Subject:
|
Re: SSClagorpion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 May 2004 15:59:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
17558 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > My first thought is to forgo sideways walking.
> >
> >
> ...
> > This means that it would be able to walk in six directions, instead of 4, at the
> > cost of 8 switches. ...
> >
> > This costs us 8 more pistons, and 8 more switches.
>
>
>
> How about if you make up a proposal? Actually, two.
>
> First, get out your pen, paper, calculator, sliderule, and excel spreadsheet,
> and figure out how many pistons & switches are required.
I used my brain.....
>
> I'd suggest two options:
> A) No Sideways. Forward/back, turn in place R or L
leg_cost = 2 pistons, 4 switches
n_legs = 8
legs_cost = 8(2 pistons, 4 switches)
= 16 pistons, 32 switches
timing_cost = 2 pistons, 2 switches
reverse_cost = 8 switches
turn_cost = 8 switches
total_cost = legs_cost + timing_cost + reverse_cost + turn_cost =
16 pistons + 32 switches +
2 pistons + 2 switches +
8 switches +
8 switches
= 18 pistons + 50 switches
> B) Straight sideways. two pistons/LEG SWEEP.
leg_cost = 4 pistons + 8 switches
n_legs = 8
legs_cost = 8(4 pistons, 8 switches)
= 32 + 64
timing_cost = 2 pistons + 2 switches
reverse_cost = 8 switches
turn_cost = 8 switches
half_sweep_cost = 8 switches
sideways_step_cost = 16 switches
total_cost = legs_cost + timing_cost + reverse_cost + turn_cost +
half_sweep_cost + sideways_step_cost
= 32 pistons + 64 switches +
2 pistons + 2 switches +
8 switches +
8 switches +
8 switches +
16 switches
= 34 pistons + 106 switches
>
> Count EVERYTHING. What is the grand total?
>
> While I think walking sideways would be very cool, I also think it will add a
> ton of complexity to this thing. In addition to the set of walking
> switches/pistons, we'd need to have switches to set the legs to "out" when it's
> not walking sideways, and we'd need switches to set the legs to "middle" when
> not walking forward/back.
It looks like sideways makes it more than twice the cost, both in pistons and
switches.
>
> I'm really starting to think it will top 100 switches.
You are correct.
>
> Steve
C) staggered sideways walking
leg_cost = 3 pistons + 6 switches
n_legs = 8
legs_cost = 8(3 pistons, 6 switches)
= 24 pistons + 48 switches
timing_cost = 2 pistons + 2 switches
reverse_cost = 8 switches
turn_cost = 8 switches
sideways_hip_change = 8 switches
sideways_out_force = 8 switches
hip_sidways_swap = 8 switches
sideways_step_cost = sideways_hip_change + sideways_force_out +
hip_sideways_swap
= 8 switches + 8 switches + 8 switches
= 24 switches
total_cost = legs_cost + timing_cost + reverse_cost + turn_cost +
half_sweep_cost + sideways_step_cost
= 24 pistons + 48 switches +
2 pistons + 2 switches +
8 switches +
8 switches +
24 switches
= 24 pistons + 90 switches
In summary:
A) Forwards/backwards/turning 18 pistons and 52 switches
B) +sideways walking 34 pistons and 106 switches
C) six direction walking 24 pistons and 90 switches
I'm fine with (*just* :^) forwards/backards/turning at 18 pistons and 52
switches, and deferring sideways walking to a future model.
As a point of reference, PhD (my most advanced hexapod) has 14 pistons and 76
switches, and will be able to walk 6 directions and turn. It can do all that
because the body is radially symmetric. The down side is that the legs *do*
cause stress on each other.
Kevin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: SSClagorpion
|
| (...) hmm. I didn't think about doing that. :) (...) Does that include the sideways_out_force? It may be about 8 switches short. But I don't think that matters. (...) Yes. I'm fine with that, also. Eric? (...) Looking at the totals on top, I think (...) (22 years ago, 9-May-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: SSClagorpion
|
| (...) ... (...) ... (...) How about if you make up a proposal? Actually, two. First, get out your pen, paper, calculator, sliderule, and excel spreadsheet, and figure out how many pistons & switches are required. I'd suggest two options: A) No (...) (22 years ago, 8-May-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
300 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
