Wrench capabilities of planar parallel manipulators. Part II: Redundancy and wrench workspace analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY This part of the paper investigates the wrench capabilities of redundantly actuated planar parallel manipulators (PPMs). The wrench capabilities of PPMs are determined by mapping a hypercube from the torque space into a polytope in the wrench space. For redundant PPMs, one actuator output capability constrains the wrench space with a smaller polytope that is contained inside the overall polytope. Performance indices are derived from six study cases. These indices are employed to analyze the wrench workspace for constant orientation of the mobile platform of the non-redundant 3- R RR PPM, and actuation redundant 4- R RR and 3- RR R PPMs, where the underline indicates the actuated joints. A comparison of the results shows that both of the redundantly-actuated PPMs give better wrench capabilities than the non-redundant PPM. However, it is shown that scaled for the operational cost (wrench capabilities divided by total actuation output) the non-redundant 3- R RR PPM provides the highest maximum reachable force, the 3- RR R PPM produces the highest isotropic force, and the 4- R RR yields the highest reachable moment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it