5 ms·

An artificially intelligent, open-source bionic leg

84 points by akeck 7y ago

whymauri 7y ago
Very cool. I think the more open and available this technology is, the quicker we'll be able to optimize and iterate on it. I'm hoping the price of current generation prostheses plummet over the next decade as a result.
DigitalTerminal 7y ago
More than any other field prosthetics MUST be open source. If you do not have full control of your body do you really have control of anything?
thundergolfer 7y ago
I'm the owner of a very dodgy right leg (fibula hemimelia) that will probably only last another 10-20 years. 15-yr-old me dreamed of being able to eventually replace it with something more iRobot than steel-post. Godspeed to these amazing researchers.
debatem1 7y ago
Is there a link to the source? I can't seem to find it from their website or github.
- katsura 7y ago
  I'm guessing this is what you are looking for: http://dephy.com/wiki/flexsea/doku.php?id=sourcecode http://dephy.com/wiki/flexsea/doku.php?id=sourcecode
Pulletwee12549 7y ago
This leg uses advanced AI and Machine Learning algorithms with a cloud Prosthetic as a Service (PaaS) model. Utilizing the latest in state of the art open source blockchain technology, this leg will bring added value while synergizing with your efficiency to optimize your bottom line.
- ptah 7y ago
  it's a win-win-win
- wishrider 7y ago
  The Prosthetic as a Service (PaaS) model uses a pay-as-you-go approach.
  - arkades 7y ago
    I took this comment at face value. It’s only a matter of time.
  - forgone 7y ago
    first 20 miles for free
    - devoply 7y ago
      after that, the fall of man.
- NikolaeVarius 7y ago
  You forget there is an option to run on-prem
  - antisemiotic 7y ago
    Actually, I'd be more interested in one that can run in the cloud...
- welfare 7y ago
  Not enough digital transformation
- ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
  The true cost of a digital currency in the energy required to mine new blocks of currency. By using just a fraction of the energy naturally generated through the movement of the leg while walking, each step could bring you more wealth in STRIDE coin(™). STRIDE - The future is just a step away.
dejaime 7y ago
Transhumanists are coming. As are bionic cyberterrorists. The future is both amazing and scary!
- blacksmith_tb 7y ago
  Hmm, in both cases I think we'd need to have developed an (open-source or proprietary) prosthesis that was superior to the limb it replaces, which seems like it's a ways off still. Then you could imagine people voluntarily replacing their old-fashioned biological limbs; right now the replacement process is a lot less voluntary, and the recipients would be excited just to achieve parity...
justinclift 7y ago
Breakdown of the cost: * Star Prototype (machined parts) ……………….. ~$15.6 k * Dephy (actuators and encoders) ……………….. ~$8.7 k * SDPSI (belts) ……………………………………… ~$0.2 k * McMaster-Carr (bearings, fasteners, etc.) …….. ~$1.6 k * Misumi (shafts) …………………………………… ~$0.1 k * Motion Industries (angular bearings) ………….. ~$0.8 k * Amazon (batteries and case) …………………… ~$0.5 k * K&J (magnets) …………………………………… ~$0.0 k * Shipping charges ……………………………….. ~$0.9 k * Total Cost ……………………………………….. ~$28.5 k The greatest cost (~$15.6k) is for the machined pieces. That seems seriously inflated though. Wonder how much someone with a well calibrated workshop CNC could get that down to...?
- kobayashy 7y ago
  fiberglass comes to my mind.
- robomartin 7y ago
  We have a full CNC shop in house with the latest equipment. I took a quick look at the design. It really isn't optimized to reduce fabrication cost. The CNC work on this leg is substantial and very expensive. It simply isn't designed for low cost manufacturing. I am not being critical, just stating a fact in response to your question. In CNC machining cost reduction can be obtained through the reduction of what's called "setups" (how many sides of a part you have to machine), judicious selection of feature types (some types of cuts require the machine to slow down a bunch, special tooling or both) and fixtures. The last one, fixtures, are custom made tools to hold the raw material and in-progress machined parts for machining. They can make a significant difference in cost. Without them a machinist has to spend a lot of time manually managing what is known as "work-holding" (how you hold the material for machining). Beyond that, it's a matter of volume. If you are only making one set at a time, without tooling and without optimization to reduce CNC machine cycle time and tooling requirements it is going to cost a lot. If, on the other hand, the design is optimized for the process, part counts are reduced, setups are reduced and you pay for palletization tooling (allows you to make more than one part at a time) cost can be reduced substantially. In addition to this if you can reduce or modify the size and shape of the parts such that you can fit, say, ten of them within the working envelope of a machine rather than five, it can make a huge difference in cost. This, again, requires the design of a palletizing fixture. Fixturing and workholding for production of a few parts at a time costs money. Think of it this way: Each part you have to make requires a fixture to be made for every setup. In other words, if you machine from the top, bottom, left and right of an aluminum block and want to design a fixture to hold ten of them at a time, you have to design one fixture for each setup or side you are machining. There are ways to reduce this by working closely with the designers and optimizing for work holding. You can also integrate work-holding such that one pallet can hold the part in different setups. In other words, you hold four parts in setup 1, four in setup 2, four in setup 3 and four in setup 4. A pallet designed like this produces four finished parts per machining cycle. After each run you move the parts to the next setup location. So, the four parts that were being machined from the top are moved to the right one position and clamped onto an area of the fixture designed to hold them for bottom machining. The other parts are similarly moved one position for the next setup and the parts on the last setup slots come out of the machine for finishing (clean, debur, inspect, post-process). If you do the math on this the scope of the manufacturing problem starts to be revealed. If you have ten parts to machine, and each part requires, on average, machining from two sides, you need to design twenty individual holding fixtures. Some can be integrated into a unified multi-setup fixture but the design work isn't any different, in fact, it can be more expensive. If the parts require machining from four sides you need 40 fixtures. Once you are done with mechanical design of the fixtures and setups each one of them requires CNC programming and tool selection. This is a detailed process that requires time, expertise and testing, lots of all of them. In a design like that of this leg the design, fabrication, programming and testing of fixtures can easily cost much more than what the posted cost for machining one set of parts. In short, cost reduction for something like this requires detailed and intense engagement with the manufacturing process, which would lead to design changes necessary in order to reduce manufacturing complexity, machine cycle time, fixture count and complexity, material waste, etc. One way they could have reduced the cost to manufacture these for other people could have been to, for example, pay for manufacturing fixtures to make four to ten of these at a time. Customer #2 would then benefit from this and possibly cut their cost by a substantial amount (25% to 50%). At the limit the cost of machined parts become asymptotic with material cost + hours on the machine + aggregated costs-per-hour for the shop (people, wear and tear, power, etc.). It's an interesting project. If the market is large enough it might make sense for someone to pay for the design and fabrication of the tooling to offer these parts at a lower price. At a larger scale you'd have to design the parts for a casting + machining process, which will make them far less costly. Metal 3D printing might be another option but that's not as cheap as one might think and has its own design requirements.

