5 Things to Know Before Buying exoskeleton joint actuator

In winter, my nose gets very cold, very quickly. Whether I’m at home or out on the streets, my nose—unlike any other part of my body—turns icy, spoiling whatever activity I am engaged in. A few weeks ago, after years of suffering, I bought a nose-warmer. Yes, they do exist. Mine is, technically, a purple cup of fleece with a strap: you slide a nose into it, and the snout stays warm. Problem solved—or so I thought. 

With competitive price and timely delivery, ARCSEC DRIVE sincerely hope to be your supplier and partner.

What I had not factored in when buying the nose-warmer were the stares. Just try taking a stroll with a nose-warmer on. Even in blasé London—and even after two years of generalized mask-wearing—people will look at you, make funny faces at you, and, very likely, judge you for donning a fleece on your nose. Now I wear my nose-warmer outdoors only when strictly necessary; I mostly use it in the comfort of my home. Which brings me to the question: If the world cannot cope with nose-warmers, will it ever be ready for exoskeletons?

Hong Kong– and Shenzhen-based company Enhanced Robotics has created the Sportsmate 5. On the surface, it looks like a rather elaborate tool belt. In fact, it is an exoskeleton—a piece of wearable robotics that can boost one’s physical performance—designed for athletes and casually sporty people alike. 

Enhanced Robotic hopes that Sportsmate 5 will become the first consumer exoskeleton ever: Right now, these kinds of machines are either developed with trudging soldiers in mind (Darpa has been funding research on the technology for decades) or used in medical contexts as mobility aids for people who have suffered a spinal cord injury. 

The Sportsmate 5 pitch is quite different: It wants to help you run faster or for longer without getting too tired, and it wants to be an all-inclusive device to spice up your bodyweight workout. The project has so far raised over $119,000 on Kickstarter—breezing over the initial stated goal of $7,500—and, if all goes to plan, the first devices will be shipped in May of next year at a price of $1,458. Take the risk and pay your money now, and this drops to $899. But is it worth the punt? Luckily, Enhanced Robotics sent me a prototype to try. 

Sportsmate 5’s design is pretty straightforward: It’s a plastic girdle—lined with an inflatable airbag to provide a snug fit—fitted with two small motors, or actuators, which sit on the wearer’s hip joints. The actuators, powered by a rechargeable lithium-ion 3,000-mAh/22.2V battery placed at the back of the belt, control two segmented metal rods, which in turn are clasped to a pair of fabric leg straps, to be wound around the thighs. 

The exoskeleton comes in various sizes—I had to provide my measurements for my waist and thigh girth—and, in its final version, it should weigh 2.5 kg and include two shoulder straps. My prototype was a bit heavier (around 3.5 kg) and featured no shoulder kit. 

Enhanced Robotics’ founder and CEO Hanqi Leon Zhu is not just some random Robocop enthusiast: he is an accomplished electromechanical engineer with a successful academic career, and the company says that—besides working with trainers and athletes—it is still partnering “on exoskeleton research” with academics at the University of Michigan and Clemson University. Indeed, Zhu devoted his PhD thesis, presented in at the University of Texas at Dallas, to developing a new kind of cheap, user-friendly medical exoskeleton. 

The way Sportsmate 5 works builds on the ideas Zhu developed in his thesis: unlike most medical exoskeletons, which often force the user’s limbs to move along a specific trajectory, Sportsmate 5 simply provides torque, adding energy to—or resisting—whatever movement the user is already making. The actuators will pull up or push down the metal prongs in a semicircular path, taking the user’s strapped legs along for the ride. When assisting, the unit offers up to 18Nm (13.3lb-ft) of torque. To get more of a workout while exercising, at the flick of a switch the same motors that were previously helping now provide up to 10Nm (7.4lb-ft) of resistance torque, making it harder to move your legs. 

Enhanced Robotics says that the exoskeleton also uses an algorithm to analyse the user’s gait and adjust its assistance accordingly. In other words, the faster your legs move, the more energetically the exoskeleton will be wagging its prongs. 

