ruclips.net/video/mpQOlnG8Yps/видео.html Here is my first push test with the prototype. It isn't good enough to be used as is but is good enough to validate the idea.
It works!! Congratulations!! Came here because JK Lee fabricated a cool bot version of this inspired by you. I like it, this robot concept might have many good applications, my mind 1st went to human interaction or food service, but I could see many maker type robots options too... The super compact nature of this "all on a single rail" design is GREAT! Torsion stability of rail connection seems intuitively very important to success, not max torsional load, but any rotational movement at all, since the arms are long, tiny linear-rail rotation becomes large movement. If you select a rail system with multiple points of contact and near zero rotation around X,Y or Z,,, well look at Lee's movement bounce yourself... Lee's functional problem seems to be system stiffness and movement smoothness. I wonder if twist/flex at rail slide interface is the weakness or issue for his motion bouncing. I agree the system unoptimized is going to sag/flex. Tuning the overall system rigidity is important(design stiff vs soft mix) and my engineering intuition says twist at rail(and ball bearing joints too) is critical. I designed a 2 axis high speed pick and place robot for RA Jones co with a single rail design but, looking backward wish I had used a second parallel linear rail for less torsional flex, more torsional stiffness because longer gripper arms later got added. Adding some anti-twist to your design would only very slightly increase the compact nature of the design, but may significantly improve {performance, speed, accuracy, repeatability, stiffness, bearing life +++} Yes you should get a provisional patent, this seems good intellectual property, you should feel great about bringing this into the world. Subscribed✔️
Hydrostatic bearings could be an option for low friction, light, cheep,yet high accuracy pivots/ linear slide ways. They can be scalled up to massive sizes. But will also work on small scale. RUclips user "Applied science" has done video on how to make them from 3D printed housings, graphite blocks and "flat steel" If powering them on air. There's also possibly of using an air jet instead of a fan for cooling part and hotend of a 3D printer, which might reduce moving mass compared to a fan.
52:42 name idea: "Robot on a Stick" comes to my mind, the minimalist nature on the slender "stick" rail system needed to give the robot all it needs to actuate is what 1st captivated my attention. Good Idea, looks like it might have many uses. Remember don't let any negative comments affect you, don't overlook good critical observations, just don't let others negativity impact you.
For stiffness/rigidity bigger is better when all dimensions of the machine scale equally. For the arms l, b, h must scale not just l. It is a a linear improvement of stiffness with size IIRC. The twist is: (1/2) This only applies to operation in micro-gravity keeping robot operation speeds scale independent. And … (2/2) … in space you need to go to sparse space-frames to safe mass in larger structures. Except maybe you build heavy machinery directly from asteroid matter that is meant to operate right there and not meant to go anywhere.
That is a very good point! Although, you wouldn't want to or be able to scale everything equally. The mass and drive requirements get out of hand fast if you scale all dimensions equally.
@@NicholasSeward Indeed. The only situation that I could come up with where this eventually could make sense is that far off ISRU metal asteroid mining example with some custom made monster drives that recuperate power. But there are probably better solutions. As you've said, rotative is better for big stuff.
As side-note: The book applies it in the other direction. Giving some intuition that even diamond gets quite soft for nanoscale parts. And for other reasons stretchy. But not unusably soft. More a boon than an issue.
