The split-belt rimless wheel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Split-belt treadmill walking, in which the two belts move at different speeds, reveals a mechanism through which energy can be extracted from the environment. When a person walks with positive step length asymmetry on a split-belt treadmill, the treadmill can perform net positive work on the person. Here we use a split-belt rimless wheel model to explore how people could take advantage of the treadmill. We show that a split-belt rimless wheel can passively walk steadily by capturing energy from the treadmill to overcome collision losses, whereas it loses energy on each step with no way to recover the losses when walking on tied belts. Our simulated split-belt rimless wheel can walk steadily for a variety of leg angle and belt speed combinations, tolerating both speed disturbances and ground height variability. The wheel can even capture enough energy to walk uphill. We also built a physical split-belt rimless wheel robot and demonstrated that it can walk continuously without additional energy input. In comparing the wheel solutions to human split-belt gait, we found that humans do not maximize positive work performed by the treadmill. Other aspects of walking, such as costs associated with swing, balance, and free vertical moments, likely limit people’s ability to benefit from the treadmill. This study uses a simple walking model to characterize the mechanics and energetics of split-belt walking, demonstrating that energy capture through intermittent contact with two belts is possible and providing a simple model framework for understanding human adaptation during split-belt walking.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".