84 points by akeck 7y ago

Very cool. I think the more open and available this technology is, the quicker we'll be able to optimize and iterate on it. I'm hoping the price of current generation prostheses plummet over the next decade as a result.

DigitalTerminal 7y ago

More than any other field prosthetics MUST be open source. If you do not have full control of your body do you really have control of anything?

thundergolfer 7y ago

I'm the owner of a very dodgy right leg (fibula hemimelia) that will probably only last another 10-20 years. 15-yr-old me dreamed of being able to eventually replace it with something more iRobot than steel-post. Godspeed to these amazing researchers.

debatem1 7y ago

Is there a link to the source? I can't seem to find it from their website or github.

katsura 7y ago
I'm guessing this is what you are looking for: http://dephy.com/wiki/flexsea/doku.php?id=sourcecode http://dephy.com/wiki/flexsea/doku.php?id=sourcecode

Pulletwee12549 7y ago

This leg uses advanced AI and Machine Learning algorithms with a cloud Prosthetic as a Service (PaaS) model. Utilizing the latest in state of the art open source blockchain technology, this leg will bring added value while synergizing with your efficiency to optimize your bottom line.

ptah 7y ago
it's a win-win-win
wishrider 7y ago
The Prosthetic as a Service (PaaS) model uses a pay-as-you-go approach.
- arkades 7y ago
  I took this comment at face value. It’s only a matter of time.
- forgone 7y ago
  first 20 miles for free
  - devoply 7y ago
    after that, the fall of man.
NikolaeVarius 7y ago
You forget there is an option to run on-prem
- antisemiotic 7y ago
  Actually, I'd be more interested in one that can run in the cloud...
welfare 7y ago
Not enough digital transformation
ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
The true cost of a digital currency in the energy required to mine new blocks of currency. By using just a fraction of the energy naturally generated through the movement of the leg while walking, each step could bring you more wealth in STRIDE coin(™). STRIDE - The future is just a step away.

dejaime 7y ago

Transhumanists are coming. As are bionic cyberterrorists. The future is both amazing and scary!

blacksmith_tb 7y ago
Hmm, in both cases I think we'd need to have developed an (open-source or proprietary) prosthesis that was superior to the limb it replaces, which seems like it's a ways off still. Then you could imagine people voluntarily replacing their old-fashioned biological limbs; right now the replacement process is a lot less voluntary, and the recipients would be excited just to achieve parity...