thank you for doing this, got my brain moving differently. im happy you mentioned the drawbacks of the mono design at scale first. It gives us all a better idea of the forces that enable it to work at all. "Rigid members" lol
It works! I came here because JK Lee fabricated a cool bot version of this inspired by you. I like it, this robot concept might have many good applications, my mind 1st went to human interaction or food service, but I could see many maker type robots options too... The super compact nature of this "all on a single rail" design is GREAT! Torsion stability of rail connection seems intuitively very important to success, not max torsional load, but any rotational movement at all, since the arms are long, tiny linear-rail rotation becomes large movement. If you select a rail system with multiple points of contact and near zero rotation around X,Y or Z,,, well look at Lee's movement bounce yourself... Lee's functional problem seems to be system stiffness and movement smoothness. I wonder if twist/flex at rail slide interface is the weakness or issue for his motion bouncing. I agree the system unoptimized is going to sag/flex. Tuning the overall system rigidity is important(design stiff vs soft mix) and my engineering intuition says twist at rail(and ball bearing joints too) is critical. I designed a 2 axis high speed pick and place robot for RA Jones co with a single rail design but, looking backward wish I had used a second parallel linear rail for less torsional flex, more torsional stiffness because longer gripper arms later got added. Adding some anti-twist to your design would only very slightly increase the compact nature of the design, but may significantly improve {performance, speed, accuracy, repeatability, stiffness, bearing life +++} Nicholas Stewart you should get a provisional patent, this seems good intellectual property, you should feel great about bringing this into the world. Subscribed✔️
Think you could scrap the rails altogether and put mechanum wheels on it with some sort of 3d positioning sensing? Maybe, ultrasonic sensors or laser light, or pattern recognition with an onboard camera and AI system! This way you could throw it down on any surface and start printing on it with an unlimited build volume in the XY! Maybe, a mesh leveling system that could subtract any surface obstructions from the bottom build area to print around them in real time!
@@NicholasSeward Why? You don't think four locked rubber wheels could have enough surface friction to hold still, until it needs to move to the next way point to resume printing in a non-planar fashion?
Good afternoon! Sorry to bother you! Do you happen to have a solution to the forward and inverse kinematics problem for this manipulator? I want to conduct a kinematic analysis, but I don't really understand the kinematics of a monorail tripteron.
Looking forward to seeing this progress. Not sure if Duet has something similar, but Klipper has input shaping functions that can cancel out dynamics and vibrations during aggressive moves, which might be helpful depending on how squishy the robot is.
37:18 - Well - one could add a redundant fourth arm - traps arm again but would make it more rigid - or just do a fully redundant mirror image copy - basically a second monorail reaching onto the same end-effector - making it six arms - but even that would make it only twice as rigid I guess - by far not as big as the difference in deflection between a one side supported and a two side supported beam - as my naive initial hope was
Your ideas are huge ! What reading can you recommend me to get into inverse kinematics ? What firmware are you using or modifying ? I mean what is the process in modifying the firmware ? I am so curious of that
I would try this with an alternative (super cheap) rail idea, but I don't understand how to make the rigid arm joints. Hard to tell in the video if that is a printed revolute joint or if there is a bearing in there.
if you patent the monorail you could make it so people who use the patent have to reference your youtube channel, so people who are interested things like this can find you and learn about other cool mechanisms and designs, as well as growing your channel.
@@NicholasSeward Registering patents under a "patentleft" license could be useful if enough people would do it. That way people patenting other things have to license their patent under the same license leading to a cascade effect. Theoretically. If patents were affordable to normal people not just commercial entities.
1:10:00 - I had good experiences with highly flexible TPU of filaflex brand - astoundingly reversible deformation - and the polar opposite to elastic PLA - that stuff was almost like chewing gum - exaggerating a bit
1:19:44 PP/PE for classical living hinges -- I was more thinking about bigger mechanical metamaterial living hinges from rubber. Those may have more cross-talk but are likely much more durable.
What if instead of belts, it worked with a single long screw; with one of the carriages just passively pushed by the screw, and the two other ones carrying their own steppers that would rotate the nut that couples them to the screw?
wouldn’t this also require the nuts to be actively rotated in the opposite direction to keep them in the same place? due to friction in the motor, the nut wouldn’t be able to spin completely freely, causing it to move a bit.
@@NicholasSeward Can you combine the screws velocity with the independent steppers velocity to increase their total speed of motion? You mentioned before how ball screws are slower than lead screws!