Sportsmate 5 has two main modes (along with some sub modes of these): outdoor, for running and hiking; and fitness, or “gem” (yes, “gem” not “gym”) as per the label on the button. These different modes are selected through utilitarian, and sometimes hard to locate, control buttons on both sides of the belt. 

Let’s start with the first one. I tested the exoskeleton several times, taking runs around my east London neighborhood. There are some technical wrinkles Enhanced Robotics will want to iron out: the legs straps got looser over time, uncomfortably climbing up my thighs; the battery pack was wobbly and kept falling, so I had to sellotape it in place; even after that, the battery sometimes acted up—despite having undergone a full charge—forcing a turn-off. Also, during an early trial run, due uniquely to my incompetence at properly fastening the belt, I ended up having the whole thing falling off mid-sprint.

But once those snags were dealt with, running with my exo was not unpleasant at all. I mostly used the “assistance” option at the maximum level of four (the “resistance” option is designed to enhance stability on perilous terrains), and I did feel like I was zooming through life—well, through east London—like some kind of augmented cyborg. The experience was smooth, and I never felt like I was lugging around a chunk of metal, which is saying a lot, given that I was lugging around a chunk of metal. 

The question, of course, is whether this thing really helped me run better. To establish that, I timed myself running around a certain block of flats, first au naturel and then wearing the exoskeleton. The difference was not dramatic: it took me 5.14 minutes to complete a lap when aided by Sportsmate, as opposed to 5.22 minutes without wearing it. But what impressed me more was how, when I stopped at the end of the run, Sportsmate was still there, gently nudging me to walk at a leisurely pace, like a sportswear-clad marionette, until I was home. I can see how, on a longer distance (the exoskeleton’s battery life is three hours) or while on a hike, such a device could be the difference between soldiering on and sitting despondently on a boulder. 

That is one of the two reasons why I tend to think that Sportsmate 5’s running mode is better used while roaming the great outdoors rather than jogging in an urban environment; the other reason is what I call the Nose-Warmer Factor. There is no way to run about in an exoskeleton and not feel self-conscious about it: I had kids point their little forefingers at me, non-augmented runners scoff as I whirred past them, and passersby subjecting me to everything from mild disapproval to open mockery. 

We might very well be on the verge of an exoskeleton boom: the sector is nascent, and a recent review of the technology found that the first exoskeleton that did actually improve a user’s walking and running was only built in . But being an early adopter is tough, whether as a nose-warmer pioneer or as an exoskeleton trailblazer. I am not sure I have the confidence to pull it off. (There is  another, separate question on whether using an exoskeleton in assistive mode would detract from the health benefits of exercising, by making it less challenging, or whether, by enabling users to go on for longer, it would end up being a net positive. The jury is still out on that.)

All this is why I think that the indoor fitness mode is the Sportsmate 5’s real boon. When used this way, Enhanced Robotics’s creation is a perfect addition to your home gym equipment. It again has two functionalities: extension and flexion, each most appropriate for different types of exercise. For instance, use extension resistance for squats and you will have to work against the actuators to bend your legs. Switch to flexion for lunges or donkey kicks, and any attempt to swing your legs backwards will be met with an equal and opposite reaction from the exoskeleton. In this mode, simple but effective, Sportsmate 5 is a game changer: what would usually be a relatively boring set of bodyweight routines, becomes a much more challenging—and rewarding—workout while wearing the exo. 

This is particularly relevant right now: over the past few months, people who were still too wary of the coronavirus and its multiple variants to venture to a public indoor fitness center have been wrestling with the conundrum of how to build a decent home gym in a way that both minimizes cost and saves up space. Resistance bands are dodgy and can snap at the most inappropriate times (ask my forearm); dumbbells weighing over five kilograms are so pricey they might as well be gold-plated; a set of weights, let alone a bench, takes up a lot of room, a precious commodity for apartment dwellers. 

In this context, a piece of equipment like Sportsmate 5 is a godsend. While not cheap, it is versatile, portable and compact (if needs be, it can be stashed in a drawer). In this day and age, an exoskeleton might be just what your home gym set-up needs to really work. 

Enhanced Robotics’s device is not perfect, and there are a good few elements that need to be perfected on this prototype for the final production model, but, surprisingly, it delivers on its promises—providing an exciting glimpse of an exo-powered fitness future.

