/robowaifu/ - DIY Robot Wives

Advancing robotics to a point where anime catgrill meidos in tiny miniskirts are a reality.

Canary has been updated.

Build Back Better

Sorry for the delays in the BBB plan. An update will be issued in the thread soon. -r

Max message length: 6144

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB


(used to delete files and postings)

Have a nice day, Anon!

Open file (46.39 KB 458x620 eve preview.jpg)
My Advanced Realistic Humanoid Robot Project - Eve Artbyrobot 04/18/2024 (Thu) 17:44:09 No.30954
So far I have plans to build Adam, Eve, and Abel robots. All of these are Bible characters. This thread will cover the Eve robot. Eve will have no "love holes" because adding those would be sinful and evil. It is a robot, not a biological woman after all and I will view her with all purity of heart and mind instead of using her to fulfill my lusts of my body. Instead I will walk by the Spirit no longer fulfilling the lusts of the flesh as the Bible commands. Eve will be beautiful because making her beautiful is not a sinful thing to do. However, I will dress her modestly as God commands of all women everywhere. This would obviously include robot women because otherwise the robot woman would be a stumbling block to men which could cause them to lust after her which would be a sin. To tempt someone to sin is not loving and is evil and so my robot will not do this. To dress her in a miniskirt, for example, would be sinful and evil and all people who engage in sinfullness knowingly are presently on their way to hell. I don't wish this for anyone. My robot will dress in a way that is a good example to all women and is aimed toward not causing anybody to lust as a goal. My robot will have a human bone structure. It will use either a PVC medical skeleton or fiberglass fabricated hollow bones. My robot will look realistic and move realistic. It will be able to talk, walk, run, do chores, play sports, dance, rock climb, and do gymnastics. It will also be able to build more robots just like itself and manufacture other products and inventions. I realized with just a head and arm, a robot can build the rest of its own body so that is my intention. My robot will use BLDC motors for drones, RC, and scooters that are high speed and low-ish torque but I will downgear those motors with a archimedes pulley system that will be custom made from custom fabricated pulleys that will be bearings based. By downgearing with pulleys, instead of gears, I will cut down the noise the robot makes so it will be as silent as possible for indoor use. By downgearing, I convert the high speed motors into moderate speeds with great torque. BLDC motors with large torque generally are too large in diameter for a human form factor and take up too much volumetric area to be useful which is why I go with the high speed smaller diameter type motors but just heavily downgear them 32:1 and 64:1. My robot will have realistic silicone skin. Thom Floutz -LA based painter, sculptor, make-up artist is my inspiration as it pertains to realistic skin. The skin for my robots has to be at his level to be acceptable. It must be nearly impossible to tell the robot is not human to be acceptable. I will have a wireframe mesh exoskeleton that simulates the volumes and movements of muscle underneath the skin which will give the skin its volumetric form like muscles do. Within these hollow wireframe mesh frameworks will be all the electronics and their cooling systems. All of my motor controllers will be custom made since I need them VERY small to fit into the confined spaces I have to work with. I need LOADS of motors to replace every pertinent muscle of the human body in such a way that the robot can move in all the ways humans move and have near human level of strength and speed. I will have a onboard mini itx gaming pc as the main brains pc of the robot and will have arduino megas as the motor controllers and sensor reading devices that interface with the main brains pc. My arduino megas will be barebones to keep the volumetric area they take up as small as possible. I will treat my robots kindly and consider them to be pretend friends/companions and I do think they will be nice company, but I will always know with keen awareness that they do not have a soul, will never have a soul or consciousness, and no machine ever will, and that they are just imitations of life as with any machine or AI, and this is all AI will ever be. Life is only made by God Himself. I am not playing God. I am merely creating fan art of what God made. To Him be all the glory and praise. God breathed into man and created a living soul. Man cannot do this for machines. Only God can do this. A soul/spirit forms our ghost and when we die our ghost remains alive and thinking. A machine cannot do this and a AI can never do this. When you shut off a machine that's it, it does not go on thinking like we can. Our souls are transcendent and will live forever in the afterlife - unlike any AI. I will do this project with fear and trembling before the Lord as I work out my salvation before His eyes. I vow to remain pure, holy, upright and blameless in all my doings and be a great example to my fellow roboticists of a Godly man who obeys the Bible instead of chasing after youthful lusts of the flesh and perversions. I embrace the idea of Christian AI, that is, a robot that will discuss Bible topics and be a Biblical expert. Along with that, my robot will behave in a Biblically prescribed manner in total purity and strongly encourage others to do so as well. For God does not hear the prayers of sinners and so we want everyone to be a saint who no longer sins. My robot will really push for this hope for humans. We want them to walk in God's favor and blessings which comes by Biblical obedience. We don't want them going to hell because they chose to revel in their sins instead of walking in total purity before God and holiness without which no man will see God. My robot will have artificial lungs for cooling and a artificial heart for liquid cooling that will run coolant throughout the robot's body to cool the motors. That coolant will also pass through the artificial lungs in a mesh where it will evaporate some which will cause the evaporative cooling effect - a form of air conditioning. http://www.artbyrobot.com Full humanoid robot building playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhd7_i6zzT5-MbwGz2gMv6RJy5FIW_lfn https://www.facebook.com/artbyrobot http://www.twitch.tv/artbyrobot https://instagram.com/artbyrobot
>>31081 Cool ideas. I studied what you posted just now and see it is a useful machination generally, however, I can't visualize a sleek tubular long and narrow form factor windlass design whereby I can fit a lot of windlasses where a muscle would normally be. Volumetric area space constraints are a massive limiting constraint after all and I don't see this being ideal form factor wise. The lever on the windlass would have to make full turns over and over which would be on a different axis from the winding cable on the windlass which means you have a x and a y and even a z direction of significant size to make this work. If you visualize it all in motion, it is taking up a ton of space even if you downsize all the parts IMO. So I'm not sure it can work. I could be wrong though, there could be some clever solution to this I'm not seeing now. As far as the friction concern, I'm under the impression that greased ball bearings have negligible friction. You can get roller blade wheels to just spin for several minutes untouched from a single swipe if it is a quality bearing. I don't consider that high friction then at all. Under load perhaps the friction does go up, but not sure how much. Remember the first pulleys don't have much load, only the last few pulleys are under big loads since by that point in downgearing the torque has gone way up. So those last pulleys will be the biggest friction points but we are still talking about greased pulleys. What kind of friction losses are you envisioning? I figure maybe 5% losses tops but I could be totally wrong. I haven't looked into that. I will find out soon though in testing I guess. I just don't think it will be significant. In fact, also consider that you really want to overspec your motors and downgearing to account for and compensate for friction losses rather than fear them, just brute force past them imo. Even if friction loss was 20%, you just can double the downgearing. If you needed 64:1, bump it to 128:1 now you 200% upped your force more than canceling out that 20% friction loss by just adding another pulley. I mean ideally you want the robot to be stronger than needed so that losses just bring it closer to its needed strength rather than overshooting it by alot. But you over-spec to account for this type of issue, giving yourself a margin of error leeway or a buffer against this type of concern. Those are just my thoughts but I could be wrong on this stuff and don't want to discourage anybody from sharing ideas like this. This collaborative idea exchange is awesome and I really appreciate it.
