[HN Gopher] Expanding Racks [video]
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Expanding Racks [video]
        
       Author : doctoboggan
       Score  : 121 points
       Date   : 2025-06-12 05:02 UTC (17 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
        
       | downboots wrote:
       | Is there a standard way to formally describe a mechanical
       | machine? Similar to how a .obj file defines a 3d shape? Some
       | standard way of describing piece types, interactions, properties,
       | movement ranges, etc.
       | 
       | Then one could have a computer use the format to learn/find
       | interesting configurations based on a catalog like
       | https://507movements.com/ especially if paired with simulation
       | like done in this Disney research project using gears and
       | linkages https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfznnKUwywQ
        
         | trws wrote:
         | I'm rather hoping there's something better, but various CAD
         | formats support specifying assemblies of objects, and joints
         | between those objects that can represent properties like that.
         | Often this comes with at least some level of simulation, or if
         | not simulation imposed constraints like in the FreeCAD assembly
         | workbench, allowing you to move connected parts in the assembly
         | but only through the range permitted by the "joint". I quote
         | that because that includes things like meshed gears, linear
         | slides, ball joints, all kinds of things like that some of
         | which I would not call joints as such.
        
           | imtringued wrote:
           | Well, the problem is that FreeCAD is in the wrong here, but
           | you are also making mistakes as well.
           | 
           | * The correct term for "slider joint" is "prismatic joint".
           | 
           | * "ball joint" should be "spherical joint" (nit picking, but
           | still)
           | 
           | * "Revolute joint" and "cylindrical joint" are correct
           | 
           | Now comes the list of things which aren't joints and should
           | be called constraints instead:
           | 
           | * Distance Joint
           | 
           | * Parallel Joint
           | 
           | * Perpendicular Joint
           | 
           | * Angle Joint
           | 
           | * Rack and Pinion Joint
           | 
           | * Screw Joint
           | 
           | * Gear Joint
           | 
           | * Belt Joint
           | 
           | Now to your mistakes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with
           | calling revolute, prismatic and spherical joints joints. They
           | are joints, they do what joints do, hence the name joint. The
           | physical interface is your responsibility as the designer.
        
         | zonkerdonker wrote:
         | It's an intriguing idea, but the scope of any such formal
         | definition would essentially be the entire scope of physics,
         | materials science, thermodynamics, etc. For much more bounded
         | problems (like that very fun website you linked) I think
         | something like that would be more attaintable, but still
         | challenging.
         | 
         | Take the example of the differential gearing shown. I doubt
         | there exists any functional differential/mass produced assembly
         | that looks exactly like the example presented. The concept of
         | differential gearing may be able to be broken down into more
         | symbolic representation of forces and motion, but at some point
         | it becomes simplified to the point of impracticality.
        
           | downboots wrote:
           | All models are wrong, some are useful.
           | 
           | Form follows function.
        
         | aa-jv wrote:
         | The movements from your first URL are actually from a 100-year
         | old book, and its chapter on mechanical terminology (which has
         | been oddly stripped for the web page) might be a good start:
         | 
         | https://www.thalia.at/shop/home/artikeldetails/A1032836899
        
         | IIAOPSW wrote:
         | You know, I find myself thinking the same thing sometimes. And
         | the closest I can think of would be some mapping of force
         | transmitted through linkages on to current transmitted through
         | wires and from there its the same formalism as electronic
         | circuits. Though the usefulness of the abstracted form really
         | depends on what you're trying to compute.
        
         | GistNoesis wrote:
         | In robotics the URDF format can be used to specify and simulate
         | rigid-body systems. You can also check various physics engine
         | input file formats like MuJoCo (MJCF format). (It's just some
         | variant of XML).
         | 
         | If you want soft-body dynamics, you can have decompose your
         | objects into particles of different types which interact,
         | (examples are liquidfun or powder toy). (It's just a list of
         | particles and a particle-particle interaction matrix) (More or
         | less base on Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics).
         | 
         | If you want something more serious, you'll have to look at
         | finite-element based multi-physics tools, like Ansys or Comsol,
         | which will allow you to specify the various domains and solve
         | the differential equations on each domains.
         | 
         | If you want to go very small scale you have Molecular Dynamics
         | tools with standards like GROMACS.
         | 
         | If you are more into the topological optimization, you can use
         | neural networks to represent the quantities which are of
         | interest to you and Physically Inspired Neural Networks (PINN),
         | or neural ODE, or "sim-to-real" tools, in which case you'll
         | probably be using pytorch.
         | 
         | Or text if you use WorldSim like LLM tools and only need an
         | abstract representation. Agents playing with CAD software tools
         | will probably standardize some convenient way to solve
         | engineering tasks.
        
       | burnt-resistor wrote:
       | I find telescopic crane boom internals interesting because they
       | can have more than a few sections that all nest within each
       | other. There's an Australian channel CEE that has an ongoing
       | restoration of a Frena crane by disabling some of the sections as
       | unnecessary for practical use because it can place loads way, way
       | into the air (albeit at the expense of capacity and stability).
        
         | Gravityloss wrote:
         | The Stem Boom is another somewhat mind bending mechanical idea.
         | You have a roll that when opened, creates a boom. This can be
         | very small when stored and very long when unfurled. Or two
         | rolls that together form a boom.
         | 
         | https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170003919/downloads/20...
        
           | mitthrowaway2 wrote:
           | A similar mind-bending idea is the helical band actuator:
           | 
           | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helical_band_actuator
           | 
           | https://www.pacospiralift.com/solutions/spiralift-solutions/
        
         | chii wrote:
         | another good video is this channel, which explains exactly how
         | a telescoping boom works in somewhat detail (using a standing
         | desk as an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVTDMO7rlhs
        
       | edweis wrote:
       | Are such racks tech used at an industrial level?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-06-12 23:01 UTC)