Design of reactionless 3-DOF and 6-DOF parallel manipulators using parallelepiped mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the design of reactionless 3-degree-of-freedom (DOF) and 6-DOF parallel manipulators is presented. At first, the design and dynamic balancing of a novel 3-DOF parallel mechanism referred to as the parallelepiped mechanism are addressed. Two types of actuation schemes of the mechanism are considered, and the two corresponding mechanical structures are designed. The balancing equations are derived by imposing that the center of mass of the mechanism is fixed and that the total angular momentum is constant with respect to a fixed point. Optimization is performed to determine the counterweights and counter-rotations based on the balancing conditions. Numerical examples of reactionless 3-DOF parallelepiped mechanisms are given. The dynamic simulation software ADAMS is used to simulate the motion of the mechanisms and to verify that the mechanisms are reactionless at all times and for arbitrary trajectories. Finally, the 3-DOF parallelepiped mechanisms are used as legs to synthesize reactionless 6-DOF parallel manipulators.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".