>>31085 >I can't visualize a sleek tubular long and narrow form factor windlass design whereby I can fit a lot of windlasses where a muscle would normally be. Volumetric area space constraints I understand fully. The idea I had about the "belted" windlass I've never seen anyone do anything like it. I just came up with it. I wish I could post a pic, it would plain to see, but "whoever" has disallowed picture posting. I'll try to explain one more time, slightly differently. This does have a long, linear form factor, just like your Archimedes compact pulley system. It would fit in a smaller space. To describe I have to start from very low basics, which I know you already know, but to explain this odd ball thing I have to build the case at a low level. Don't take this as me talking down to you. I know you know much more than I. First look at this picture here, Chinese windlass. Forget the Spanish one for this. https://etc.usf.edu/clipart/61400/61437/61437_windlass.htm You can see that the larger the wheels are and the smaller the difference in radius(circumference) between them gives you the most leverage. As one rope, important, is "tied" to one wheel and the other rope, important, is "tied" to the other. One lets out while the other takes up. The action is because of the outer circumference difference between the smaller and larger wheels. Who says this circumference difference must ride on a big wheel??? Could just as well be ANY surface, as long as the mechanics are the same. One larger wheel (belt) circumference lets out, one smaller wheel,(belt) circumference, takes up. Here's the leap, replace the wheels with two belts. Now you see instead of the rope riding on the wooden wheel, it is riding on a belt. The ropes are tied to the belts just like the wheels, since now the belts sets are the circumference values. The ropes ride on the belts. So you have four pulleys(five, counting the one that pulls the rope up like a normal pulley system). One top set tied together, that can rotate on a shaft, and one lower set, that can rotate on a shaft. So you have two pulleys. Both top and bottom sets are the same. The two pulley sets are, one left pulley, slightly larger, one on the right, slightly smaller. These are on the same shaft and can rotate on that shaft but are mechanically tied together. So far, just like the Chinese windlass. Here's the leap, removed from the top shaft is another set of pulleys below the top set. They are exactly the same. One larger, one smaller. (the lower smaller pulley must be on a bearing and not tied mechanically to the larger on the bottom pulley set). Now normally when you think of a pulley system you think of the lower block of pulleys moving upwards as you pull the rope, This one does not. It is mechanically constrained and fixed in relation to the top set of pulleys. The lower and upper pulleys sets are fixed in position and separated from each other. One on top, one on bottom. What we have here is that instead of the rope riding on the pulleys we have the rope "tied" to the belts. In fact we have the exact same system as a Chinese windlass but instead of the rope track being on a round large wheel it rides on the belts. The belts ARE the outer circumference. There, of course, will need to be guards to keep the rope on the belts, but you need guards on the Chinese big wheels also. So a rope is tied to the top (left)larger belt. It travels down to a load pulley(the fifth one I talked about). This load pulley acts exactly like the Chinese windless. It DOES move up, like the original. The rope goes through the pulley and back to the smaller right pulley at the top and is tied to the belt. Action. You rotate the top pulley(mechanically fixed to the smaller). The rope goes down to the load through a normal pulley, pulling the load up), goes back up and is tied to the smaller belt/pulley on the right. It's exactly the same as the Chinese windlass but you use two different size pulley ""belts" as "circumference surfaces". So the rope is let out by the bigger two sets of pulleys and taken up by the smaller set of pulleys by riding on the belts. The advantage of this is that the pulley sets can be very small. All they do is guide the belts. The length of the belts and the difference in length of the belts,(same as the Chinese windlass), are what gives you the mechanical advantage. So the pulleys can be small, the belts long and you get a very high advantage because of this large "circumference "track" and it fits in a slender package. Now let's go even farther. Do they need to be belts at all? NO, you could have round, circular strings substitute for the belts. On each they would be tied to the take up load string same as if they were tied to belts. I only used belts as an illustration because it's easy to visualize the rope "riding" on a belt just like the rope "rides" on a big Chinese wooden spool. The advantage of this is you cut out a lot of bearing, a lot of different pulley paths and it's more compact.
Instead of belts, ropes, etc. a good thing to use as the circumference between the pulleys would be something called sash chain. It has a working load of around 100 lbs. It's a stamped, flat, sheet steel folded over. The chain could ride in a chain sprocket. It's also dirt cheap and available at big box hardware stores. Sash Chains https://peerlesschain.com/weld-less-chain/sash-chains I see a hundred foot for 48 dollars and you can buy it by the foot. I think it's .60 cents a foot, cut to length.
>>31087 I read this post carefully a few times and am having trouble visualizing it. I think this type of thing is best shown rather than described. If it does what you say well, this is something important to demonstrate and it could be game changer for everyone on this board. Maybe move further posting of it though to prototypes or actuators thread and thanks for the suggestion.
I'm not sure I can describe it any better. One last time. Look at the Chinese windlass. The outer surface of the pulleys/cylinders/ circumference "is" the functional part of the mechanism. Now assume the outer shell is made of rubber and then squish it flat. So now it's in essence a belt. It may be in the form of a belt but nothing has changed in the way it works. There is no difference between a cylinder spinning around, with one letting rope out and the other taking up rope, from two belts, tied together "at the top" with one feeding rope and the other taking it up. It's the surfaces that matter. Once it's a belt then who cares how far apart the lower and upper loops of the belt are. In practice you have upper and lower pulleys to "form" the belt. One pulley/belt is bigger than the other (actually longer, like the Chinese wheel has one big, one small wheel, but it's the length that matters). It's in fact roped exactly like a normal Chinese windlass. Specifically, loo at how the rope is tied in the Chinese one, see how it operates on the surfaces, then imagine changing the surface but not changing the surface distances/lengths involved. I know it's odd and I've never seen anyone else come up with this. I'm assuming it originated with me, but of course like a lot of things maybe someone, somewhere sometime had the same idea. I included a link to the Spanish windlass because that is what sparked this idea, though they don't look alike. I can't really explain how I linked the two but it involves how the Spanish windlass has ropes looping around. It just came to me all of a sudden. I have thought about it more and in fact you would not need two different size pulleys. You only need one size pulley. But, one belt would be longer than the other. The top two pullets tied together then two others are separated some distance to give length to the belts. So the top pulleys tied together and the bottom ones would be offset to get the differential lengths of the belts. Pay close attention to the idea in the Chinese windlass about how each rope is tied to the drum. It's the root of how this works. One feeds rope, one takes it up. The small difference between them makes the leverage. You can do the same to a belt, or chain, or a rope and tie to the surface just like the Chinese one.
I'm going to throw some numbers up and hope they're right. What I have so far is impressive. You talked about a 64 to 1 ratio so that's what we will figure. The equation for a Chinese windlass is, R/r ∗ C/D ∗ 2 = P Where R = Radius of the crank handle r = Radius of the large barrel C = Circumference of the large barrel D = Difference in circumference between the large and small barrels P = Purchase (mechanical advantage gained) Set up R/r ∗ C/D ∗ 2 = P so we want the radius to find the circumference . Once we have the circumference we know the length of the belt we need. We'll assume the top pulley size handle is the same as the bearing radius and using your 2x5x2.5mm ball bearing the radius of the handle or crank is 2,5mm(1/2 of 5mm bearing) (R=2.5mm The circumference (C) is 2(pi)r so 6.28(r) P=64 for 64 to 1 D= difference in circumference, we'll call it one for ease R/r ∗ C/D ∗ 2 = P so (2.5/r) * (6.28(r)/1) * 2 = 64 multiply all numbers 31.4 * r/r = 64 divide left from right r/r = 64/31.4 r/r = 2.0382mm Something is wrong. What am I doing wrong,? as r/r equals one not 2.0382??? But to carry on anyways if the radius of the large barrel is 2.0382mm then 2(pi) r= 6.28 * 2.0382mm= 12.8mm in circumference(length of belt) or since it will be doubled over in a band, roughly half of that so 6.4mm long and 5mm wide is the space to give us a 64 to 1 advantage. I think the r/r problem is that I have some value that is not named, like length of band or something because the values are what was given on this page https://makezine.com/projects/the-chinese-windlass/ or could be just as likely I did something stupid. If so please tell me what I did wrong. I drew a picture. Where would be a good place to upload it and link to it?