@@themeek351 yeah. That would make it faster one direction and slower in the other. Btw, ball screws can be faster, I just like cheaper lead screws when they are up for the job.
As far as the arm length. You said if you double the arm it becomes 8 times more squishier. Is that because you are using PLA printed parts? What if a you use a different material, aluminum, titanium, steel?
Still not a lawyer but one of the USA provisions for getting a patent require the person to have invented it. They would have to either prove that they did it before my youtube video or prove that it wasn't a result of the video (the latter is hard). Boy does this system suck.
When I embark on a physical build, I will be sure to share files on GitHub. Having videos of the parts in real life will save me a lot of support time.
![[Untrimmed/Unedited] RepRap MonoRail Q&A](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/R2qyHTcc1g8/mqdefault.jpg)
ruclips.net/video/mpQOlnG8Yps/видео.html Here is my first push test with the prototype. It isn't good enough to be used as is but is good enough to validate the idea.
Great job！ I would like to see a working MonoRail
It works!! Congratulations!!
Came here because JK Lee fabricated a cool bot version of this inspired by you.
I like it, this robot concept might have many good applications, my mind 1st went to human interaction or food service, but I could see many maker type robots options too...
The super compact nature of this "all on a single rail" design is GREAT!
Torsion stability of rail connection seems intuitively very important to success, not max torsional load, but any rotational movement at all, since the arms are long, tiny linear-rail rotation becomes large movement. If you select a rail system with multiple points of contact and near zero rotation around X,Y or Z,,, well look at Lee's movement bounce yourself...
Lee's functional problem seems to be system stiffness and movement smoothness.
I wonder if twist/flex at rail slide interface is the weakness or issue for his motion bouncing.
I agree the system unoptimized is going to sag/flex. Tuning the overall system rigidity is important(design stiff vs soft mix) and my engineering intuition says twist at rail(and ball bearing joints too) is critical.
I designed a 2 axis high speed pick and place robot for RA Jones co with a single rail design but, looking backward wish I had used a second parallel linear rail for less torsional flex, more torsional stiffness because longer gripper arms later got added. Adding some anti-twist to your design would only very slightly increase the compact nature of the design, but may significantly improve {performance, speed, accuracy, repeatability, stiffness, bearing life +++}
Yes you should get a provisional patent, this seems good intellectual property, you should feel great about bringing this into the world.
Subscribed✔️
Hydrostatic bearings could be an option for low friction, light, cheep,yet high accuracy pivots/ linear slide ways. They can be scalled up to massive sizes. But will also work on small scale. RUclips user
"Applied science" has done video on how to make them from 3D printed housings, graphite blocks and "flat steel"
If powering them on air. There's also possibly of using an air jet instead of a fan for cooling part and hotend of a 3D printer, which might reduce moving mass compared to a fan.
52:42 name idea: "Robot on a Stick" comes to my mind, the minimalist nature on the slender "stick" rail system needed to give the robot all it needs to actuate is what 1st captivated my attention.
Good Idea, looks like it might have many uses. Remember don't let any negative comments affect you, don't overlook good critical observations, just don't let others negativity impact you.
We are calling it MonoPole. Robot on a Stick is also a good name!
For stiffness/rigidity bigger is better when all dimensions of the machine scale equally.
For the arms l, b, h must scale not just l. It is a a linear improvement of stiffness with size IIRC.
The twist is:
(1/2) This only applies to operation in micro-gravity keeping robot operation speeds scale independent. And …
(2/2) … in space you need to go to sparse space-frames to safe mass in larger structures. Except maybe you build heavy machinery directly from asteroid matter that is meant to operate right there and not meant to go anywhere.
"Nanosystems" chapter 2 "Classical Magnitudes and Scaling laws" says:
bending stiffness ∝ radius^4/length^3 ,∝ L -- (cylindrical rod assumed)
That is a very good point! Although, you wouldn't want to or be able to scale everything equally. The mass and drive requirements get out of hand fast if you scale all dimensions equally.