Introduction

Agriculture is a physically demanding way of life. One that requires a farmer to carry heavy loads, maintain awkward positions for prolonged periods of time, and engage in repetitive behavior. The nature of farming means that farmers more likely to experience back injuries, arthritis, and other work-related injuries (Upasani et al. , 1). Unlike other industries, agriculture does not wait for injuries to heal. Regardless of how the farmer feels, feed needs to be moved, cows give birth, and tractors break down. This often can compound hazardous situations for farmers and result in greater injury (Upasani et al. , 1). While the physically demanding and time-sensitive nature of agriculture cannot be avoided, we can make those tasks safer with assistive technology.

Assistive technology is any technology, simple or complex, that helps an individual carry out an activity or task. A prime example is an exoskeleton. An exoskeleton is a wearable device that mimics the structure of the human body to help reduce the strain on the user. Like the exoskeleton of an insect, the device can disperse the weight of the load, reducing the impact on the back and joints, as well as increasing a user’s mobility (Upasani et al. ). While already adopted within other industries, agricultural exoskeletons are in their infancy. The potential benefit of agricultural exoskeletons is undeniable. However, the lack of agriculture-specific exoskeletons and the variety of uses may make purchasing one for the farm a confusing and costly investment. This publication aims to provide a concise breakdown of agricultural exoskeletons.

Passive vs. Active

Exoskeletons fall into two main categories: active and passive. Active and passive refers to the way the exoskeleton bends. A passive device does not need additional energy to assist the user. Rather, a passive exoskeleton uses springs or flexible beams to provide or disperse energy (Toxiri et al. , 239; Olar, Leba, and Risteiu ). An active exoskeleton relies on actuators, a device that operates like a dimmer switch to open or close, and a power source to provide torque, rotational force used to help a person bend in this case, and resistance. The actuators can be hydraulic, pneumatic, electrical, or a combination of them (Olar, Leba, and Risteiu ; Tiboni et al. , 21–26). The differences between the two varieties ensure that an appropriate exoskeleton is available for the user’s needs.

The actuators in an active exoskeleton allow it to assist with heavier loads and allow for a greater range of motion and use (Tiboni et al. , 883–84). In many respects, this makes active exoskeletons more versatile (Toxiri et al. , 239). While the versatility of an active exoskeleton makes it attractive for many situations, the increased areas of support and additional torque also mean that an active exoskeleton is heavier, more costly, and less suitable for some situations. Active exoskeletons may be preferred by a user who lifts heavy loads repeatedly or wants assistance managing involuntary movements such as tremors.

By contrast, a passive exoskeleton will have a smaller maximum load, but the lower profile of the spring system may make it more appropriate for everyday tasks (Toxiri et al. ). While the absence of actuators reduces the range of motion and limits the amount of torque provided, it also reduces the overall weight of the exoskeleton and eliminates the bulky battery and down time for recharging associated with active exoskeleton. A passive exoskeleton is ideal for a user that would like additional support with repetitive actions to avoid injury. 

Agricultural Applications

The variety of tasks a farmer must be able to do makes the agricultural industry unique when designing assistive technology. Farmers must be able to have the strength, flexibility, and dexterity to perform a variety of tasks from feeding livestock, tending to row crops, and doing mechanical repairs or electrical work. The amount of squatting, twisting, and gripping means an assistive technology must target all the areas a farmer needs. While full exoskeletons are available, users may find it more comfortable and convenient to support the areas in most dire need. In a survey conducted by Virginia Tech researchers, the back, knees, and hands were identified as the most in need of support (Upasani et al. ). In the study, 94% of participants said they would use back and knee exoskeletons and 81% said they would use a hand exoskeleton. Shoulder and full-body exoskeletons were not far behind with 75% and 63% respectively (Upasani et al. , 4). 

Back Support

The lower back is a constant area for sore muscles and potential injury. An exoskeleton worn during periods of work reduces the amount of strain the lower back feels. Like a spotter in a gym, back exoskeletons accomplish this by providing additional strength when needed. While bulky, active back exoskeletons are more widely available today, there are more ‘soft’ options being developed. Ideally, these soft passive exoskeletons will be able to be worn under work clothes and provide enough support to avoid injury (Toxiri et al. ). 

