Controller arm for a remotely related slave arm

A segmented controller arm configured and dimensioned to form a miniature kinematic replica of a remotely related slave arm is disclosed. The arm includes: (1) a plurality of joints for affording segments of the arm simultaneous angular displacement about a plurality of pairs of intersecting axes, (2) a plurality of position sensing devices for providing electrical signals indicative of angular displacement imparted to corresponding segments of the controller shaft about the axes, and (3) a control signal circuit for generating control signals to be transmitted to the slave arm. The arm is characterized by a plurality of yokes, each being supported for angular displacement about a pair of orthogonally related axes and counterbalanced against gravitation by a cantilevered mass

Multi-fingered robotic hand

A robotic hand is presented having a plurality of fingers, each having a plurality of joints pivotally connected one to the other. Actuators are connected at one end to an actuating and control mechanism mounted remotely from the hand and at the other end to the joints of the fingers for manipulating the fingers and passing externally of the robot manipulating arm in between the hand and the actuating and control mechanism. The fingers include pulleys to route the actuators within the fingers. Cable tension sensing structure mounted on a portion of the hand are disclosed, as is covering of the tip of each finger with a resilient and pliable friction enhancing surface

Study to design and develop remote manipulator systems

A description is given of part of a continuing effort both to develop models for and to augment the performance of humans controlling remote manipulators. The project plan calls for the performance of several standard tasks with a number of different manipulators, controls, and viewing conditions, using an automated performance measuring system; in addition, the project plan calls for the development of a force-reflecting joystick and supervisory display system

To Have or Have Not: The Limits of Comply-or-Explain Governance in an American Exchange

In 2020, the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (“Nasdaq”) proposed a comply-or-explain governance rule to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), aimed at increasing diversity in companies listed on its exchange. The resulting listing rule—approved by the SEC in 2021—was met with a mixed chorus of cheers and jeers from the public and regulated companies. Missing from that chorus, however, was an analysis of the effectiveness of Nasdaq’s approach in using a flexible, predominantly international comply-or-explain governance model to regulate the companies listed on its exchange. Framed as a disclosure code, Nasdaq’s Listing Rule 5605(f)(2) requires listed companies to either have at least two diverse board members or provide an explanation for why the company has failed to do so. Comply-or-explain governance represents an attempt by regulators to meet the needs of companies while also nudging companies in the direction of a best practice—which in Nasdaq’s case is to have two diverse board members. Widely used in Europe, the governance approach toes the line between mandating compliance and allowing companies to adjust the code to their needs. However, inherent in the flexibility allowed for by comply-or-explain governance comes certain flaws prevalent in international jurisdictions that can result in minimal adoption and consequently minimal change. This Comment assesses Nasdaq’s Listing Rule 5605(f)(2) for its likely impact in boardrooms of the more than 3,000 companies listed on its exchange, highlighting critical gaps that could result in the aspirational code. This Comment then proposes a solution to the Rule to fill the gaps through increased Nasdaq monitoring and publication without overextending the exchange beyond its constitutional or statutory limits