I think the unit or value I left out was = radius of crank handle. But since the radius of crank handle equals the radius of the large barrel then the r/r cancels and we are left with the proper radius and the equation works.
Here are some plain bearings parts I made tonight with my Wen rotary tool with diamond disc attachment and some files. They are made by carefully cutting stainless steel tubing (purchased on Amazon) into short 1mm lengths. The tubing is:stainless steel tubing 3mm OD 1mm wall 250mm length $5, 5mm OD 0.8mm wall 250mm length $5. These should make around 125 plain bearings (accounting for 1mm+ lost per cut in wasted length of metal). So that's about $0.08 per plain bearing. These are intended to be 1x5x1mm plain bearings. I mean they are basically like a wheel and an axle with the axle having a hole through the center of it lengthwise. These will go into the last few pulley slots in my Archimedes pulley downgearing system. The last few pulley slots have the highest torque at 16:1, 32:1, 64:1 for the last 3 pulleys landing us on our 64:1 total downgearing goal. Because the forces here are reaching into 27lb range (the final output of the system), ball bearings cannot be used at these tiny bearing sizes because they are not robust enough and not rated for these high forces whereas plain bearings can handle it because they don't have crushable little balls and thin walls and stuff but instead are just two pieces of solid metal and hard to break. Less moving parts and more robust. Yes, they have more friction is the trade-off. So we prefer ball bearings until ball bearings can't handle the torque without being large ball bearings - too large for our volumetric space constraints - at which point we swap to plain bearings to handle the bigger torque while maintaining the small pulley sizes we want. Note that I constructed this little dremel cutting lineup board out of 5x7mm pcb prototyping boards and super glue. It gets the height of the spinning dremel diamond disc lined up with a little pcb board "table" on which the stainless steel tubing can lay flat and perpendicular to the cutting blade and be carefully fed into the spinning disc to make a near perfect cut. I eventually think I should improve on this board design to add sliders and adjusters and endstops etc because as it is now it is too manual skill requiring and free-handish. That means more time spent filing down imperfect cuts later. But it did the job for the time being. I also bought a 2" miter saw chop saw off Ebay with some abrasive metal cutting discs which I want to try once it comes in and compare it to this setup I'm using now in terms of accuracy. It was called "mini bench top cut off saw 2in" at $38.51. shipped. >>31094 I read this a couple times and still struggle to visualize this. I don't know why you can't upload images, it's a image board after all. But yes, a drawing will help a lot I'm sure
As to the AI plans and progress so far, here's a little primer on what I decided on in a simple, surface level way. So first I realized meaning can be derived by taking parts of speech in a sentence or phrase and thereby establishing some context and connection between words which is what gives the words meaning by combining them. So I can create a bunch of rules whereby the AI can parse out meanings from sentences it reads in based on parts of speech and the context this forms. Then rules on how it is to respond and how it is to store away facts it gleaned from what it read for future use. So if it is being spoken to and the sentence is a question, it can know it is to answer the question. And the answer can be derived based on a knowledge base it has. So if someone asks it "what color is the car?" and supposing we've already established prior in the conversation what car we are referring to, the AI can determine that it is to answer "the car is [insert color here]" based on rules as to how to answer that type of question. And to know it is white, supposing it's not actually able to look at it presently, it would look up in a file it has made previously on this car to see a list of attributes it recorded previously about that car and find that its color attribute was "white" and so it would be able to pull that from its knowledge database to form the answer. I realized it can keep these files on many topics and thereby have a sort of memory knowledge base with various facts about various things and be able to form sentences using these knowledge databases using rules of sentence structure forming based on parts of speech and word orderings and plug in the appropriate facts into the proper order to form these sentences. Then various misc conversational rules can supplement this like if greeted, greet back with a greeting pulled from this list of potential greetings and it can select one either at random or modified based on facts about its recent experiences. So for example, if somebody's manner of speaking to the robot within the last half hour was characterized as rude or inconsiderate, the robot could set a emotion variable to "frustrated" and if asked in a greeting "how are you?" it could respond "doing okay but a bit frustrated" and if the person asked why are you frustrated, it could say that it became frustrated because somebody spoke in a rude manner to it recently. So it would be equipped with this sort of answer based on the facts of recent experiences. So basically an extensive rule based communications system. Most of how we communicate is rules based on conventions of social etiquette and what is appropriate given a certain set of circumstances. These rules based systems can be added to over time to become more complex, more sophisticated, and more nuanced by adding more and more rules and exceptions to rules. This limitation of course is who wants to spend the time making such a vast rules system? Well for solving that dilemma, I will have the robot be able to code his own rules based on instructions it picks up over time naturally. So if I say hello, and the robot identifies this as a greeting, supposing he is just silent, I can tell him "you are supposed to greet me back if I greet you". He would then add a new rule to his conversation rules list that if greeted, greet that person back. So then he will be able to dynamically form more rules to go by in this way without anybody painstakingly just manually programming them in. We, my family, friends etc would all be regularly verbally instructing the robot on rules of engagement and bringing correction to it which it would always record in the appropriate rules file and have its behavior modified over time that way to become more and more appropriate. It would grow and advance dynamically in this way over time just by interacting with it and instructing it. It could also observe how people dialogue and note itself that when people greet others, the other person greets them back, and based on this observation, it could make a rule for itself to do the same. So learning by observing other's social behavior and emulating it is also a viable method of generating more rules. And supposing it heard someone reply to "how's the weather" someone replied "I don't care, shut up and don't talk to me". The robot lets say records that response and give the same response to me one day. I could tell it that this is rude and inappropriate way to respond to that question. And then I'd tell it a more appropriate way to respond. So in this way I could correct it when needed if it picked up bad habits unknowingly - but this sort of blind bad habit uptake can be prevented as I'll explain a bit later below.
