Project Intention

Robot arms are typically equipped with a single tool. This tool, or ‘end-effector’, might be a cutting-tool or range of mechanical grippers for grabbing different types of objects. Despite having been around for a while, robot arms can still be perceived as intimidating objects in a creative context: expensive, heavy and with proprietary industrial software required to interface with them. The tool at the end of the arm is part of this system, but is perhaps the place that an entry can be found most easily for the robot to be creatively hacked. This project explores the design of a modular and reconfigurable robot tool that is easy to build and invites modification.

Invited Designer:
Niklas Hagemann

Project Title:
Hackable robot tools 

Tools:
modular gripper

Medium:
UR10, Arduino, 3d printing

Software:
Arduino

Technique used:
Servo-driven gripper mounted on a modular system

Technical Breakdown
In a first phase, a toolkit was constructed which, based on the idea of Lego Technics, is intended to simplify experiments and offer various possibilities for attachment. Various modules allow linear movements to be created in conjunction with a servo motor and rubber bands. The latest iteration is a 3D printable gripper whose pincer mechanism can be printed in one piece thanks to thin-walled, flexible sectors in the construction. When pressure is applied to the upper end of the gripper, it becomes deformed and therefore grips. The gripper can be moved by means of a servo motor and Arduino. The Arduino is again connected to the robot IOs via relay. An ad-hoc processing script generates the URScript robot code to build Kapla towers of any height.

Niklas is a Swiss designer, engineer and currently a researcher at MIT in Boston. He is interested in exploring the intersections between fabrication technologies, materials and robotics and has previously worked in the UK and Switzerland to develop products, experiences and architectural installations. He holds degrees in mechanical engineering and design from Imperial College London and the Royal College of Art and his work has been featured by Core-77, Creative Applications and Reuters among others. He is interested in developing new creative tools for engaging with robotics in more tangible and explorative ways. He lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States.

Reflexion on the process 
In discussion with Jonas Berthod

What was the idea you originally brought to “A Third Hand”?

I wanted to design a toolkit for a robot.

What steps did you take? 

Beyond making a toolkit for the robot, I was interested in designing tools that could be ‘hackable’ in some way. Not knowing which tools might be the most hackable, I figured I should start by creating a toolkit for myself, so that I could explore a range of options and see what triggered further inspiration. I found a 3D model of a UR-10 arm online and started by designing a circular plate with an array of holes to attach to the tool-flange. The holes quickly evolved into a kind of peg-board, and I was inspired to create something somewhere between LEGO and an optical test-bench you might find in a physics lab.

In what ways does your project benefit from the involvement of a robotic arm, and in what fields do you see potential for artistic exploration?

Robotic arms have been around for a while. Nonetheless this is the first time I am working with one and I think it’s largely because I was never introduced to it as a standard ‘approachable’ shop-tool, like a laser cutter or 3D printer. In general I’ve associated them with precision, factory automation or architectural research/fabrication. I don’t think of them as very approachable or flexible, and this is kind of what inspired this project.

Which parts of the project did not go as planned and how did you adapt?

Working remotely from Boston initially did not work as well as I had hoped - robot arms were busy being used for research and while there were a number of them, they all had a queue of people waiting to use them for papers and last-minute conference videos. I shifted towards focusing on the tool itself. I think it would have helped to work with a robot sooner, to get a clearer sense of the practical limitations of working with the robot (e.g. clashes in toolpaths, the process of setting things up on the teach-pendant with planes and tool-centre points). Experiencing these limitations first-hand at an earlier stage, would likely have helped push the project along at the beginning.

On the other hand, which parts went well, and were you able to push the research further than expected thanks to these favourable outcomes? 

It really helped to work with the robot in person in AATB’s workshop in Zurich. Initial experiments were a bit frustrating, and it made clear to me how hard it can be to work in isolation on a project without knowing the physical reality of using the machine. The second session with the robot after a few weeks of redesign (honing in on a ‘gripper’ as the core tool), was much more successful, as I came with a clearer idea of what was possible with the robot and what I wanted to get out of it.

Which parts of the process brought surprise, delight, joy or unexpected success?

One of the most satisfying parts of the project was when I returned to Boston after spending time with the robot in Zurich over the summer. I was able to set-up the robot myself and program it to follow a tool-path using a Processing script. In the final stages of the project, I redesigned the tool to be closer to the original vision and to explore flexures as a mechanical concept that might allow for easy adjustment and hackability using the peg-board system I had started with. After building a prototype in Boston, I sent the 3D print files off to Switzerland, where the Third Hand team managed to get everything working - seeing a video of the tool working, after sending it digitally over the Atlantic was very satisfying.

How will your project contribute to the potential uses of a robotic arm by designers and artists? How do you hope others will be able to benefit from your research, and what do you hope they will do with it?

It would be great to see the tool get used, modified or expanded by others. Obviously, access to a robot like the UR-5 or UR-10 is still the major hurdle, but perhaps seeing modular open-source end-effector designs can inspire others to pursue explorative creative projects with robots where non-conventional or custom tools play a central part.

Will your involvement in the project have an impact on your own practice? How and why?

I am inspired to keep working on designing technologies that are inherently hackable in some form. I’m also aware of the challenge that no matter how open-source or 3D-printable the end-effector might be, robotic arms themselves are still very expensive clunky machines with proprietary software and interfaces attached, and this is still a major barrier to working with them. The next step is to design cheap and open-source alternatives to the arms themselves.