justinclift 7y ago

Breakdown of the cost: * Star Prototype (machined parts) ……………….. ~$15.6 k * Dephy (actuators and encoders) ……………….. ~$8.7 k * SDPSI (belts) ……………………………………… ~$0.2 k * McMaster-Carr (bearings, fasteners, etc.) …….. ~$1.6 k * Misumi (shafts) …………………………………… ~$0.1 k * Motion Industries (angular bearings) ………….. ~$0.8 k * Amazon (batteries and case) …………………… ~$0.5 k * K&J (magnets) …………………………………… ~$0.0 k * Shipping charges ……………………………….. ~$0.9 k * Total Cost ……………………………………….. ~$28.5 k The greatest cost (~$15.6k) is for the machined pieces. That seems seriously inflated though. Wonder how much someone with a well calibrated workshop CNC could get that down to...?

kobayashy 7y ago
fiberglass comes to my mind.
robomartin 7y ago
We have a full CNC shop in house with the latest equipment. I took a quick look at the design. It really isn't optimized to reduce fabrication cost. The CNC work on this leg is substantial and very expensive. It simply isn't designed for low cost manufacturing. I am not being critical, just stating a fact in response to your question. In CNC machining cost reduction can be obtained through the reduction of what's called "setups" (how many sides of a part you have to machine), judicious selection of feature types (some types of cuts require the machine to slow down a bunch, special tooling or both) and fixtures. The last one, fixtures, are custom made tools to hold the raw material and in-progress machined parts for machining. They can make a significant difference in cost. Without them a machinist has to spend a lot of time manually managing what is known as "work-holding" (how you hold the material for machining). Beyond that, it's a matter of volume. If you are only making one set at a time, without tooling and without optimization to reduce CNC machine cycle time and tooling requirements it is going to cost a lot. If, on the other hand, the design is optimized for the process, part counts are reduced, setups are reduced and you pay for palletization tooling (allows you to make more than one part at a time) cost can be reduced substantially. In addition to this if you can reduce or modify the size and shape of the parts such that you can fit, say, ten of them within the working envelope of a machine rather than five, it can make a huge difference in cost. This, again, requires the design of a palletizing fixture. Fixturing and workholding for production of a few parts at a time costs money. Think of it this way: Each part you have to make requires a fixture to be made for every setup. In other words, if you machine from the top, bottom, left and right of an aluminum block and want to design a fixture to hold ten of them at a time, you have to design one fixture for each setup or side you are machining. There are ways to reduce this by working closely with the designers and optimizing for work holding. You can also integrate work-holding such that one pallet can hold the part in different setups. In other words, you hold four parts in setup 1, four in setup 2, four in setup 3 and four in setup 4. A pallet designed like this produces four finished parts per machining cycle. After each run you move the parts to the next setup location. So, the four parts that were being machined from the top are moved to the right one position and clamped onto an area of the fixture designed to hold them for bottom machining. The other parts are similarly moved one position for the next setup and the parts on the last setup slots come out of the machine for finishing (clean, debur, inspect, post-process). If you do the math on this the scope of the manufacturing problem starts to be revealed. If you have ten parts to machine, and each part requires, on average, machining from two sides, you need to design twenty individual holding fixtures. Some can be integrated into a unified multi-setup fixture but the design work isn't any different, in fact, it can be more expensive. If the parts require machining from four sides you need 40 fixtures. Once you are done with mechanical design of the fixtures and setups each one of them requires CNC programming and tool selection. This is a detailed process that requires time, expertise and testing, lots of all of them. In a design like that of this leg the design, fabrication, programming and testing of fixtures can easily cost much more than what the posted cost for machining one set of parts. In short, cost reduction for something like this requires detailed and intense engagement with the manufacturing process, which would lead to design changes necessary in order to reduce manufacturing complexity, machine cycle time, fixture count and complexity, material waste, etc. One way they could have reduced the cost to manufacture these for other people could have been to, for example, pay for manufacturing fixtures to make four to ten of these at a time. Customer #2 would then benefit from this and possibly cut their cost by a substantial amount (25% to 50%). At the limit the cost of machined parts become asymptotic with material cost + hours on the machine + aggregated costs-per-hour for the shop (people, wear and tear, power, etc.). It's an interesting project. If the market is large enough it might make sense for someone to pay for the design and fabrication of the tooling to offer these parts at a lower price. At a larger scale you'd have to design the parts for a casting + machining process, which will make them far less costly. Metal 3D printing might be another option but that's not as cheap as one might think and has its own design requirements.