ibnroberttuta

We value position control more than force control (i.e., controlling motors for force output used to be very popular, but nowadays controlling for position is in vogue, so to speak, although force and position are obviously related), but the big thing with exoskeletons is trying to build one that is as 'dynamic' as the human body - the best exoskeleton is the one that best approximates the novel mechanics of human locomotion (i.e., the way parts of the body move in relation to one another) as well as the means by which locomotion occurs (i.e., how muscle groups interact to cause extension and flexion), and also has a dynamic relationship with the user. Current exoskeletons, including B.b's, are what I would describe as very rigid and non-ergonomic in design, although to the credit of b.b, suitX is at least an improvement in some regards.

Very briefly, the things holding back exos are

- regulatory process is a five year process, minimum, so anything coming out today is using at least 5 year old designs etc, and also means fewer players can afford to undergo the process (fda, patents, etc)

- state of the art is held back by poor designs and construction methods

- lack of focus/v.c $$ in the field

I suspect within the next decade we will see a revolution in this field, but for now, this is what we've got.

Not quite...

From the article - "The testing I signed up for is needed to win U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval."

Powered exoskeletons for spinal cord injury or paralysis patients are medical devices, and thus require FDA approval (in this case, Berkeley Bionics is probably pursuing a 510(k) or the 'de novo' process if B.B feels their device is substantially different from pre-existing exoskeletons.) All current exoskeletons are classified as type II medical devices, which entails some limitations on how they can be marketed, sold, and used by patients.

Since their other products are not used for medical applications, they wouldn't need FDA approval, as long as B.B isn't, say, making health related claims that would need to be substantiated by actual testing and certification (I believe).

I actually work in this field, so if you have any other questions about exoskeletons or assistance devices I can probably answer them.

I agree with the essence of your argument (and congratulations on the training).

I do, however, fear i might've brushed over the essential idea - rather than provide training, wearable's should provide constant 'feedback' if you will to the user, while also providing partial/full assistance to whatever the objective might be. To use an analogy, if you were to draw an imperfect curve, the wearable would 'smooth' out the curve as it was drawn - providing training as a side-effect (muscle-memory, if you will), but that isn't why it would be used (it would be used so you could draw better curves, and maximize your potential as an artist [or in reality, as a worker etc]).

I work with exos., so if you have any other questions, I can probably answer them.

Not quite - the technology and approach taken are essentially very new developments in the field, in general to avoid pitfalls of current/past state of the art. Since exoskeletons should be useful to humans, they should probably be designed like humans, and move like them too. This is our philosophy, and for this and many other reasons, the approach we've taken is distinctly different and very new.

Our objective is to give users uncompromising levels of mobility. We hope to begin private trials within the next 1.5-2 years.

An interesting thing to note WRT serious applications for exoskeletons is that they arguably offer greater potential as safety devices in the workplaces, essentially as a means to stop workers from over straining themselves, and also prevent repeated strain injuries.

I think realistically, heavy stuff will always be relegated to heavy machines. It'd be impractical in many cases to do otherwise. But to say that exoskeletons lack applications is a bit foolhardy (preventing workplace injury is a huge field waiting to be disrupted, for example).

Physical augmentation (via robotics) shouldn't just mean improving the physical condition, but also maintaining and promoting a healthy physical condition. This isn't something that is very well understood in the marketplace (both in the 60's, but also today). The biggest barrier for exoskeletons are still the exoskeletons themselves. I believe that until this idea is understood and reflected in the designs and implementation of exoskeletons, no progress will be made (in the field, and the market). Hopefully, this will soon change.

Disclosure: Work in the field (although currently for physically disabled patients, and not announced in the public domain).

Have you used a consultancy based group to help with the documentation/app.?

Doing a 510k w.o that experience/perspective seems insane (especially for a startup(?)).

Also, I'm not sure which field you are in, but I've generally been able to access the applications from previous submissions in my field (Personal exoskeletons).

This is a textbook, ZMP derivative type controller.

ZMP doesn't necessarily require absolute maps of the environment, but generally is more of a predict and optimize for safety type affair, and Atlas i'd imagine does that both very quickly, and a bit smarter leg reaction movements.

The linked video is more akin to elementary central pattern generation, which is a very understudied field, but their is more advanced research on the topic from pre 2010 if you are curious. Interest seems to have dropped off unfortunately in the really cool stuff since then, but you can find it with moderate ease.

Great question.

Disclaimer: I don't work with these types of bipeds. I work on powered exoskeletons for paralyzed type people. I would google that phrase to get an idea, but what you'll find is not close to what i'm working on (Read: Wink wink). That being said, the fields overlap very heavily, probably too heavily given the necessary differences, so I do have a fairly rigorous (rusty, at this point) understanding of the topic.

You are right in a way; big dog et al (depending on specific bot/type) share alot of software features with biped robots, but not the type that deal with gait control. The difference is found primarily in gait-control/kinematics, as determined by the necessarily complex nature behind bipedal mechanics.

The future of robotics sort of already exists amongst us, at the very least in the public research domain. The fundamental issue with biped robots right now, as i see it, is:

1) Biped robots are almost universally 'human' inspired

2) Humans are theoretically fully optimized bipeds, copying them is logical and probably an unbeatable 'design'

3) Designers try to copy the human form, but either focus too heavily on ZMP influence or too much on a 'Terminator' level robustness (Heavy, rigid, and impossible).

4) The robot is produced, and because ZMP is very predictable/safe, it walks; but it is not 'human' form or very good at achieving it's design goals because its goals were modeled after the ideal biped, and this is a very bad imitation.

5) Designers say: Hey, spec sheet checks out, FEA says this is strong, problem must be bad software [ZMP]. Software guys say: This software [ZMP] can be improved. The designers are right, the software guys are right, but ZMP is wrong, and because of that, design is bad, etc...

So to really get a true, true biped robot, you really, really need A) Control theory that isn't backwards [literally] and B) A really, really 'human-like' (musculoskeletal) design.

A and B are both really difficult because both are massively challenging, and they have to work together perfectly. So you need a solution that is really creative, really beautiful and elegant and lightweight, and probably most difficult, you need to have people that know how to turn that kind of framework from theory to iterative simulation to real world etc etc.

ZMP is the only real game rn because it was first and etc [sunken cost fallacy and myopia, i think]. All other approaches are neglected fully, regretably (not many other approaches either).

Jumping back to how I see it, I think bipeds will only improve superficially till ZMP is killed or hybridized effectively, which doesn't mean A and B has to occur. Their are just too many fundamental limitations to the theory for bipeds using it to become ubiquitous, or even used beyond research/darpa-fairs.

I also think that my research/focus is more complex than robotic bipeds, and it'd be really worthless waste of my time if it was at the current or slightly above 'state-of-the-art', but this is absolutely the best way I can spend my life right now.

This whole industry [true 'wearables' and robotica] is like a giant powderkeg, and it's going to blow up way bigger and sooner than any thought possible [imo, so take with a grain of salt, but facts afford a potentially representative state of things to be].

I've also just realized i've forgotten to explain zmp/gait and many other things, but i feel that the write up stands on its own.

Short answer: No, ZMP is still the name of the game +-. [0]

Slightly longer answer: No, they use derivative approaches that are basically ZMP but generally more refined/modernized, which is not to say ZMP/related are good or the 'future'. [1]

Source: [0] I can try and find some non-paywall PDF's that go over the field, but basically everyone uses ZMP except for a few research groups in Korea or UMich and groups using their design/model.

[1] I work in the industry.