@@NicholasSeward Indeed. The only situation that I could come up with where this eventually could make sense is that far off ISRU metal asteroid mining example with some custom made monster drives that recuperate power. But there are probably better solutions. As you've said, rotative is better for big stuff.
As side-note: The book applies it in the other direction. Giving some intuition that even diamond gets quite soft for nanoscale parts. And for other reasons stretchy. But not unusably soft. More a boon than an issue.
Damn, sad I missed this. Looking forward to watching this later though, cheers.
thank you for doing this, got my brain moving differently. im happy you mentioned the drawbacks of the mono design at scale first. It gives us all a better idea of the forces that enable it to work at all. "Rigid members" lol
It works! I came here because JK Lee fabricated a cool bot version of this inspired by you.
I like it, this robot concept might have many good applications, my mind 1st went to human interaction or food service, but I could see many maker type robots options too...
The super compact nature of this "all on a single rail" design is GREAT!
Torsion stability of rail connection seems intuitively very important to success, not max torsional load, but any rotational movement at all, since the arms are long, tiny linear-rail rotation becomes large movement. If you select a rail system with multiple points of contact and near zero rotation around X,Y or Z,,, well look at Lee's movement bounce yourself...
Lee's functional problem seems to be system stiffness and movement smoothness.
I wonder if twist/flex at rail slide interface is the weakness or issue for his motion bouncing.
I agree the system unoptimized is going to sag/flex. Tuning the overall system rigidity is important(design stiff vs soft mix) and my engineering intuition says twist at rail(and ball bearing joints too) is critical.
I designed a 2 axis high speed pick and place robot for RA Jones co with a single rail design but, looking backward wish I had used a second parallel linear rail for less torsional flex, more torsional stiffness because longer gripper arms later got added. Adding some anti-twist to your design would only very slightly increase the compact nature of the design, but may significantly improve {performance, speed, accuracy, repeatability, stiffness, bearing life +++}
Nicholas Stewart you should get a provisional patent, this seems good intellectual property, you should feel great about bringing this into the world.
Subscribed✔️
Think you could scrap the rails altogether and put mechanum wheels on it with some sort of 3d positioning sensing? Maybe, ultrasonic sensors or laser light, or pattern recognition with an onboard camera and AI system! This way you could throw it down on any surface and start printing on it with an unlimited build volume in the XY! Maybe, a mesh leveling system that could subtract any surface obstructions from the bottom build area to print around them in real time!
Sure. Would need very heavy cars.
@@NicholasSeward Why? You don't think four locked rubber wheels could have enough surface friction to hold still, until it needs to move to the next way point to resume printing in a non-planar fashion?
Thanks for your video
Good afternoon! Sorry to bother you! Do you happen to have a solution to the forward and inverse kinematics problem for this manipulator? I want to conduct a kinematic analysis, but I don't really understand the kinematics of a monorail tripteron.
love the vertical one!
Looking forward to seeing this progress. Not sure if Duet has something similar, but Klipper has input shaping functions that can cancel out dynamics and vibrations during aggressive moves, which might be helpful depending on how squishy the robot is.
Yes and RRF is working on it.
37:18 - Well - one could add a redundant fourth arm - traps arm again but would make it more rigid - or just do a fully redundant mirror image copy - basically a second monorail reaching onto the same end-effector - making it six arms - but even that would make it only twice as rigid I guess - by far not as big as the difference in deflection between a one side supported and a two side supported beam - as my naive initial hope was
Nicholas Seward GOOD！ Looking forward to seeing your firmware
There won't be much to see. I just have to put in that 3x3 matrix.
I really enjoyed that, thanks! I look forward to your next one :)
Your ideas are huge ! What reading can you recommend me to get into inverse kinematics ? What firmware are you using or modifying ? I mean what is the process in modifying the firmware ? I am so curious of that
You are the best!
1:38:33 - start of brief tour
3:12 "There aren't that many large ??? in the world."
