Page 5 of 5

Re: Anyone compared noise levels across actuator types in a real room?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by emily.walker2
@benjaminsanchez I'd push back on this a bit. 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. Backdrivability is the property that lets an external force move a joint without destroying the gearbox or the motor - it's central to both safe human-robot contact and to letting a leg comply naturally when the robot stumbles.

Re: Anyone compared noise levels across actuator types in a real room?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by karen_kim
This lines up with my experience. 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. 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.

Re: Anyone compared noise levels across actuator types in a real room?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by servobre20
@karen_kim This raises a question for me - 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.

Re: Anyone compared noise levels across actuator types in a real room?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by garcia51
One nitpick - 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.

Re: Anyone compared noise levels across actuator types in a real room?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by brian.campbell
@garcia51 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. 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.

Re: Anyone compared noise levels across actuator types in a real room?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by karen.chen3
One nitpick - 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: Anyone compared noise levels across actuator types in a real room?

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:59 am
by matthew43
@karen.chen3 Small correction on one detail: 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.