For more exoskeleton joint actuatorinformation, please contact us. We will provide professional answers.

While farmers identified shoulder support as a need in the Virginia Tech survey, a device that supports the hand could be paired with further arm or shoulder support. Depending on the user’s needs, the hand support could be passive or active and have a range of mobility specific to different tasks. This subset of exoskeletons can provide additional strength, support, and mobility in the hand.

User Considerations

The decreased risk of injury and the prolonged health of the farmer make an exoskeleton an investment in personal safety and an asset for the farm business. However, most exoskeletons on the market are targeted toward industrial, military, or medical uses. While agricultural-specific exoskeletons are still on the way, the occupational utility of many exoskeletons can still be helpful to farmers. To make sure you get the most out of your investment consider reaching out to AgrAbility for assistance with identifying potential suppliers,potential sources of funding, and the right exoskeleton for your needs. While not a complete list, the following recommendations can help guide your search.

Durability

Farming is a strenuous activity. It takes a toll on the body and will take a toll on the exoskeleton as well. The exoskeleton should be able to keep up with the farmer with minimal downtime. Consider the type of exoskeleton, number of sensors, and manufacturer specifications. Ensure the level of complexity is something you are comfortable with, and the exoskeleton is rated for the type of work you want it to do.

Additionally, the ease of repair should be considered. Does the exoskeleton need to be sent away for repairs or can the owner make repairs? The amount and frequency of downtime needed to recharge batteries, adjust settings, or make repairs to an exoskeleton may vary from model to model. This downtime and maintenance will need to be factored into farmers’ schedules to ensure the exoskeleton is available during the growing season or whenever the farmer will be using it.

Compatibility

The last thing anyone wants is a disruptive device. An exoskeleton should be beneficial without getting in the way of a normal routine. Consider the number of exposed cords, battery packs that jut out, and the added bulk and weight of the exoskeleton. Consider those factors in the context of your farm operation and the activities you generally perform.

Crops like berries or field crops may require more stooping and bending than wheat or corn. Raising cattle may justify powered leg support. The type of tasks, repetition, and frequency shifting between them, may make some exoskeletons more compatible with your work than others. Lastly consider personal safety around your equipment. An exoskeleton with wires or loose fabric may provide potential snags when working with a lot of heavy machinery and could be dangerous around a PTO. The ability to wear the exoskeleton under your clothes may be of help in some of these regards.

Versatility

Unlike many industries, the tasks in agriculture change with the growing season, day to day, or hour to hour. While an exoskeleton can focus on a particular part of the body, the range of motion should be versatile enough to allow you to complete any task you may need. While an active full-body exoskeleton may be excellent for loading haybales, it could be limiting and cumbersome if your livestock needed attention right away. Additionally, it should be comfortable to wear for the duration of the task you need it for.

Consider the range of motion an exoskeleton provides and the design elements for comfort, padding, breathability, etc. These factors can improve the user experience and improve the ability to switch tasks. Compare these considerations to the type of work you need an exoskeleton for and the frequency you’ll need the exoskeleton throughout your day.

Affordability

Exoskeletons, in general, are still a new technology and are just starting to take hold. As such, they can be relatively expensive—anywhere between a few hundred dollars and tens of thousands. The factors that influence the cost are the power source, whether they are active or passive, the range of support, and whether they are for a specific area of the body or support the full body. As technology improves, the cost of exoskeletons is projected to drop, but in the short term, consider reaching out to AgrAbility to help you look for potential funding sources and lessen the cost.

Conclusion

Agricultural exoskeletons are an exciting technology with a bright future. As the technology becomes readily available and specifically designed for agricultural tasks, it has the potential to help farmers avoid injury and recover faster (de Looze et al. ). Until the industry catches up with agricultural demand, you may use the information in this factsheet to narrow your search, but you may also consider consulting with your healthcare provider, an occupational or physical therapist, or staff at AgrAbility Virginia (for Virginians) or the National AgrAbility Project (for those outside of Virginia) for guidance. Knowing what tasks, you encounter frequently and where you feel you need support is a great starting point.

