Wearable Muscles
ethz.ch
ethz.ch
https://roundupreads.jsc.nasa.gov/pages.ashx/787/New%20weara...
The internal application was to improve mobility in space suits. We had a partnership with some medical researchers looking to help patients with otherwise limited mobility.
Shoulders are difficult. The human body has a lot of amazing degrees of freedom. One of the biggest challenges was efficient and effective transfer of the assist forces to the body.
Adding to that, without completely butchering mobility is probably no easy task.
Just a small note, that abbreviation seems extremely rare to me. You might have better readability by saying "e.g." which means the same thing, or just writing it out. It took me a while to figure out whether you were referring some body part belonging to chimps or something
You're right! I certainly don't think of the words "exempli gratia" -- I literally think the letters "e g" as a mental shorthand for "for example". I often find myself writing "e.g." first, and then expanding it to "for example" when re-reading what I wrote.
Sorry. English is weird. "f.x." seems like it should be a preferable abbreviation for "for example", but it just isn't idiomatic. I figured out that was what you meant when reading it, but it definitely stood out in much the same level of wrongness as seeing code that isn't formatted correctly or that uses a non-idiomatic way of doing things (list comprehensions in Python).
anyway, "for example" takes two seconds to type (if that), if abbreviations cause confusion (in general, in any situation, especially professionally), avoid them.
Anyway I'll brb, I got an I&A meeting for our SAFe procedure, gotta get our CI's and DoD in order and make sure we execute LCM properly. No I don't know what any of these abbreviations mean, but this is the situation we find ourselves in, lmao
A lot of the typical difference between the male and female upper body comes down to this specialization. There is some evidence of facial adjustment to punching, but we could hit much harder with a more chimp-like shoulder, this doesn't require knuckle walking: but we wouldn't throw a spear as far nor as accurately.
- Great font, I've always liked the DIN Font for its clarity (DIN is a German industrial norm)
- font-size and line-height match each other well and follow best-practices (line-height is 1.4 times the font-size)
- well-fitting margins after paragraphs
- clear distinction between headline and text, this also applies to meta information etc.
- line length is < 90 chars so your eyes don't have to travel too far to get back to the start
All in all very well done.
edit: There's obviously even more like choice of colors, contrast, graphical elements etc. Just wanted to point out that someone really thought about this and not just installed some theme and that's it.
This ensures that your eyes/brain can easily distinct between two lines and "hop" along. The upper limit ensures that you won't lose track of the line because two lines are too far away from each other.
Line length limit comes from this, too. It's hard work for the brain to save a line you just read, jump back to the start of the next line and continue. Short (but not too short!) lines help with that, too.
Paragraph margins are historically based on blank lines, so you can adapt that for your digital text, too and use margin-bottom: 1em or sth. like that (better use the line-height value for the margi, so you include that space, too).
Rules like these obviously date back to the print age, as there are several types of reading (more technical "ways to obtain the information") defined and refered to in "design rules".
You'll "read" a large poster different than a dictionary which is why you can/should deviate from these rules, depending on the setting.
Headlines for example don't need a line-height of 160% but will often work very well with 120% or even smaller. There are no strict rules but more guidelines, so you'll have to develop a sense and feel for that.
Other design rules and their implications play a role, too. Contrast of text to background, phenomena of large color areas, stroke-width of the font and lots of more.
For web typo with I am personally using sans-serif fonts with a larger font-size. Even with wider layouts this helps with getting shorter lines, slightly larger typo improves readability, more line-height reduces the "wall of text" effect, paragraph margins help to distinct different parts of text from each other.
There should be good beginners literature available if you find this interesting.
Also: Try fiddling with the etzh.ch page. Set the line-height to 1.2 and the font-size to 1 rem and you'll immediately see how not to do it. :-D
You see, I spent the last weeks reading up on Otto Lilienthal. And while we might think that we have already "cracked" flying, we actually haven't. Humans still cannot fly. We can only board. What we do not have achieved is the sense of "flying like a bird", which Lilienthal was after. The idea that you control your movements through the air directly, not mediated through knobs and buttons, but by using your own body.
Motors that provide rotational power are not suited for wings. The are suited only to propellers. So that's where artificial muscles perhaps would be able to shine.
Also, I imagine that a bird needs to have fine-grained sense perception in its wings, to be able to compensate for subtle differences in air speed and pressure. And it seems that this is something these researchers are doing as well, with those sensors embedded in the fabric.
The constraint on the size of flying animals is launch, not flight. Pterosaurs could get bigger than birds because they used quadrupedal launch, meaning they could use their flight muscles during the initial leap.
The bodies of flying creatures are not so materially lighter than those of other animals, as to justify us in considering this difference in weight an essential condition of flight. It is often asserted that the hollow bones of birds facilitate their flight, especially since the hollows are filled with heated air, but it does not require much thought to come to the conclusion that this diminution of weight is barely worth mentioning. Also, we have not been able as yet to prove that the muscle and bone substance, as well as other parts of the bird's body, are specifically light. [...] After a bird is plucked, no one will assert that it is propor tionally lighter than other animals, and our housewives are certainly not under the impression that a pound of bird's flesh, even with the hollow bone included, is more bulky than an equal weight of flesh from another animal. [0]
[0] Otto Lilienthal, Birdflight As the Basis of Aviation, pages 2-3, https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/bga-sg-archive/Books/BIRD...Also engineering a motor that would flap like a colibri for hours without failing will be really hard and uncomfortable by the generated heat burning your back, but a motor that would flap here and there like a vulture for one or two minutes and then rest again would be much more easy to design and maintain. Would need also less weight of combustible.
I do have to say, whenever I see a stork above, or even just a red kite or pelican, I feel envious. Our drones and planes just seem crude in comparison.
To be clear: I'm not talking about flight as a means to get from A to B as quickly as possible. That's the domain of the jet engine, and no bird can match it. I'm talking about flying as a thing you do for the enjoyment of it, as a thing of beauty and wonder. In short, that which inspired humans to dream about flying machines in the first place.
Basically the only thing missing is the functionality for paraglide to become rigid structure on demand and they will be bombproof. There is some initial progress in this regard but its a long way from reality. Endgame would be probably some electrically-induced rigidity via some easy-to-manage remote. Or some smart behavior in between based on whats happening, that would allow easily things not considered possible currently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM9GJ3JOJv0
Then there is, of course, the story of the skycycle, which is rotational.
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/06/13/archives/american-pilot-p...
Both of these machines should be comparable, I think, to rowing versus the ideal of Lillienthal, which is like swimming.
To fly like a bird, you probably need more motion control over the wings than just "up and down". I believe birds can angle their wings, they can curve them, and they can sense differences in air speed and air pressure across the wing's surface. That's why it seems to me that any form of artificial muscle would be a huge step.
Yes, I think you're right. The pilot for the skycycle was blown like a kilometer off course by a strong gust of wind and almost wanted to give up. If he'd had the level of control you talk about, he'd probably have been able to keep going the direction he wanted to in spite of the wind.
It's like the "please pipette some colored fluids for the cameras" of the bio world.
I’ve always suspected building a mech suit for myself was in my future - nice to see that I’m not the only one who had that idea.
If the market is going to sell us AR glasses, a wearable ecosystem could provide battery power and shift weight around (away from your head). This system would provide power for any number of accessories (phone, watch, earbuds, etc).
Waiting for the future version which is a sleeve with integrated carbon fibre muscles you can slip under regular clothing
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-022-00495-3.epdf?shar...