two steps. You can ward against this either with continuously checking logic or the torque limiters Animats mentioned: https://www.mayr.com/en/products/torque-limiters If the inception drive is set to low torqu…

How cannot you have a continous checking logic in the driver logic of a gearless drive? Let me help: you can, and I have taken part in developing one.

Link to patent?

Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics

#42

Post by dom0 »

Animats wrote: post #33

This is cute, but the use case in robotics is questionable. A variable ratio transmission for a robot seems to solve a problem nobody has. Electric motor control today is able to do that job over a wide torque and speed range. From drones to electric cars to Diesel-electric locomotives, nobody uses variable-speed gearboxes much any more. There are many robot gearboxes, but I've never heard of one with a shifter. Mach…

I think one of the very few remaining applications of variable-speed gearboxes are wind generators with no converter. But this in itself is rare, because it may be more reliable (?), but also less efficient than the power electronics... (afaik off-shore wind generators are going completely gearless).

Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics

#43

Post by kodfodrasz »

Mithaldu wrote: post #41
kodfodrasz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How cannot you have a continous checking logic in the driver logic of a gearless drive? Let me help: you can, and I have taken part in developing one.

Link to patent?

Lol?

Electric servos for steering wheels use safety critical code, with lot of safety checks, and use direct drive. No need for silly patent for common sense out of the United States.

Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics

#44

Post by Mithaldu »

kodfodrasz wrote: post #43
Mithaldu wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Link to patent?

Lol? Electric servos for steering wheels use safety critical code, with lot of safety checks, and use direct drive. No need for silly patent for common sense out of the United States.

What's the difference between continous checking logic and safety critical code with lot of safety checks?

I'm not a mech engineer, i do code. I'm asking to learn and if you can prove me wrong by teaching something, yay.

Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics

#45

Post by kodfodrasz »

Mithaldu wrote: post #44
kodfodrasz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol? Electric servos for steering wheels use safety critical code, with lot of safety checks, and use direct drive. No need for silly patent for common sense out of the United States.

What's the difference between continous checking logic and safety critical code with lot of safety checks? I'm not a mech engineer, i do code. I'm asking to learn and if you can prove me wrong by teaching something, yay.

Those safety checks need to be run continously, actually, or the software will not get the certifications necessary to be released on the roads. There are passive means: practices and coding guidelines, static checks, but also active measures: defensive coding, redundancy, continously active safety check logics.

So my original point was: it doesn't matter if you use direct drive or a transmission, as both will be controlled by software, and ultimately the safety of that software will determine whether the System is safe overall. The same design principles and safeguards will need to be implemented in both cases to provide the needed integrity.

But I doubt there are any patents on this. I guess it would be illogical to demand vendors to use patents by someone. But there are lots safety regulations on the topic.

Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics

#47

Post by nickspacek »

PaulHoule wrote: post #2

It is hard to believe it is really efficient seeing the description. I have driven cars with CVT and not been impressed.

Anecdotally, we ended up with a Nissan Altima with CVT, the first automatic I had driven for years. I loved the CVT with its smooth transitions between gears and no loss of power. When we got rid of our other vehicle with a standard transmission and picked up a non-CVT automatic, I was stunned by how sloppy it felt. I hadn't realized or remembered how "normal" automatic transmissions behaved and it was very jarring.

Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics

#48

Post by agumonkey »

nradov wrote: post #31
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they're tuned to perform in a manner that delivers the maximum fuel economy in order to drag up the fleet average, driver experience be damned.

What's wrong with the driver experience? Mine seems fine. It's certainly better than the automatic transmission in my old car due to smooth and instantaneous power delivery with no "dead spots" for shifting between gears.

I've read there's inertia when changing ratio in automated CVT though. Maybe it's an old issue.

Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics

#49

Post by Mithaldu »

kodfodrasz wrote: post #45
Mithaldu wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between continous checking logic and safety critical code with lot of safety checks? I'm not a mech engineer, i do code. I'm asking to learn and if you can prove me wrong by teaching something, yay.

Those safety checks need to be run continously, actually, or the software will not get the certifications necessary to be released on the roads. There are passive means: practices and coding guidelines, static checks, but also active measures: defensive coding, redundancy, continously active safety check logics. So my original point was: it doesn't matter if you use direct drive or a transmission, as both will be con…

Fair enough, and it makes sense. Thanks for explaining. :)

Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics

#50

Post by nradov »

agumonkey wrote: post #48
nradov wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with the driver experience? Mine seems fine. It's certainly better than the automatic transmission in my old car due to smooth and instantaneous power delivery with no "dead spots" for shifting between gears.

I've read there's inertia when changing ratio in automated CVT though. Maybe it's an old issue.

There's very little inertia in the belt and pulleys, no more than other types of transmissions.
Post reply on HN