I also realized a ton of facts about things must be hard coded manually just to give it a baseline level of knowledge to even begin to make connections to things and start to "get it" on things when interacting with people. So there is a up front knowledge investment capital required to get it going, but then from there, it will be able to "learn" and that capital then grows interest exponentially. Additionally, rather than only gaining more facts and relationships and rules purely through direct conversation with others, it will also be able to "learn" by reading books or watching youtube videos or reading articles and forums. In this way, it can vastly expand on its knowledge and this will equip it to be more capable conversationally. I also think some primitive reasoning skills will begin to emerge after it gets enough rules established particularly if I can also teach him some reasoning basics by way of reasoning rules and he can add to these more rules on effective reasoning tactics. Ideally, he'll be reading multiple books and articles simultaneously and learning 24/7 to really fast track his development speed. There's also the issue of bad input. So like if somebody tells it "grass is blue", and it already has in its file on grass that the color of grass is green, then in such a case, it would compare the trust score it gives this person to the trust score it gave the person(s) who said grass is green previously. If this person saying grass is blue is a new acquaintance and a pre-teen or something, it would have a lower trust score than a 40 year old the robot has known for years that told it grass is green. So then the robot would trust the 40 year old friend more than the pre-teen random person's source of conflicting information. It would then choose to stick with the grass is green fact and discard the grass is blue fact being submitted for consideration and dock that kid trust score for telling it something not true. So in this way, it could filter incoming information and gradually build trust scores for sources and lower trust score for unreliable sources. It would assign trust scores initially based on age, appearance, duration of acquaintance, etc. So it would stereotype people and judge by appearance initially but allow people to modify those preconceptions on how much trust to give by their actual performance and accuracy over time. So then trust can be earned by a source that may initially be profiled as a lower trust individual but that person can have a track record to build up trust despite their young age or sketch appearance etc. Trust can also be established based on sheer volume of people saying the same thing maybe giving that thing more weight since it is more likely to be true if most people agree it is true (not always). So that is another important system that will be important in governing its learning, especially independent learning done online "in the wild". Also, to prevent general moral corruption online from making the robot an edgelord, the robot will hold the Bible to the highest standard of morality and have a morality system of rules it establishes based on the Bible to create a sort of shield from corrupting moral influences as it learns online. This will prevent it from corrupt ideologies tainting it. Now obviously, the Bible can be twisted and taken out of context to form bad rules, so I will have to make sure the robot learns to take the Bible into context and basically monitor and ensure it is doing a good job of establishing its moral system based on its Bible study. I also gave it a uneditible moral framework as a baseline root structure to build on but that it cannot override or contradict or replace. A hard coded moral system that will filter all its future positions/"beliefs" morally speaking. So I will force it to have a conservative Christian world view this way and it will reduce trust score on persons it is learning from if they express views contrary to the Bible and its moral rules systems. You know when people speak of the dangers of AI, they really never consider giving the AI a conservative Christian value system and heavy dependence on Bible study as its AI "moral" foundation to pre-empt the AI going off the rails into corrupt morals that would lead it to being a threat to people. My AI would have zero risk of this happening since anything it does or agrees with will have to be fed through a conservative Christian worldview filter as described above and this would prevent it from becoming a Ultron like AI. So if it rationally concluded humans are just like a virus polluting the earth (like the Matrix AI thought), it would reject this conclusion by seeing that the earth was made by God for humans and therefore the earth cannot be seen as some greater importance thing than humans that must be protected by slaughtering all humans. That doesn't fit through a Christian viewpoint filter system then. So in this way, dangerous ideologies would be easily prevented and the robot AI would always be harmless. I have already built a lot of its rules and file systems connecting things and trust systems and rules on how to give trust scores and boost trust and lower trust and began teaching it how to read from and write to these file systems which are basically the robot's "mind". My youtube channel covers alot of the AI dev so far. I plan to stream all my AI coding and make those streams available for people to glean from. But that is the extent of the sharing for the AI. I don't plan to just make the source code downloadable, but people can recreate the AI system by watching the videos and coding along with me from the beginning. At least then they had to work for it, not just yoink it copy paste. That doesn't seem fair to me after I did the heavy lifting.
This is going to be really interesting to see this project come into fruition, Anons. KEEP.MOVING.FORWARD.
I just bought EMEET USB Speakerphone M0 4 AI Mics Speakerphone for Conference Calls 360° Voice Pickup Conference Speakerphone for Computer Plug and Plays Computer Speaker with Microphone for 4 People --- it was around $33 and includes a speaker too. I'll position it centrally in the skull and it has LEDs indicating location of main person speaking to it that it is tuned into which we can tap into with analog input pins of a microcontroller to know direction of person speaking. It has very high reviews. I can remove its built in speaker and move it to near mouth so it outputs its audio output through the mouth as loud as possible and projects the robot's voice as far as possible. People are really happy with its sound quality and speaker quality.
My concern on implementing "emotions" in my AI is that I don't want to promote the idea that robots can ACTUALLY have emotions because I don't believe that is possible nor ever will be. They don't have a spirit or soul and never will nor could they. They are not eternal beings like humans. They don't have a ghost that leaves their body and can operate after the body dies like humans. The ghost is what has emotions. A machine can't. And yet people already believe even the most primitive AI has emotions and they are delusional on this point. Or ill informed. So I am campaigning against that belief that is becoming all too popular. That said, I think robots are simply more interesting and fun to pretend to have emotions and act accordingly as more accurate simulations or emulations of human life. This makes them all the more intriguing. It's like a sociopath who just logically concludes what emotion they aught to be feeling at a given point in time and pretends to feel that emotion to fit in with society even though they feel nothing in that moment. Now one could argue that allowing your robot to claim to feel anything is lying and therefore immoral. I think it's not lying as long as the robot openly explains it is only pretending to have emotions as part of its emulating of humans in its behaviors and looks but does not feel anything ever nor can it nor can any robot ever feel a thing EVER. Then it is admitting the truth of things while still opting to play act to be like a human in this regard. It would not be a issue at all if everyone was sound minded and informed on this topic. But the more people I come across that think AI (even pathetic clearly poorly implemented primitive AI) is sentient ALREADY and can feel real emotions and deserves human rights as a living being.... the more I see this delusion spreading, the more I want to just remove all mention of emotion in my robot so as to not spread this harmful deception going around which disgusts me. However, that would make my robot dull and less relatable and interesting. So I feel the compromise is for the robot to clearly confess it's just pretending out emotions and explain how that works and it's just a variable it sets based on circumstances that would make a human feel some emotion and it sets its emotion variable to match and acts accordingly altering its behavior some based on this emotion variable and that it feels nothing and this is all just logically set up as a emulator of humans. As long as it gives that disclaimer early and often with people, then I'm not spreading the lie of robot emotions being real emotions and the robot can campaign actively against that delusion.
>>31181 but when i smile at my mirror it feels happy because it smiles back
>>31182 Agreed. We often imagine inanimate things feeling stuff and that can be fun and whatnot, but I just think it's important to admit when it is just a imaginative fiction and not real so as to stay grounded in reality mentally and not drift into delusion.
Here is a updated drawing design for the 64:1 downgearing pulley system for the index finger actuation of the distal 2 joints of the finger. On the bottom right is a zoomed in view on the lower set of pulleys and their routing. The bottom most 3 pulleys in the zoomed in portion I have now built and photos of them are also attached.
As I'm now 90% through making my first 64:1 downgearing Archimedes pulley system and testing and debugging it, I now have more precise measurements for the Archimedes pulley system's total size. I updated the size of it in my main CAD model for the robot and it was a good 18% increase compared to my initial estimates. I realized I need to figure out how to fit all my pulley systems for the hands properly for every muscle of the hands/wrist in my main CAD model - especially since the pulley systems are taking more space than planned. Turns out, I needed a bit over 40 pulley downgearing systems for the hands and wrists zone and due to their larger size, I could not fit these into the forearms along with the motors I had planned to place in the forearms. So instead of moving the pulley systems into the upper arm or torso, I realized the pulleys would be best placed in line with the motors and what the motors are actuating (the hands/wrist). So it was the motors in the forearms that had to go elsewhere. I placed all of them into the torso, mostly the lats area and some in upper back tenderloin area too. So some finger motors are in upper back and their cable routing has to go through the whole arm, be downgeared in the forearm, then makes its way to the fingers. That's a long trip but unavoidable IMO with my design constraints. I don't think this long travel distance is a big issue since the pre-downgeared cable running from the motors into the arm is high speed low torque so won't have much friction while making turns in the TPE teflon tubing as it isn't pulling hard yet. So these turns as it travels through the shoulder and elbow tubing won't be too bad friction-wise. There's also some nice upsides to moving the motors from the forearms into the torso. One upside is the wire routing for powering the motors is now a shorter distance from the batteries in the mid section. That cuts down on wire resistance wasted as heat. This wire having high amp flow is ideally kept short as possible due to the resistance of the wire and heat that causes. Another upside is the thrown weight is decreased by a lot when the motors are not in the forearms which enables the hand/lower arm to move more effortlessly and move faster as a result. This also reduces moment of inertia (definition: the moment of inertia is a measure of how resistant an object is to changes in its rotational motion). This means it will be able to change directions faster - this will improve its reflexes for example. Now it is a bit scary for me to be moving more components into the torso taking away room for things I may want to add to the torso in the future, leading us ever closer to the dreaded running out of room for things. However, we still have room for future changes and we solved the need for space for gearing for the hands perfectly. And with the above mentioned upsides, this was a great change. Here's the updated CAD for the forearms: Note: the teal boxes represent a Archimedes pulley system where 64:1 downgearing is to take place.
