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

Wearable Muscles

ethz.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Wearable Muscles

#51

Post by kenjackson »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #43
kenjackson wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any advantage to having muscle attachments closer to the joint?

Range of motion. You can pick up a stick, hold it above your head, and throw it with significant power and control. A chimp can't do that.

I was thinking more within human variances. For example, I've seen athletes with high calf muscles who can jump really high. If there an advantage to those whose calf muscle stretch to the bottom of the leg? Do they have some increased range of motion that this helps with?

Re: Wearable Muscles

#52

Post by youamericanloo »

asd4 wrote: post #30

It's a single axis version of a system my group at NASA developed: https://roundupreads.jsc.nasa.gov/pages.ashx/787/New%20weara... The internal application was to improve mobility in space suits. We had a partnership with some medical researchers looking to help patients with otherwise limited mobility. Shoulders are difficult. The human body has a lot of amazing degrees of freedom. One of the biggest challenges was…

I think yours is multiple axis version of this one since this the topic ...

Re: Wearable Muscles

#53

Post by pinkmuffinere »

silicon2401 wrote: post #44
2-718-281-828 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also impressed everytime I lift weights and think about how close the muscles attach to the joint providing very little leverage. On a side note - this is why chimps f.x. are so strong - their muscles attach further from the joints and by that provide more leverage.

> chimps f.x. Just a small note, that abbreviation seems extremely rare to me. You might have better readability by saying "e.g." which means the same thing, or just writing it out. It took me a while to figure out whether you were referring some body part belonging to chimps or something

Wow even after reading the above comment I still can't confidently piece together what "chimps f.x." means. Is it "chimps for example"?

Re: Wearable Muscles

#56

Post by 2-718-281-828 »

silicon2401 wrote: post #44
2-718-281-828 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also impressed everytime I lift weights and think about how close the muscles attach to the joint providing very little leverage. On a side note - this is why chimps f.x. are so strong - their muscles attach further from the joints and by that provide more leverage.

> chimps f.x. Just a small note, that abbreviation seems extremely rare to me. You might have better readability by saying "e.g." which means the same thing, or just writing it out. It took me a while to figure out whether you were referring some body part belonging to chimps or something

seriously? I speak internally while writing and "for example" feels more fluent than "exempli gratia". that's why I prefer fx. I'm not a native speaker, though

Re: Wearable Muscles

#58

Post by PythagoRascal »

martin_a wrote: post #37

This is a _really_ nice website. - Great font, I've always liked the DIN Font for its clarity (DIN is a German industrial norm) - font-size and line-height match each other well and follow best-practices (line-height is 1.4 times the font-size) - well-fitting margins after paragraphs - clear distinction between headline and text, this also applies to meta information etc. - line length is All in all very well done. e…

They even have their typography guidelines (and full CD) online here: https://ethz.ch/staffnet/en/service/communication/corporate-...

Re: Wearable Muscles

#59

Post by MaKey »

2-718-281-828 wrote: post #56
silicon2401 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> chimps f.x. Just a small note, that abbreviation seems extremely rare to me. You might have better readability by saying "e.g." which means the same thing, or just writing it out. It took me a while to figure out whether you were referring some body part belonging to chimps or something

seriously? I speak internally while writing and "for example" feels more fluent than "exempli gratia". that's why I prefer fx. I'm not a native speaker, though

I'd suggest sticking to "e. g." as well. I'm also not a native speaker and have never seen the abbreviation "f. x." before so I couldn't figure out its meaning.

Re: Wearable Muscles

#60

Post by kernelbugs »

2-718-281-828 wrote: post #56
silicon2401 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> chimps f.x. Just a small note, that abbreviation seems extremely rare to me. You might have better readability by saying "e.g." which means the same thing, or just writing it out. It took me a while to figure out whether you were referring some body part belonging to chimps or something

seriously? I speak internally while writing and "for example" feels more fluent than "exempli gratia". that's why I prefer fx. I'm not a native speaker, though

Another native speaker chiming in. This is my first time encountering f.x. and it took me quite a while to figure out (essentially guess) what it meant. Most people I know and situations I've encountered use e.g. (possibly without even knowing what it means). In common usage e.g. is "for example" just like etc. means "and additional things" or i.e. means "that is".
Post reply on HN