zlacker

>>meetpa+(OP)
I’m optimistic about humanoid robotics, but I’m curious about the reliability issue. Biological limbs and hands are quite miraculous when you consider that they are able to constantly interact with the world, which entails some natural wear and tear, but then constantly heal themselves.

>>baron8+cy
I think those problems can be solved with further research in material science, no? Combined that with very responsive but low torque servos, I think this is a solvable problem.

>>didip+rE
It's a simple matter of the number of motors you have. [1]

Assume every motor has a 1% failure rate per year.

A boring wheeled roomba has 3 motors. That's a 2.9% failure rate per year, and 8.6% failures over 3 years.

Assume a humanoid robot has 43 motors. That gives you a 35% failure rate per year, and 73% over 3 years. That ain't good.

And not only is the humanoid robot less reliable, it's also 14.3x the price - because it's got 14.3x as many motors in it.

[1] And bearings and encoders and gearboxes and control boards and stuff... but they're largely proportional to the number of motors.

>>michae+i71
Would it be possible to reduce the failure rates?

>>mewpme+Hd1
The 1%/year failure rate appears to just be made up. There are plenty of electric motors that dont have anywhere near that failure rate (at least during the expected service life, failure rates certainly will probably hit 1%/year or higher eventually).

For example, do the motors in hard drives fail anywhere close to 1% a year in the first ~5 years? Backblaze data gives a total drive failure rate around 1% and I imagine most of those are not due to failure of motors.