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
To an extent, yes.

For example, an industrial robot arm with 6 motors achieves much higher reliability than a consumer roomba with 3 motors. They do this with more metal parts, more precision machining, much more generous design tolerances, and suchlike. Which they can afford by charging 100x as much per unit.

>>michae+ni1
Also factory robots arms are probably operating in highly sterile, dry environments? How would working in a muddy / dusty / wet environment change this?