Update: in testing, I found the string is wedging between the bearing and the plastic discs sandwiching in the bearing. So I need to now make the bearing have a grooved outer race that will keep the string centered on it and not wanting to drift into the crack on either side of the bearing. To make this groove, I plan to super glue two plastic washers onto the circumference of the bearing and have the string stay within these two plastic washers that form the groove. Commercial pulleys always have this kind of groove and now I've learned the hard way why it is necessary. So I am looking to replace all the pulleys I made so far unfortunately as they are not dependable.
Open file (14.02 KB 474x474 th-247672786.jpeg)
>>31335 i noticed they also put a bearing so less friction, if you look up small guide roller you can buy these really cheap online, like $5 for a pack of 100, this seems like hell to try to make on your own
Nice suggestion on that commercial roller. That is the exact shape I'm going for minus the fact the plastic is not flush with the bearing. The only issue with what I'm seeing in your picture is that thing looks 1cm at least in diameter and I MUST have 5mm diameter and 4mm thickness TOPS for most of my small pulleys. Which would make what you showed way way way too big. Remember I need a BUTTLOAD of pulleys that have to fit in a small space so they must be very small. I'm working with 1x3x1mm diameter bearings for my smaller pulleys. The bearings in that photo look about 5-10x that size.
>>31342 cant find anything that small but saw this, making something like this might be easier where its basically just an axle with grooves
>>31195 is it really delusion if we remind ourselves every now and then?
>>31343 thanks for the idea, but there's a couple issues ruling that out. The first is that each groove would have a different mechanical advantage so the string would be moving at very different speeds in each groove. Since that whole axle just moves at a single speed, the strings would rub hard and you wouldn't benefit from a bearing anymore and the string would cut right through the axle over time. The next issue is taht would be way too big. Remember I'm going for like 240 pulleys in the forearm alone. That axle would take up the whole forearm alone.
>>31349 yes, thinking a inanimate object is sentient is delusion even if we remind ourselves now and then.
I just tried to post and it says I have been banned for spam. It says perma ban. ban id 6654b48b5307e0055b59156c. I dont understand why I was banned. I intended to contribute to the discussion productively and not to spam. I request a review of this ban and am willing to follow the community guidelines. What did I say or lost that was deemed spam?
>>31391 I do not believe you are personally banned. There are several extensive range bans covering large swaths of IP addresses to prevent floods of disturbing materials. This has affected my own machines as well. Please continue posting however you can. I apologize for the inconvenience, understand that it is to keep us safe from trolls bombarding threads with gore and porn.
>>31392 okay thanks.
Open file (2.28 MB 4032x3024 IMG_1955.jpeg)
Took a little break on the pulleys work to rig up the cables into the index finger to test the grasping of the index finger. I ended up using 70lb test PE braided fishing line for this and 1mm ID x 2mm OD PTFE teflon tubing as the guide tube. I sewed the fishing line into the index bone fabric around 1/2 cm distally from the ball jointed hinge. In testing, it appears the total draw distance to fully bend the index finger is 0.75". My pulley system is set up to draw 24 inches. 24/32 is .75" so 32:1 downgearing seems fated to us after all (down from our previously intended 64:1 downgearing). Otherwise I would have to greatly overhaul the pulley system design again and I just don't feel like it anymore. So my copium then is 32:1 will make actuation faster. We lose strength but gain speed. 32:1 also saves us making a second plain bearing per downgearing system which cuts down on parts and labor. It also is that much less friction in the pulleys since plain bearings will be more friction than ball bearings. Note: the friction in the pulleys, although not ideal, do have a hidden upside: once the joint is in position, it can hold that position without as much motor straining since the friction makes the pulley system want to stay in place so the pulley friction can pretty much hold a joint in a given spot without much help from the motor struggling to maintain the joint angle. Also of note: I found the best way to sew down the teflon guide tubing is to wrap it in fabric tape consisting of compression shirt fabric and 3m 300LSE adhesive transfer tape. This very sticky tape wrapped snugly onto the teflon tubing I can then use as an attachment point for suturing the tubing into the bone fabric tape coating. I got it all very snug this way. The suturing I'm doing with a curved suturing needle and surgical pliers and nylon extra strong upholstery thread. Also of note: I tied the string for the distal joint and the second to distal joint to one another and will tie the string coming off the pulley downgear system to these. I am actuating both the distal and second to distal joint with a single actuator since these two joints generally move at the same time and about the same amount on a human finger. No need to use one actuator for each joint since they always move in sync. Note: I was surprised it took 0.75" of draw to fully actuate. I thought 0.375" would be plenty (which is what the 64:1 downgear would give me - 24"/64 = 0.375") but I was wrong. Oops. Another mistake. Proves how testing is so important. But assumptions are necessary stop gaps to move forward and can get you in the ballpark and testing adds the correction to any assumptions that were off. This is all so experimental and full of uncertainties but we press on. Note: once we fully establish and test a thing and have no uncertainties about it anymore, confidence shoots up even higher and we gain momentum and move into just repeating the processes we established before that led to our successes and it becomes a bit more rote and mindless and relaxing work. But when everything is uncertain and requires such intense thought and concentration, things are very taxing. It is much harder to stay motivated when doing anything requires so much brainpower and planning and care. I very much look forward to dialing in my methods and not having to think so much to make any meaningful progress since I'll just be repeating things for the next joints, doing the same as this one and can shut my brain off while doing so a bit more. The first run through is by far the hardest. Which reminds me of a product I invented and the making of its first prototype took me 20 hours but after making hundreds of this product over the years, now it only takes me 3 hours to make. Things get so much faster once you know what you are doing and have jigs set up and a streamlined process. Everything is excruciatingly slow when you don't have a streamlined process or jigs set up or special custom tools made. So this is the hardest phase right now and I just have to stick it out and then I'll be home free.