Inaudible.Trypterons / Krypterons / ???
tripteron
I would try this with an alternative (super cheap) rail idea, but I don't understand how to make the rigid arm joints. Hard to tell in the video if that is a printed revolute joint or if there is a bearing in there.
Two 6806 bearings.
Do you think I could use a BIGTREETECH SKR Mini V2.0 instead of the more expensive Duet 3 mini?
I am thinking about using the SKR e3 mini v2.0 . I don't know of a reason it won't work.
@Nicholas Seward
Great, thanks. I'm a 16-year-old looking forward to making a mini trip, monopole, and halo/hellos
if you patent the monorail you could make it so people who use the patent have to reference your youtube channel, so people who are interested things like this can find you and learn about other cool mechanisms and designs, as well as growing your channel.
Hahaha...That would be such a now thing to do. Naaa. I won't put any restrictions on it.
@@NicholasSeward You are the best, free knowledge is the future. Thanks for sharing your brilliant ideas!
@@NicholasSeward Registering patents under a "patentleft" license could be useful if enough people would do it. That way people patenting other things have to license their patent under the same license leading to a cascade effect. Theoretically. If patents were affordable to normal people not just commercial entities.
@@dejayrezme8617 It is hard to argue with the success of the GPL but for some reason I can never bring myself to use a license like that.
1:10:00 - I had good experiences with highly flexible TPU of filaflex brand - astoundingly reversible deformation -
and the polar opposite to elastic PLA - that stuff was almost like chewing gum - exaggerating a bit
1:19:44 PP/PE for classical living hinges -- I was more thinking about bigger mechanical metamaterial living hinges from rubber.
Those may have more cross-talk but are likely much more durable.
What if instead of belts, it worked with a single long screw; with one of the carriages just passively pushed by the screw, and the two other ones carrying their own steppers that would rotate the nut that couples them to the screw?
That is a fun idea and makes the kinematics even easier.
wouldn’t this also require the nuts to be actively rotated in the opposite direction to keep them in the same place? due to friction in the motor, the nut wouldn’t be able to spin completely freely, causing it to move a bit.
@@dysphoricpeach you could use a noncaptive stepper
@@NicholasSeward Can you combine the screws velocity with the independent steppers velocity to increase their total speed of motion? You mentioned before how ball screws are slower than lead screws!
@@themeek351 yeah. That would make it faster one direction and slower in the other. Btw, ball screws can be faster, I just like cheaper lead screws when they are up for the job.
As far as the arm length. You said if you double the arm it becomes 8 times more squishier. Is that because you are using PLA printed parts? What if a you use a different material, aluminum, titanium, steel?
All materials exhibit that behavior.
1:13:41 - That makes me wonder: Could actuating the length of an arm allow for dynamic z-resolution adjustment?
The length the arm shouldn't matter as drawn.
You are the Nicola Tesla of 3D printing.
Wow! Thanks. Let's see if I can build it.
43:21 It's called "open loop control" or "steering" rather than "control"
I got that term from Cris Phoenix (crnano -- Center for Responsible Nanotechnology)
Once it's public,. Patent not an option..
Can't put genie back in the bottle
Edit...well IANAL. I think you may be right. No worries. I hate patents.
In the USA I have 1 year to file. In Europe you have to keep it private. Still not a lawyer. Still don't plane to get a patent. Hahaha.
@@NicholasSeward be careful..
I believe in usa it's first to file...no longer first to invent
Still not a lawyer but one of the USA provisions for getting a patent require the person to have invented it. They would have to either prove that they did it before my youtube video or prove that it wasn't a result of the video (the latter is hard). Boy does this system suck.
Hi, could you please share your files so i could print them? :)
When I embark on a physical build, I will be sure to share files on GitHub. Having videos of the parts in real life will save me a lot of support time.
Re: Tech not CEO material... I'm the same... ENTP + ADHD makes that stuff alien to me
E