<?xml version="1.0"?>
<api>
  <query-continue>
    <allpages gapcontinue="Test2" />
  </query-continue>
  <query>
    <pages>
      <page pageid="106" ns="0" title="Resources">
        <revisions>
          <rev contentformat="text/x-wiki" contentmodel="wikitext" xml:space="preserve">== '''''Technological/Tools:''''' ==

'''KANGAROO PHYSICS'''

Kangaroo is a Live Physics engine for interactive simulation, optimization and form-finding directly within Grasshopper.
*Download at (http://www.food4rhino.com/project/kangaroo?etx)
*Examples at (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X-tW7r7tfC9duICi7XyI9wmPkGQUPIm_8sj7bqMvTXs/edit)
----

'''MILLIPIDE'''

Millipede is a Grasshopper™ component focusing on the analysis and optimization of structures. At the core of this component is a library of very fast structural analysis algorithms for linear elastic systems.

*Download at (http://www.sawapan.eu/)
*Examples at (http://www.sawapan.eu/)
*Video 1 at (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvKPmIwfJ10)

----
'''KARAMBA'''

Karamba is an interactive, parametric finite element program. It lets you analyze the response of 3-dimensional beam and shell structures under arbitrary loads.

*Download at (http://www.food4rhino.com/project/karamba?etx)
*Examples at (http://www.karamba3d.com/category/tutorials/)
----
'''LADYBUG/HONEYBEE'''

Ladybug and Honeybee are two free and open source environmental plugins for Grasshopper to help designers create an environmentally-conscious architectural design.

Ladybug allows you to: import and analyze standard weather data in Grasshopper; draw diagrams like Sun-path, wind-rose, radiation-rose, etc; customize the diagrams in several ways; run radiation analysis, shadow studies, and view analysis. Watch the video on the bottom of the page.

*Download at (http://www.food4rhino.com/project/ladybug-Honeybee?etx)
*Examples at (https://app.box.com/s/npvxmdeukoheqaq5v465)
----
'''PYTHON'''

For designers who want to use the same flexible language everywhere, GhPython is the Python interpreter component for Grasshopper that allows to execute dynamic scripts of any type. Unlike other scripting components, GhPython allows to use the rhinoscriptsyntax to start scripting without needing to be a programmer. Once on-board and with some practice, you can also get the most of external Python and .Net modules and libraries.
*Download at (http://www.food4rhino.com/project/ghpython?etx)
*Examples at (http://www.plethora-project.com/education/2011/09/12/rhino-python-tutorials/)
*Examples at (http://ceco.hyperbody.nl/index.php/WorkshopA:frontpage)
----

== '''''Methodological/Methods:''''' ==

 

== '''''Theoretical/Theory:''''' ==</rev>
        </revisions>
      </page>
      <page pageid="210" ns="0" title="Test">
        <revisions>
          <rev contentformat="text/x-wiki" contentmodel="wikitext" xml:space="preserve">
== '''drive''' ==


The most influential decision for the design of the joint is the way the joint is driven. In this document we argue the different drive and the best suitable on for our design needs.


;Criteria for the drive
:1. Handle high torques/forces (or high speed with a gearbox)
:2. Power/weight ratio
:3. Accurately controllable 
:4. Size 
:5. Sharing energy
:6. Maintaining position
:7. (Degrees of freedom (+/- 180°) (actually possible for every drive))
:8.  Accessible for testing


== '''Drives''' ==


'''•	Mechanical''' 

1.	Powerful or high speed
2.	± 500 W/kg (helicopter engines)
o	Fuel weight
3.	Not accurate
4.	Torque depended
5.	Hard: Fuel line through the tubes
6.	Hard: changeable gearbox?
7.	Accessible (helicopter engines) but expensive
Extra’s:
•	Low efficiency
•	Safety hazard: explosion possibility
•	Weight mainly in joint
•	Emissions, not sustainable


'''•	Hydraulic (to big)'''

1.	Unlimited high forces/speeds
2.	± 800 W/kg (SAI, but very heavy)
o	Fluids weight
3.	Good controllable
o	Not accurate, speed varies
4.	Big (efficient when big)
5.	Hard: Fluid line through the tubes
6.	Hard (almost not possible)
7.	Specially made (expensive)
Extra’s:
•	High efficiency
•	Safety hazard: high pressure fluids



'''•	Pneumatic (low forces, hard to share engery )'''

1.	low forces, high speeds (special gearbox needed)
2.	± 450 W/kg (bosch)
3.	Good controllable, but not constant speeds
4.	Low weight, small
5.	Light tube of air through tube, but length motor and cyclinder can’t be to large!
6.	? I think: easy but pressure drop?
7.	Specially made (expensive, not accessible)
Extra’s:
•	High efficiency
•	No safety problems
•	Noisy


'''•	Electrical'''

1.	High forces/speeds
2.	± 3780 W/kg (himax, lightest (0.45kg))
3.	Good controllable and accurate
4.	Small and depends on needed torque
5.	Easy: wire through tube
6.	Easy (but overheating)
7.	Broadly accessible (cheaper)
Extra’s:
•	All weight in the joint (scaling problems)
•	No Safety when electricity loss
•	Efficient


http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=230452
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-weight_ratio
http://www.rcheliwiki.com/Power_to_weight_ratio
http://www.inmoco.co.uk/electro-mechanical_vs_pneumatic_actuators</rev>
        </revisions>
      </page>
    </pages>
  </query>
</api>