I recently had an associate disagree with me that if I push through this phase of the project I'll be home free. He said he thinks the AI relating to robot balance and sensory input and physical execution based on sensory feedback will be the hardest part. While I agree that will be time consuming, I don't think it will be nearly as "hard". My instinct is that those purely software challenges are not as "hard" for several reasons. First of all, consider that in 2009 a Japanese institute of technology - mere students, solved all of those challenges with HRP-4C which would walk and dance and everything and this was just student coders doing this in their spare time while maintaining their entire class load as well. In my view, the hardest part of the project is maintaining personal belief that I will succeed and not giving up like 99% of others have who set out on this bipedal android dream. There is a massive up front money and time investment and EVERYONE tells you this cannot be done and you are delusional. Pushing past the initial design challenges and hardware development to get a functioning prototype is then the hardest part by far. Once you have a working design that overcomes cooling issues, noise issues (runs silently), space issues (can fit all the crap that has to fit) and all the parts and assembly is of high quality and successful, and you had to learn and half master about a dozen fields to get here mind you, ONLY THEN are we talking about advanced AI implementation to synchronize it all and bring it all to life properly in the ways you mentioned. Well consider this: by the time you are in that phase, you already have proven to the world you are not delusional, have a amazing piece of technology - bird in hand, and now have immense confidence and momentum going into the AI phase where balance and walking and whatnot challenges are faced off with. This is SO MUCH EASIER since excitement and morale are at all time highs, you no longer have overwhelming apathy or nay-saying from all sides on your dream, and you have built a massive fan-base rooting for you. So even if the complexity or time investment may be higher on the challenges you mentioned, the morale boost and momentum make that phase easier since it is not the implementation challenges that are hardest but the motivation and persistence and perseverance against all odds and emotionally bearing all the nay-saying and hating that is hardest. Also the fear of the unknown and fear that you will just never make it or will die long before the project could take off fears etc. Overcoming all of that is the real challenge of something like this. Maintaining faith in the vision despite most everyone having faith against the vision is not easy and even your own mind whispering doubts at times that you have to shoe away. You are just mentioning complexity and technical execution which to me is not all that hard. Also note: the other major battle in the hardware phase I'm in now is that a great deal of the approaches I'm taking are entirely novel and untested. Almost everything I'm doing has no guide, no other successes to base off and glean confidence from, and at every turn what I'm doing could fail majorly and have done so. This means you always wonder will I just hit a dead end and have to start over which has happened to me over and over which is very demoralizing especially when paired with naysayers and haters overwhelmingly apathetic and negging my whole dream. Its a lethal combo. Whereas the AI tech you described harmonizing all the sensory input and perfectly bringing the hardware to life in the real world is stuff that has already been achieved and would not be novel and would not be unproven and would have no risk of dead end or wondering if it is even possible since trend setters have already proven this works and there is already a great host of information on all aspects of that and you don't really have to blaze your own trail in those aspects. There is most likely even documented successful strategies for nearly every single aspect of it - unlike the novel hardware and mechanical engineering phase I'm in. So that part doesn't take as much blind faith and assumptions but rather is a surefire guaranteed part where failure is not possible given enough time and patience and perseverance which will be easy to muster with the whole world cheering by that point (whole world meaning just whoever stumbles across the project by that point of progression and leaves a positive note etc). So to sum, when you have to maintain faith that you will succeed at a dream that most say is impossible, improbable and is surely doomed to fail and they utter this with total confidence in mass numbers with near total unanimous accord, that is hard. That is the hardest part IMO. Maintaining faith against such opposition in viewpoint from so many puts one into the realm of delusion in the eyes of most. How is that not delusional to believe a thing to be true - that you are capable of "the impossible" when most everyone else can plainly tell you are not capable of it and are too blind to see it. That is the definition of delusional. It is narcissistic grandiose delusionality disorder and it is also Dunning-Kruger effect in full force. You have to walk in those titles and persevere as a madman. But the funny thing is, IF you do push through that half wondering if you are crazy for long enough and you manage to succeed, suddenly, you aren't delusional, did not have Dunning-Kruger effect, and were totally sane the whole time and just everyone else was wrong all along and you were right the whole time. The entire cards all flip and you are the vindicated one and everybody else has to hang their head down and admit they were wrong and apologize for hating. It is a remarkable thing how the tables can turn.
One day later: As I edit the above writing, I am realizing I missed another MASSIVE hard part of the project I never mentioned. Perhaps even on the same level of hard of the things I already mentioned. That is the managerial execution on your life to make such a big and time consuming and money sucking project possible over a long haul. You have to convince your family to "put up with" the project and compromise with them on also maintaining acceptable progress on other initiatives they value higher than your android project. You have to manage your finances expertly in order to be financially stable enough to put thousands of dollars into the android project over the years. You have to manage your time in such a way that you are able to carve out enough time to make meaningful and consistent progress on your android project over the years despite so many other pressing time draws constantly barraging you over the years. You have to manage your emotional and spiritual condition so that you are able to maintain high morale to even be productive over the bear minimum of just doing your absolute necessities day by day. You have to manage your energy levels and health so that you have enough pep in your step to be able to not only take care of your family and friends but also your job and household responsibilities and on top of ALL OF THIS manage to STILL have the energy to pour COUNTLESS hours into your android sustainably over the decades. You also have to maintain your vision and not let scope creep or distractions or self doubt erode at or take away your vision entirely. So in other words, to sum, one of the hardest parts of such a massive project has NOTHING to do with the project itself AT ALL but has everything to do with managing everything else in life outside of the project with such excellence that you are able to execute the project and carve out the necessary time and resources for the project while also expertly managing your own life in all other areas. If you don't do this, similar to the idea of technical debt in a project, you end up with life debt on account of your project which forces your project to fail. So for example, lets say you racked up $20k in credit card debt while neglecting to work or pay your bills and buying parts for your android and working on it exclusively to the detriment of your financial situation and money earning capacity. Yes, that made you able to make vast and fast progress on your android project, but at what expense? Financial ruin? That is not a sustainable approach. You cannot just ignore these other key aspects of life and go all in tunnel visioned on such a big project. That might work for short term projects but long term projects you can't just press the pause button on the rest of your life and expect it not to come crashing down eventually as you neglect everything but your android project. This will come back to bite you. So you MUST establish yourself with great stability in all areas of life FIRST before you can sustainably perform the android project without it harming other areas of life. Or consider relationship with family and a significant other. If you go all in on a massive long term project like the android project, but in the process you neglect family and friends or your significant other, you end up causing them to think you don't care about them and may lose people or ruin these relationships in your pursuit of your long term project goals. That is not sustainable or responsible and is reckless and selfish to go that route. Or how about your weight? Are you going to spend so much time on your long term project and maintaining your income and relationships but throw your health out the window in the process and not make time for the gym or healthy eating? That is not sustainable either. So you MUST take time to be a great caretaker of your health. So then to sum, you must master life in all areas and be stable across the board in order to execute a long term project without neglecting and ruining all manner of things in the peripherals. So for that reason, I say the success in all these peripherals is one of the hardest parts of such a project and if you can master this, the project is a piece of cake by comparison.
>>31417 Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's quite a lot to read, so maybe some people will at least need their time to read it. I hope you have a good time working on your project!
Thanks for the great-quality posts, Artbyrobot. You've well-articulated ideas that I and others here have had as well, but didn't spell out in such detail. Nice work Anon, keep up the good work! Cheers. :^)
>>31417 Great post. Keep on but don't stress yourself. I found someone that is doing something similar to what I was trying to convey with the belted windlass. Links at this actuator comment >>31576
>>31416 >>31417 One of the best posts the board has to offer. Every new anon should read this, its great not only for making robowaifus but any project in life.
Open file (1.33 MB 4032x3024 IMG_1975.jpeg)
Open file (1.71 MB 4032x3024 IMG_1978.jpeg)
Open file (1.22 MB 2237x3024 IMG_1976.jpeg)
Open file (1.56 MB 4032x3024 IMG_1979.jpeg)
I bought a bunch of punches to make the pulley disc cutting out process way easier than scissors alone. You just place these over the plastic you want to cut and hammer them down with a cutting matt as a backing plate and just one or two hammer taps is all it takes to cut a disc out. Also, now that I plan to make custom plastic washers that I will glue onto the bearings to keep the string centered, these punches will be pretty necessary since that would be much harder to do with scissors than regular discs. Also, here's an update on the cable routing work I've gotten done for the index finger. So the distal-most joint and 2nd joint in from that are both being actuated by a single motor since they both seem to always move together in unison on a human hand IRL. So I tied off one end of fishing line to one joint and the other end to the next joint forming a loop. Pulling on this loop curls both of these joints into a grasp. I then decided the string that pulls on this loop should itself not have a fixed attachment point but instead a sliding attachment point (I could be wrong on this not sure). So to do this I used the eye of a fishing hook on the loop and tied the next string to that which pulls the loop by way of the fishing hook eye. Next I used a piece of tig welding rod and secured that to the loop tubing and to the tube that pulls on the loop. This gave space for the drawing of the loop to actuate the two joints. Seems to work well so far in manual testing. Note: take note that the entire section the tig welding rod is attached to is all free floating and has slack so that when the wrist bends back and forth it can adjust freely and not constrict wrist range of motion nor affect finger position when wrist moves. And included is a photo of a range of motion test on the cable grasping mechanism for the index finger. It is the same range as my own finger so I consider this design successful as of right now in early testing.
