One of my goals with mjbots is to make building dynamic robots more accessible to researchers and enthusiasts everywhere. To make that more of a reality, I’m lowering the prices in a big way on the foundational components of brushless robotic systems, the moteus controller and qdd100 servo.

	Old	New
moteus r4.3 controller	$119	$79
moteus r4.3 devkit	$199	$159
qdd100 beta	$549	$429
qdd100 beta devkit	$599	$469

Don’t worry, if you purchased any of these in the last month, you should be getting a coupon in your email equivalent to the difference.

As I am working to improve the gaits of the mjbots quad A1, one aspect I’ve wanted to tackle for a long time is improving the compliance characteristics of the whole robot. Here’s a small step in that direction.

Existing compliance strategy

The quad A1 uses qdd100 servos for each of its joints. The “qdd” in qdd100 stands for “quasi direct drive”. In a quasi direct drive actuator, a low gearing ratio is used, typically less than 10 to 1, which minimizes the amount of backlash and reflected inertia as observed at the output. Then, high rate electronic control of torque in the servo based on current and position feedback allows for dynamic manipulation of the spring and dampening of the resulting system.

https://shop.mjbots.com is now https://mjbots.com (don’t worry, the old site redirects)! The functionality is largely the same, you can still get your qdd100 actuators or moteus controllers. The biggest differences are 1) it looks slightly nicer, and 2) shipping rates are improved, and international shipping rates drastically so. For instance, DHL “Express” 2 day shipping to some points in Europe is now under $35 USD, whereas previously 2 day shipping was over $300. That is often cheaper than even USPS International Priority – which is typically 2-4 weeks.

Now that I have the qdd100 servo in beta phase, the IMU working at full rate, and the quad A1 is moving around I’m getting closer to actually working to improve the gaits that the machine can execute.  To date, the gaits I have used completely ignore the IMU and only use the feedback from the joints in order to maintain force in 3D.  With tuning and on controlled surfaces this can work well, but if you go outside the happy regime, then it can undergo significant pitch and roll movements during the leg swing phase, which at best results in a janky walk, and at worst results in oscillation or outright instability.

It seems that I’m learning much about PCB design the very hard way.  Back last year I wrote up my discovery of MLCC bias derating.  Now I’ll share some of my experiences with MLCC cracking on the first production moteus controllers.

When I was first putting the production moteus controllers through their test and programming sequence, I observed a failure mode that I had yet to have observe in my career (which admittedly doesn’t include much board manufacturing).  When applying voltage, I got a spark and puff of magic smoke from near one of the DC link capacitors on the left hand side.  In the first batch of 40 I programmed, a full 20% failed in this way, some at 24V, and a few more at a 38V test.  I initially thought the problem might have been an etching issue resulting in voltage breakdown between a via and an internal ground plane, but after examining the results under the microscope and conferring with MacroFab determined the most likely cause was cracking of the MLCCs during PCB depanelization.

Like with the fdcanusb, I built a programming and test fixture for the moteus controllers.  The basic setup is similar to the fdcanusb.  I have a raspberry pi with a touchscreen connected via USB to a number of peripherals.  In this case, there is a STM32 programmer, a fdcanusb, and a label printer.  Here though, unlike with the fdcanusb fixture, I wanted to be able to test the drive stage of the controllers and the encoders too.

This post will be short, because it is just re-implementing the functionality I had in my turrets version 1 and 2, but this time using the raspberry pi as the master controller and two moteus controllers on each gimbal axis.

I have the raspberry pi running the primary control loop at 400Hz.  At each time step it reads the IMU from the pi3 hat, and reads the current state of each servo (although it doesn’t actually use the servo state at the moment).  It then runs a simple PID control loop on each axis, aiming to achieve a desired position and rate, which results in a torque command that is sent to each servo.  Here’s the video proof!

To date, I’ve used the moteus controllers exclusively for joints in dynamic quadrupedal robots.  However, they are a relatively general purpose controller when you need something that is compact with an integrated magnetic encoder.  For the v3 of my Mech Warfare turret I’m using the moteus controllers in a slightly new configuration, with a gimbal motor, one for each of the pitch and yaw axes.

Gimbal motor theory and current sensing

From an electrical perspective, gimbal motors are not that all that different from regularly wound brushless outrunners.  The primary difference being that they are wound with a much higher winding resistance.  That enables them to be driven with a much lower current, at the expense of a lower maximum angular velocity.  In this case, I’m using the GM3506 from iFlight which has a winding resistance of 6 ohms, that results in working currents being on the order of 2A maximum.

Another of the tasks I’ve set for myself with regards to future Mech Warfare competitions is redesigning the turret.  The previous turret I built had some novel technical features, such as active inertial gimbal stabilization and automatic optical target tracking, however it had some problems too.  The biggest one for my purposes now, was that it still used the old RS485 based protocol and not the new CAN-FD based one.  Second, the turret had some dynamic stability and rigidity issues.  The magazine consisted of an aluminum tube sticking out of the top which made the entire thing very top heavy.  The 3d printed fork is the same I one I had made at Shapeways 5 years ago.  It is amazingly flexible in the lateral direction, which results in a lot of undesired oscillation if the base platform isn’t perfectly stable.  I’ve learned a lot about 3d printing and mechanical design in the meantime (but of course still have a seemingly infinite amount more to learn!) and think I can do better.  Finally, cable management between the top and bottom was always challenging.  You want to have a large range of motion, but keeping power and data flowing between the two rotating sections was never easy.

Developing the moteus brushless servo controller has been a very long journey, and while it isn’t over yet I have a reached a significant milestone.  The first batch of production moteus controllers are now available for general purchase at mjbots.com and shipment worldwide for $119 USD each!

I’ll repeat some of the specifications here:

• 3 phase brushless FOC control
• 170 MHz 32bit STM32G4 microprocessor
• Voltage: 12-34V
• Peak phase current: 60A
• Dimensions: 46x53mm - CAD drawing in github
• Mass: 14.2g
• Communications: 5Mbps CAN-FD
• Control rate: 40kHz
• Open source firmware: https://github.com/mjbots/moteus

Simultaneously, I’ve got development kits available that give you everything you need to start developing software for the moteus controller out of the box: moteus r4.3 developer kit