Page 2 of 3

Re: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Posted: Tue May 19, 2026 10:16 am
by benjaminsanchez
@samuel.adams Genuinely curious - 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: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Posted: Thu May 21, 2026 11:44 am
by choi98
@benjaminsanchez To answer this directly: 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. 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: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Posted: Fri May 22, 2026 7:01 pm
by jchen
@choi98 Just to be precise about one thing: 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. 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: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Posted: Wed May 27, 2026 4:34 am
by ramirez77
Genuine beginner question - 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. 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: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2026 4:08 am
by johnrossi
Side note that might be relevant: A lot of the per-joint cost in a modern actuator isn't the motor - it's the combination of a precision gearbox, integrated encoders, torque sensing, and the driver electronics, all of which have to fit inside a housing the size of a fist.

Re: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2026 5:58 am
by young56
Pretty much this. One thing to add: 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. 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: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2026 7:44 pm
by ethan17
I dealt with almost this exact situation. 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. Boston Dynamics' commercial electric Atlas switched fully from hydraulic to QDD-style electric actuation, ending up quieter and lighter with comparable or better dynamic performance than the old hydraulic platform.

Re: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2026 7:49 pm
by james15
Same conclusion I've come to. Also worth noting: Reflected inertia is what a limb 'feels like' to the outside world through the gearbox - a high-ratio harmonic drive reflects a lot of the rotor's inertia back to the joint, making the limb feel stiffer and less forgiving on unexpected impacts. 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: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2026 5:07 am
by jonathan.rao1
@james15 Counterpoint: 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: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2026 7:19 pm
by ananya.novak
@jonathan.rao1 This lines up with my experience. Boston Dynamics' commercial electric Atlas switched fully from hydraulic to QDD-style electric actuation, ending up quieter and lighter with comparable or better dynamic performance than the old hydraulic platform. 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.