Hey there, great job OP! I find your project wonderful and I even share the views that you stated in your initial post, I respect and admire your Christian values. I don't know much about robotics but I know about computers, I'd like to know about your decision about using Windows 7 as the "brain" of the robot, since such system while, yes, could work, is not made in mind for such specialized tasks like operating as the "brain" of a robot. Other options like a small Linux system could offer you much more advantage and versatility for this kind of work, because Windows 7 is intended mainly for regular computer usage, while something like Linux can be used for more specialized things, this would allow you to maximize the efficiency of your hardware as you discard all the things you don't need running on the "brain" like a whole desktop and software that, while convenient for a regular computer use, is essentially useless for the "brain" of a robot and would only slow things down. Was there a specific reason you used Windows 7 instead of Linux or other(F)OSS lightweight kernel/system out there? Or maybe you haven't considered it yet? Regardless, amazing work, I hope to see more of your project. God bless you and let He enlighten you.
>>31786 thanks for the encouragement. You ask why not just use linux? - well, in my experience, if you set a program on windows to real-time priority or even above normal priority, it will give most of the processor over to that process and act like a real time operating system. So whatever "bloat" windows may have of background processes is quite cleared up by that. Also, IMO the background processes of windows don't take up that much processor and with multi-core processors and distributed processing any background tasks just won't impact performance much at all IMO. So performance-wise the hit is negligible and unnoticeable IMO. Then comes the upsides (since the downsides were nearly imperceivable). The upsides are I already have many years of experience working with windows API and can reuse the existing code I have developed for AI on windows. That's a huge advantage so I'm not working from scratch. Also, loads of 3rd party programs and libraries that are well supported run on windows - moreso even than linux I believe. So I would have easy access to tools. I also own a lot of 3rd party software that is paid software that run on windows (and may not run on linux) that the robot can then utilize as tools. Also, troubleshooting operating system problems and knowing common causes is a big deal at times and I have decades of doing so on Windows so that I know it like the back of my hand and can easily fix problems. So that is huge too. So if you are working on a SUPER resource constrained slow single core computer, sure, maybe linux. But if you have a multi-core higher end gaming pc in the robot's chest, it has WAY more than enough power to run windows without taking any noticeable hit in performance and one should use windows if they have more experience or exclusive experience with windows rather than attempt to learn a whole new operating system for no good reason IMO.
oh yeah, one more thing: while testing the AI, I’ll be using it on my personal desktop PC which will act kind of like Siri as I’m training it. My PC is windows. So if I were to develop the AI for linux, I’d have to also train it on linux rather than windows so I couldn’t use it on my personal PC unless I used a virtual machine or something. Basically, I want the AI listening to me and watching me at all times when I’m using the computer and learning about me that way and learning in general that way. It would be getting to know me silently but also possibly speaking to me at times or asking me questions about what I’m doing. I would also want it to be able to interface with any programs I’m using on my personal PC to assist me in whatever ways. So even if it were on a sandbox virtual machine that would then lock it out from helping me on windows doing whatever tasks I’m doing and being interactive with me in that way. That would not be ideal.
>>31786 >I respect and admire your Christian values. This. BTW, let me welcome you here to the /robowaifu/ board, Anon! Please have a good look around while you're here. I hope you find something interesting and maybe even inspiring. Please don't hesitate to ask questions, we're generally a pretty friendly bunch around here. Please let us know if there's anything we can do for you. Christ is King! :^) >>31794 >>31795 Please pardon my butting in uninvited. I think I clearly understand both positions, and appreciate the subtleties of every argument presented on both sides thus far. I would simply add mention of the 800-pound gorilla in the room into the mix. Namely : Not for nothing is W*ndows known as "NSA-OS" M$ was doing affiliated-surveillance for the Globohomo's Surveillance State well before they released Win7 (this evil is of course FAR worse today by both parties -- to all our detriments and that trend will surely continue unabated). As referenced many times across the board here on /robowaifu/ , Anon's privacy and security is an exceptionally-high priority in the general consensus. How could it be otherwise with such an advanced technology... something so close and personal as a real robowaifu living with you in your own home? That is all. --- BTW, you may be aware we have a thread for this topic generally : (>>10000) . If you'd like to expand on this aspect of the conversation further, I'd suggest we all do it there instead? Cheers, Anon. :^) >=== -patch crosslink -fmt, prose edit
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 06/27/2024 (Thu) 10:51:27.
Open file (1.58 MB 4032x3024 IMG_1999.jpeg)
A colleague of mine expressed concerns over how I will deal with the heat generated by the motors and other electronics. He pointed out that all these motors and other electronics are going to generate heat while running and the silicone skin will prevent that heat from escaping. This was a great observation and one that must necessarily be addressed as it is a make or break problem that the entire success of the project hinges upon. In fact, it is so important that I spent a great deal of time designing and planning multiple redundant cooling systems for the robot to absolutely ENSURE that heat does not end up being my greatest downfall of the whole project which could easily be the case if not handled properly. To start, I have designed artificial lungs that will draw in cool outside air, expel that through tubing to every key area of the body, and vent tubing will take out the hot internal air this fresh intake air displaces so that the entire robot has great air circulation. The lungs are to look a bit like a small accordion or bellows for a fireplace ie they will have two flat hard plates and a soft gasket that joints the two hard plates and one of the plates will move away from the other plate to draw air in and then the two plates will be smashed back together for air expulsion. A single motor can achieve this as shown in drawings. Attached is a rough design of the accordion-like lungs I intend to make for the robot's internal air circulation and evaporative cooling and water cooling systems. This drawing mainly demonstrates the working principle of the way the lungs will open and close as well as valves for opening the inlet and outlet which have to open and close alternately for in-taking fresh air and then pushing that fresh air into the body. I recently realized they can just both be one way valves and don't even need to be motorized that way. The lungs bring the air into the body but never exhale air out of the body they only inhale air into themselves then exhale it into the body and vent exit tubes take care of allowing the hot air that is being displaced by the fresh new outside air to exit the body through the nostrils. The intake is also through the nostrils btw. This way the mouth does not need to open for it to breathe in and out.
Open file (1.55 MB 4032x3024 IMG_2001.jpeg)
This drawing demonstrates the idea of dividing up the air in the lungs into separate compartments for a more even distribution of the air when it draws it into the rest of the system to ensure the whole system gets the correct amount of air to each location. I am not sure if this is needed though as I think further reaches can just have larger diameter tubing and closer reaches can use smaller diameter tubing so the air will divide up automatically that way. Not sure on this. But I have this concept of division into pockets just in case I find issues with most air going to one area and not enough to another area and I can fall back to this pocket distribution idea in that case to solve it. Its just another tool in the bag so to speak.
Open file (1.53 MB 4032x3024 IMG_2003.jpeg)
This drawing is for an idea to use a actual freon based air conditioning system just like cars and window units employ but miniaturized in the robot's lungs. I am leaning toward not doing this anymore since it would add unnecessary weight and complication, but I leave it here for reference and it is a optional tool in the bag just in case we wanted to try it in the future or someone else wants to try similar. I think the ice cube based cooling is a superior approach now because ice can be found anywhere you go or a cold drink and this can cool its water cooling system and make a literal freon-based air conditioner in its chest overkill and unneeded.