References

Alemi, Mohammad Mehdi, Jack Geissinger, Athulya A. Simon, S. Emily Chang, and Alan T. Asbeck. . “A Passive Exoskeleton Reduces Peak and Mean EMG during Symmetric and Asymmetric Lifting.” Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 47 (August): 25–34. https://doi.org/10./j.jelekin..05.003. 

Fischer, Gregory S., Christopher J. Nycz, Paulo Carvalho, and Tess B. Meier. . “An Active Hand Exoskeleton for Hemiparetic Individuals: The Hand Orthosis with Powered Extension (HOPE) Hand.” WPI. . https://www.wpi.edu/offices/technology-commercialization/catalog/active-hand-exoskeleton-hemiparetic-individuals-hand.

Looze, Michiel P. de, Tim Bosch, Frank Krause, Konrad S. Stadler, and Leonard W. O’Sullivan. . “Exoskeletons for Industrial Application and Their Potential Effects on Physical Work Load.” Ergonomics 59 (5): 671–81. https://doi.org/10./... 

Olar, Marius-Leonard, Monica Leba, and Marius Risteiu. . “Exoskeleton - Wearable Devices. Literature Review.” Edited by M. Lazar, F. Faur, and M. Popescu-Stelea. MATEC Web of Conferences 342: . https://doi.org/10./matecconf/.

Sarac, Mine, Massimiliano Solazzi, and Antonio Frisoli. . “Design Requirements of Generic Hand Exoskeletons and Survey of Hand Exoskeletons for Rehabilitation, Assistive, or Haptic Use.” IEEE Transactions on Haptics 12 (4): 400–413. https://doi.org/10./TOH... 

Tiboni, Monica, Alberto Borboni, Fabien Vérité, Chiara Bregoli, and Cinzia Amici. . “Sensors and Actuation Technologies in Exoskeletons: A Review.” Sensors 22 (3): 884. https://doi.org/10./s.

Toxiri, Stefano, Matthias B. Näf, Maria Lazzaroni, Jorge Fernández, Matteo Sposito, Tommaso Poliero, Luigi Monica, Sara Anastasi, Darwin G. Caldwell, and Jesús Ortiz. . “Back-Support Exoskeletons for Occupational Use: An Overview of Technological Advances and Trends.” IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors 7 (3–4): 237–49. https://doi.org/10./...

Upasani, Satyajit, Roberto Franco, Kim Niewolny, and Divya Srinivasan. . “The Potential for Exoskeletons to Improve Health and Safety in Agriculture—Perspectives from Service Providers.” IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors 7 (3–4): 222–29. https://doi.org/10./... 

Wevolver. . “Clutch Spring Knee Exoskeleton.” Clutch Spring Knee Exoskeleton. . https://www.wevolver.com/specs/clutch.spring.knee.exoskeleton.

Additional Resources 

The following resources provide links to companies that are producing exoskeletons for industrial and medical uses. This is not an endorsement of these products, but they provide more fine details about options that are available.

Chu, Jennifer. . “Movement-Enhancing Exoskeletons May Impair Decision Making.” Institute for Medical Engineering & Science. October 9, . https://imes.mit.edu/movement-enhancing-exoskeletons-may-impair-decision-making/. 

Cyberdyne. . “HAL for Medical Use (Lower Limb Type).” . https://cyberdyne.jp/english/products/LowerLimb_medical.html.

EksoBionics. . “EksoWorks.” Ekso Bionics. January 14, . 

Sarcos Robotics. . “Guardian XO Overview.” Sarcos Robotics. . https://www.sarcos.com/products/guardian-xo-powered-exoskeleton/.

SuitX. . “What Are Industrial/Occupational Exoskeletons.” An Introduction. . https://www.suitx.com/introduction.

Watson, Bree. . “Onyx Exoskeleton: An Inside Look at Lockheed Martin’s Wearable Robot.” Pegasus Magazine. . https://www.ucf.edu/pegasus/power-move-onyx-exoskeleton/. 

Acknowledgements

AgrAbility Virginia is funded by AgrAbility Project, USDA/NIFA Special Project - (-) 

Want more information on rv reducer? Feel free to contact us.