A bad choice for humanoid robots? Well, I haven't seen any other humanoid robots this robust:
And I challenge you to show me electric linear actuators that have a similar power and strength density as hydraulic ones operating at high pressure.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/22/2013 05:56 amA bad choice for humanoid robots? Well, I haven't seen any other humanoid robots this robust: You should go through RoboCup archives, and then look at HRP-3 and its close relatives were doing years ago.When Fukushima hit, there was quite a bit of hand wringing in Japan about "why are we building all these robots if they are useless when disaster strikes". The robotics researchers were caught off guard as they had been focussing on what was perceived a lot more important application at the time - elderly care.Well, they certainly bounced back, didnt they ?Robots robustness doesnt come from actuators. It comes down to control algorithms and sufficient control and sensory bandwidth.Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/22/2013 05:56 amAnd I challenge you to show me electric linear actuators that have a similar power and strength density as hydraulic ones operating at high pressure. I'm not sure why you are stuck on linear actuators - nobody uses them in dexterous robotics, apart from some limited applications for the newer SMA actuators.We used linear motors in the past on industrial robot cells as positioning tables, where high speed was required, but they really really have very limited uses.Dexterous robots use exclusively rotary actuators as things are put together of rotary joints ..
Well Boston Dynamics seems to rely pretty heavily on linear actuators.
I have seen the Japanese robots like HRP-3 and Asimo (which can jump a little bit, a cool trick) and while they are neat, they still aren't nearly as agile.
There's a reason you don't see them walking on rocks and being pushed, walking through mud, etc.
It may well be that the biomimetic approach of using linear actuators vs rotary ones may offer some non-obvious advantages.
That hydraulics can develop very high forces is probably related to this.
If you say so. Show me a large legged robot walking through snow or mud. Hydraulics allows you to very cheaply have enormous amounts of torque (using linear actuators and joints) without requiring a huge joint motor.
Boston Dynamics built the robots used by the second and fourth place teams at this challenge.
And there's no evidence to support the claim that anyone else can do the kinds of things Boston Dynamics can
Boston Dynamics really seems to know what they're doing.
Where do I go to vote for my tax dollars to be taken away from a NASA team spending millions on a third-rate last-place robot and give it to a team from the University of Michigan trying to develop a water-based ion thruster to send cubesats into interplanetary space any of the six university teams that placed ahead of JSC?