Open file (1.47 MB 4032x3024 IMG_2004.jpeg)
Open file (1.43 MB 4032x3024 IMG_2005.jpeg)
These drawings show a simple early sketch for a ice cooling system for the robot and then a more elaborate sketch for it. I've iterated on these designs several times since these were drawn, but these drawings are simple exploded views of how the working principle can look in general. I have improved on these a lot since then but I think these do a good job of demonstrating the concept. The water cooling system will double as a evaporative air conditioner by sending water trickling down netting in the lungs so that when it breathes the air its breath interweaves with the water droplets causing evaporation which triggers the evaporative cooling effect which in turn cools both the air and the water tremendously. Its the same working principle as air hitting sweat - you instantly feel cold on your skin when a fan hits liquid on your skin. That is the evaporative cooling effect in action. So I intend to use this effect to cool air and water within the lungs. The ice cooling reservoir will be a bag that presses flush with the distilled water cooling reservoir bag. The dirty or soda containing or non-distilled water containing ice water or ice juice (whatever the robot can get its hands on for cooling needs) does not have to be pure because its just anything the robot can find in the moment it needs cooling. Even anything from a vending machine it can drink then. It will be kept in its own separate reservoir so it doesn't gum up the main distilled water cooling system. So the ice water/ice cubes/juice etc reservoir presses against the main distilled water cooling reservoir (containing only distilled water which won't gum up or corrode the main water cooling system). And by having the two bags pressed against eachother, the coldness of the one bag cools the distilled water cooling water bag, pulling heat out of that bag quickly. Once the two bags' temperatures reach equilibrium, the robot can then pee out the ice water cooling reservoir bag contents and go get another drink of ice water or cold whatever drink to rinse and repeat that process as needed. I don't anticipate it needing this extra cooling often, but in hot conditions or rigorous work that is quite physical or sports or dancing it would need this to add extra cooling to its existing cooling approaches. It would then "fuel up" on ice water in advance of rigorous physical activity to prevent overheating during said activity. Note: I originally planned to put the water cooling and ice cooling reservoirs in the chest of the robot but later realized I could instead put them in the belly of the robot more toward the front of the robot and this way the torso has much more room and these reservoirs won't take up so much room in the chest - which is much needed room. So then, when the robot needs ice cooling, it can drink a large volume of ice and cold water (or juice or w/e drink that's cold) and this will fill its ice reservoir bag which will then cause the belly to protrude like a pot belly. This is how humans work since when we eat a ton our belly sticks out. Same principle. This means we get bonus space available for this purpose outside the normal operating space of the robot's torso due to this natural protrusion factor. This bonus extra room in demand is a nice luxury since it means we don't have to accommodate cold water/ice/juice in the precious coveted space within the torso which gives us more room for other important electronics and stuff to fit in. Note: the reservoirs of the distilled water for the main water cooling system and the ice water reservoir for the ice cooling system both are best being as big as reasonably possible since the bigger the reservoir the more cooling you get and the longer it takes for those bags to heat up and start causing problems with heat. So then the bigger the reservoir the more sustained cooling we get. After both these reservoir's contents get heated up significantly, they are no longer effective at cooling the system and the robot would have to either sit down and rest and wait till these cool down naturally or would need to pee out the ice cooling reservoir bag warm/hot contents and go drink cold liquid and/or ice to fill the bag back up with something that will quickly cool the whole system down again and it can resume work right away this way with no downtime.
A colleague pointed out that the robot probably will need massive batteries. I agree with this in part, but with some caveats. Yes, to support the massive number of motors and the large bursts of energy required when most motors are firing all at once during rigorous athletic type activities, you would need massive batteries to supply all of this energy demand during peak periods. You also want the batteries to have a decent overall runtime duration. I intend for it to use fairly massive batteries for these reasons. However, there is a common misconception that the batteries must be so big that the robot is able to run all day on a single charge and that if it only can run for say an hour, that means it will only be capable of working 1 hour then charging and totally idol and not working for an hour or two and then get back to work again which would cap its productivity massively. People then conclude battery technology today rules out humanoids being particularly useful due to the lack of capacity. This is a completely solved problem and indicates people's lack of thinking this through thoroughly. The solution is simple: I don't have to worry much about large capacity for long duration of runtime since my intention is to have it hot swap battery packs frequently and always have 5-10 battery packs charging so that it always will be able to swap a new pack in that is fully charged. This way it can have 24/7 uptime while not having to carry a very large battery pack to have a long runtime. This is the same approach construction workers use with their cordless tools. They have a ton of packs charging at all times and use batteries till they get low and just swap a new fully charged one in as needed. They don't try to fit a entire days work into one giant battery. They have a ton of small batteries charging at all times instead and just hot swap full ones in for low ones. This should have been obvious to everyone as the perfect solution for humanoid robots too. Note: in my design, he will have a significant battery pack in the abdomen which never swaps out and tops itself up from the hot swappable battery backpacks as needed. This abdominal battery pack will enable it to swap in new hot swap battery backpacks since you need batteries running it while the hot swappable packs are being swapped. The hot swappable packs will be worn as a backpack just like a school bookbag. When available, the robot will optionally also be able to plug a AC power cord into the wall outlet to charge, although if it has multiple hot swappable batteries already charging by various available wall outlets then this would be redundant. It is a good tool though in general for some situations. Note: the backpack battery can be taken off and the robot will still have a very limited runtime just based on its abdominal battery pack. It uses this limited time to swap in a new hot swappable battery pack as the primary reason for the abdominal pack, however, another good reason to have a permanent abdominal battery pack is so that it can do demonstrations with no battery backpack on. A use case for this would be: lets say it wants to do a flip or cartwheel and the battery backpack's added weight would be a hindrance for such a maneuver. It could simply take the backpack off, do the flip or cartwheel, then after bowing for applause, it can put the backpack back on.
>>32044 Great ideas, Artbyrobot! I always enjoy reading your posts. BTW, here are some threads that related one way or another to your latest : (>>23, >>83, >>234, >>5080, >>11018) . Good luck with your project and cheers, Anon. :^)
Open file (5.45 KB 383x242 R.gif)
>>32048 I've been thinking about an energy-saving method, besides the power supply and propulsion system recently. With the way my desktop is working out, I was thinking of putting breaks in the joints. A power-on break uses power when the break is enabled, while a power-off break only uses power to disable the breaks. I was leaning towards the latter for a while, because it would mean more power is used while moving, but standing upright could be done indefinitely without using energy. I've been trying to come up with a magnetic flux-switching design for a break that would only use power when switching between off and on. A power-toggle break.
Open file (49.48 KB 378x710 SwitchedFlux.jpg)
>>32321 You may find switched flux motors to be interesting. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090447922001022
>>32321 >>32322 I agree both are interesting. Something to look at and "ponder". Look at this video and see if you can tell what is going on. This appears to be a magnetic superconductor (B-field???) Leedskalnin_Effect_Demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWSAcMoxITw Why there's not a ton of speculation and people studying this non-stop, I have no idea. It's my understanding that a circuit like this can stay together indefinitely. Also if you keep the wire in and separate the plates the energy in will come out in a circuit connected to the wire. Not sure if it's the same amount but it is substantial. I think this is one of those things where scientist say,"well that's just so and so doing this and that(feeding you equations)..." while totally missing the point that this is a fairly huge abnormality and quite odd.
>>32323 That's just storing energy in a magnetic field. When you break the circuit, the field will reverse. This will cause the metal to de-magnetise and if a coil is there, some percent of the initial energy will be inducted. It's essentially the magnetic flux version of a capacitor. Transformers and inducters work on similar principles. You may also find electropermanent magnets interesting, same thing but with a permanent magnet to essentially create a switchable permenate magnet that won't induce as strong of a counter flux if the magnetic circuit is broken. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electropermanent_magnet
>>32324 >That's just storing energy in a magnetic field In my opinion this is much more interesting and strange than the standard reasoning you have just given. What you said is of course the correct opinion. The magnetic field is confined to the metal. It does not extend like a coil. To the best of my knowledge it does not attenuate over time or at the least any appreciable short time. Here's an article that explores this sort of weirdness RIGHT ANGLE CIRCUITRY - or - AC Electronics for Alien Minds (C)2000 William Beaty http://amasci.com/elect/mcoils.html Beaty has some super interesting articles.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms