In the unpowered exoskeleton, the out-of-line forces weren't perfect, and the gas-spring assembly was a little bulky. While there are unpowered solutions to these issues, we wanted to pursue a powered option to see what improvements could be found.
![]()
Initial concept development primarily fell under Joshua Hull, with the arm design remaining mostly unchanged from the unpowered exoskeleton. I provided assistance while figuring out mathematical issues we were having with the Matlab model at the time. As the design progressed, I developed the cover solution, with Josh providing assistance.
Initial concept development primarily fell under Joshua Hull, with the arm design remaining mostly unchanged from the unpowered exoskeleton. I provided assistance while figuring out mathematical issues we were having with the Matlab model at the time. As the design progressed, I developed the cover solution, with Josh providing assistance.
The weights and electrical connections were removed for the aesthetic project photos. While the device was lighter and more compact than the unpowered version, the motor got warmer than expected, melting some of the 3D printed cover. Future iterations would benefit from fins being placed around the motor and a fan to push air over them during use.
While the arm of the device is pretty heavy, this issue is mostly from our manufacturing limitations. With improved cross sections granting much higher moments of inertia, we could reduce the device mass or increase the weight capacity. complex cross sections can already be seen on commercial exoskeletons and camera mounts. However, unlike those devices, improved iterations of our device would not need heavy springs within the four-bar linkages. Future pantograph exoskeleton devices could provide greater lifting capability at lighter weights, simply by applying the manufacturing techniques already used in commercial products, which we were unable to replicate in-lab.
