Cute robot!
Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)
41–50 of 56 posts
Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)
#42Very nice. What makes this work is the motors.[1] It's using 3-phase drone prop motors with no gear reduction. With direct drive, the mechanics of the joints are simple. Not too expensive, either. Each motor is about US$120. I used to work on legged running back in the 1990s. But there were no motors good enough to build a small machine like this back then. All we had were R/C servos, gearboxes, and screw drive actua…
What do you think about these direct linear actuators [0]? They seem super simple, and like a closer match to the way biological muscles work. Is there some reason why rotary (?) actuators are the default choice for robotics? Edit, also what happened that made electric motors so much better since the 90’s? It’s not like we made groundbreaking discoveries about magnetism, right? [0] http://moticont.com/direct-drive-li…
Well those are voice coil motors, similar to a subwoofer driver in construction. I don't know how efficient those are, but I did release some info on a brushless linear motor I designed. My linear motor design is like a regular rotary brushless motor but rolled out and made tubular. Maybe better power density than voice coil motors, tho I am not sure. The motor worked great, but I got busy with other things and never commercialized it. I have some details on github.
Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)
#43In the partners section there is a team called Gepetto Team that does anthropomorphic systems. That name is so fun. :)
Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)
#44why do they build those symmetric leg designs as opposed to what say Boston has/normal dog?
Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)
#45Very nice. What makes this work is the motors.[1] It's using 3-phase drone prop motors with no gear reduction. With direct drive, the mechanics of the joints are simple. Not too expensive, either. Each motor is about US$120. I used to work on legged running back in the 1990s. But there were no motors good enough to build a small machine like this back then. All we had were R/C servos, gearboxes, and screw drive actua…
[deleted]
Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a robotics platform, there's nothing inherently weaponizable about quadrupedal locomotion over, say, a quadcopter. Weaponizing this system would be almost as difficult as developing and then weaponizing the system.
State actors already have the weapons, so it is not complicated to attach those to a tool capable of ferrying them over rugged terrain, with long battery life, and into hiding places of human opponends. Just as they attached them to drones, cars, and other gear. What guarantees that the biggest use cases and the most motivated users of this technology are not deadly? Maybe license?
Yeah but non state actors don't. Just imagine dropping of robots with a gun from a car or send them via package. A 360 camera and a gun is a scary combination and as long as you use them in a suicide manner it doesn't even need to recognize friendly combatants or spare children. Just shoot everything that's bigger than rat and moves until the magazine is empty while moving patrolling the streets.
Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)
#47Should weapons be open sourced?
Eh, robots are tools, and like most, they'll be used and abused. ANYmal and Boston Dynamics Spot are currently being used for automated site inspections, and most of the top spots for the recent DARPA subterranean challenge were legged robots [1]. Of course, you also have companies like Ghost Robotics which are weaponising their platform [2]. Should we have not made airplanes because someone would eventually put bomb…
Ghost robotics design is a joke. You lose a really a lot of fire power by not being able to turn turn the gun.
Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
The robot definitely stands. In fact, it can do pretty dynamic things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJnbFJ-8Fkg That said, the platform does have its faults and requires a lot of hardware maintenance, but it certainly can stand and move around (walk around).
The one I was involved with could never jump like that. My guess is that umbilical, at a minimum, carries power. Based on what I know, I cannot imagine the robot doing what is shown on these videos while loaded with the two battery packs that are part of the design. Please keep in mind that this is a single data point. I am sure there have been many successful builds. It's a nice design. I was not intimately involved…
I'd be curious to learn more about the motor selection for the complete tear down and rebuild. One of the biggest buys of the Solo (in the article) design is the 'high bandwidth' current/torque control, and the price/performance seemed (at the time) to be pretty great.
Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Energy weapons are expensive to build. Chemical weapons are cheap. The War of the Machines is going to be all nerve gas, all the time. :(
Biological are even cheaper.
I dunno. Chemical plant seems relatively crude and cheap compared to the equipment needed to design and build a reliable, effective, and controllable bio-weapon. Two-photon microscopes and nanopore gene sequencing aren't cheap. If it doesn't have to be reliable or particularly effective, and especially not targeted, then maybe you're right. What am I missing?
Re: Open Dynamic Robot Initiative (2020)
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Energy weapons are expensive to build. Chemical weapons are cheap. The War of the Machines is going to be all nerve gas, all the time. :(
Actually chemical weapons don’t do well on “cost effectiveness”, apparently: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
I've read that, but am not convinced. It's very dependent on the particulars of the situation, the goals, the acceptable losses, and the belligerent forces.
A couple of situations:
1) Tyrannical government or Upstart AI wants to destroy dug in and dispersed local militias. Government will use existing military delivery technologies. AI will use non-human elements so blowback is not a concern. It seems here that gas is cheaper than bombs or bullets.
2) Upstart State or AI wants to do a surprise attack to depopulate or logisticall overwhelm a strategic city. Civilian casualties are desired. Again, gas seems like a clear win, here.
The idea that militaries have NBC protection that will just negate chem/bio warfare is a bit of a dream. The operational friction from having to use all that protective gear and protocols would be huge. Even just little things like not being able to aim properly through a rifle scope depending on which gas mask you're wearing. Also don't underestimate the fear/terror/shock factor of being on the receiving end of this horrible stuff.
The future isn't pretty, unless we can figure out a way to settle down and coexist.