Page 2 of 3
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2025 1:53 pm
by barbara.jones
@benjaminsanchez Genuinely curious -
Encoder resolution requirements scale with how tightly you need to control low-speed motion - coarse encoders are fine for open-loop swing phases but cause visible stutter during precise placement or fine force control. Torque sensing is frequently integrated directly into the actuator housing via strain gauges near the output flange or spring element, rather than bolted on as an external sensor, to save weight and reduce noise from mechanical slop.
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2025 4:46 pm
by kwilliams
@barbara.jones Slight correction, though the overall point stands:
Series elastic actuators add a spring element in series with the drivetrain, which gives cheap, precise torque sensing (measure spring deflection) and passive shock absorption, at the cost of reduced control bandwidth and added complexity. For dynamic walking and recovery, joint control bandwidth in the tens of Hz range is typically necessary to react to a stumble before the center of mass gets too far outside the support polygon.
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2025 5:40 pm
by emilyperez
This matches what I've seen too.
Quasi-direct drive (QDD) actuators use lower gear ratios (roughly 6:1 to 10:1) paired with high-torque-density motors, trading some peak force density for backdrivability and low reflected inertia, which matters a lot for impact tolerance and fall recovery. It's common for a single humanoid to mix actuator types by joint - harmonic drives or hybrid geared actuators at the hips and shoulders where sustained torque matters most, and lower-ratio QDD-style actuators at ankles and knees where backdrivability and impact tolerance matter more.
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2025 8:29 am
by emilyperez
Yeah, this tracks with what I've read as well.
Harmonic drives use high reduction ratios (often around 100:1), which gives excellent force density, stiffness, and thermal endurance for continuous-duty lifting - the tradeoff is low backdrivability and some backlash.
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2025 8:21 am
by park44
@emilyperez I'll believe the stronger version of that claim when it's independently verified.
Cycloidal drives are a less common but real alternative to harmonic drives - lower cost at high ratios, decent efficiency, but historically bulkier for the same torque density, which is part of why they haven't fully displaced harmonic drives in commercial hips and knees. Encoder resolution requirements scale with how tightly you need to control low-speed motion - coarse encoders are fine for open-loop swing phases but cause visible stutter during precise placement or fine force control.
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2025 11:59 am
by noah_pate
Pretty much this. One thing to add:
Quasi-direct drive (QDD) actuators use lower gear ratios (roughly 6:1 to 10:1) paired with high-torque-density motors, trading some peak force density for backdrivability and low reflected inertia, which matters a lot for impact tolerance and fall recovery.
Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2025 2:53 pm
by chloe_jack
Genuinely curious -
Encoder resolution requirements scale with how tightly you need to control low-speed motion - coarse encoders are fine for open-loop swing phases but cause visible stutter during precise placement or fine force control.
Makes me wonder how this looks in another five years.
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2025 9:56 pm
by benjaminsanchez
Same conclusion I've come to. Also worth noting:
Anti-backlash techniques in production actuators range from mechanical preloading (spring-loaded gear meshes) to purely software compensation that models and corrects for known backlash in the control loop. Motor cogging torque (the 'notchy' feel from magnet-to-slot interactions) shows up as small periodic torque ripple that can translate into visible joint jitter at low speeds - it's usually mitigated with skewed magnets, better current control, or software compensation tables.
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2025 6:51 am
by betty.king
Not sure I fully agree here.
Field-oriented control (FOC) tuning directly affects how smooth torque output feels - poorly tuned current loops show up as audible whine and jerky low-speed motion, while well-tuned FOC can make even a geared actuator feel fairly fluid.
Re: Ballscrew vs rotary actuators for linear joints (ankles, etc)
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2025 5:26 am
by jonathan.rao1
@betty.king I don't think that's quite right, for what it's worth.
Torque sensing is frequently integrated directly into the actuator housing via strain gauges near the output flange or spring element, rather than bolted on as an external sensor, to save weight and reduce noise from mechanical slop.