On the design of gravity-compensated six-degree-of-freedom parallel mechanisms
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
The design of gravity-compensated six-degree-of-freedom parallel mechanisms-or manipulators-with revolute actuators is studied. Two methods are studied for the static balancing of these mechanisms, namely, using counterweights and using springs. The first method leads to mechanisms with a stationary global center of mass while the second approach leads to mechanisms whose total potential energy (including the elastic potential energy stored in the springs as well as the gravitational potential energy) is constant. In both cases, the resulting mechanisms are fully compensated for gravity, i.e., the actuators do not contribute to supporting the weight of the moving links in any of the configurations of the mechanisms. The position vector of the global center of mass and the total potential energy of the manipulator are first expressed as functions of the position and orientation of the platform. Then, conditions for static balancing are derived from the resulting expressions. Finally, examples are given in order to illustrate the design methodologies.
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) | 0.001 | 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