SCU-Hand: Soft Conical Universal Robotic Hand for Scooping Granular Media from Containers of Various Sizes

Cristian C. Beltran-Hernandez; Kazutoshi Tanaka; Masashi Hamaya; Tomoya Takahashi; Yoshitaka Ushiku; Yuki Kuroda

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

SCU-Hand: Soft Conical Universal Robotic Hand for Scooping Granular Media from Containers of Various Sizes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A flexible cone-shaped hand scoops 95% of powder in one pass from containers of many sizes.

desk verdict A genuinely new sheet-morphing end-effector with a clean geometric model and honest experiments, let down only by a thin empirical base and one unquantified trajectory-tolerance assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04162 v1 pith:JVKTTROQ submitted 2025-05-07 cs.RO

Tomoya Takahashi , Cristian C. Beltran-Hernandez , Yuki Kuroda , Kazutoshi Tanaka , Masashi Hamaya , Yoshitaka Ushiku This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords softroboticsscoopinggranularmedialaboratoryautomationdevelopablesurfacereconfigurableend-effectorpowderhandlingcompliantmechanism

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that scooping powdered samples from laboratory containers of different sizes can be done reliably and cheaply with a single soft end-effector, without force sensing or learned control. The hand is a thin flexible sheet that curls into a cone by sliding and overlapping, so its rim can be reconfigured to fit a container. In tests with flour in containers from 67 to 110 mm, a correctly sized cone recovered more than 95 percent of the powder in one scoop; the same hardware with a rigid metal sheet or a commercial silicone ladle recovered roughly 10 to 20 percent less. The point is that geometric compliance, rather than sensing or planning complexity, can carry the task.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the self-overlapping circular sheet that turns into a conical shell. If the sheet has radius $R$ and one edge slides by angle $\theta$, the bottom-circle diameter becomes $d = 2R(1 - \theta/2\pi)$ and the vertex angle is $\phi = \arcsin(d/2R)$, so a single continuous parameter controls fit to the container. The cone is a developable surface, meaning it is reachable from a flat sheet without stretching or gaps; this gives a gap-free concave scoop. Its anisotropic stiffness, high around the hoop direction and low in the direction that presses against the container, lets the rim deform into an ellipse on contact, widening the sealed contact zone without force sensing.

What would settle it

Run the same setup with the container shifted a few millimeters from its nominal position, or perturb the scooping waypoints by small amounts, and measure recovery: if one-shot recovery falls below 95 percent for a shift of, say, 5 mm on the 80 mm container, the claimed tolerance without force feedback is bounded.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single thin sheet, morphed by sliding one edge over itself into a cone, is enough to make one-shot powder scooping work across a wide range of container sizes. The cone's bottom circle can be shrunk continuously from the sheet radius R by a sliding angle, and choosing the diameter relative to the container lets the sheet slide underneath the powder while flexing against the wall to close gaps. Because the structure is a developable surface, it stays gap-free and thin, and because it has anisotropic stiffness, it resists buckling along the scooping direction while yielding in the contact direction. With a polypropylene sheet, the paper reports mean single-scoop recovery above 95 percent for containers of 67, 80, 93, and 110 mm, compared with 71 to 88 percent for a rigid metal sheet of the same geometry and a commercial silicone ladle. The same hardware also recovered 97 to 99 percent of coffee powder and rice from a 110 mm container.

Load-bearing premise

The high scooping percentages rest on the arm staying near a pre-programmed trajectory for each container, and on the manually chosen cone sizes being the right operating points.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a fixed family of spherical containers with diameters from 67 to 110 mm, one SCU-Hand with a polypropylene sheet can be used for all of them by reconfiguring the cone diameter, with no force or vision feedback needed for the scoop itself.
A rigid version of the same cone geometry loses roughly 10 to 20 percentage points of recovery, which pins the performance gain on the sheet's flexibility rather than on the conical shape alone.
The one-shot above-95-percent recovery transfers across granular media with different particle sizes, including flour, coffee powder, and rice, with larger grains reaching near 99 percent.
Because the sheet is the only consumable part, replacing a worn or damaged sheet is a low-cost repair, and swapping sheet materials could target different substances without changing the mechanism.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the tested containers, the same compliance mechanism should tolerate modest container-shape irregularity or misalignment, since contact deformation rather than exact geometry provides the seal; a direct test would be scooping from oval or slightly tilted vessels.
The simple relation between slide angle and bottom-circle diameter gives a feedforward rule: a coarse measurement of container diameter could set the cone angle automatically, so vision-based sizing would only need rough accuracy, though the paper does not test this loop.
The reported sensitivity to trajectory quality suggests a complementary control extension: deliberately pressing the cone at several approach angles could estimate the trajectory-error band that keeps recovery above 95 percent, turning the current qualitative tolerance into a design specification.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The SCU-Hand is a genuinely new piece of hardware—a single flexible sheet rolled into a cone by overlapping its edges, with size set by a sliding angle—and the geometric model (Eq. 1) is correct and parameter-free. The experiments support what they claim: across 67–110 mm containers, the reconfigurable cone scoops over 95% in one pass, and the same geometry in rigid metal and a commercial silicone ladle are 10–20% worse. That is a clean result for a niche problem.

What the paper does well is isolate the mechanism's contributions. The comparison with a rigid sheet of the same shape separates flexibility from shape; the comparison with the ladle gives a realistic baseline. The reported standard deviations are small, and the trend across three granular materials (flour, coffee, rice) is consistent. The fabrication is inexpensive and the design rationale—developable surfaces, anisotropic stiffness—is well argued.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. Ten trials per condition with no significance tests means the differences could be smaller than claimed; the optimal end-effector size is chosen from the same data that later appears in the headline table, which is a mild selection bias. The paper honestly admits in Section VI that the hand must stay within an unquantified error band of the nominal trajectory to avoid spillage; since the whole 'no force sensing' advantage rests on that band, a perturbation or repeatability test would have made the central claim much stronger. There is no CAD or code released, so reproducing the hardware is harder than it needs to be. And the abstract's mention of viscous and fragile materials overreaches—those are never tested.

All of these are addressable with a revision. The mechanism is novel, the math is right, and the experiments are honest. The paper deserves a serious referee. I'd like to see it accepted after adding a few more trials per condition, a proper statistical test, and a measurement of trajectory tolerance. If you work on lab automation or soft end-effectors, you should read it. I'll probably bring it to our next manipulation reading group.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SCU-Hand, a soft conical end-effector for scooping granular media from spherical containers of different sizes, with the goal of enabling laboratory automation without force sensing or learned control. A circular flexible sheet is morphed into a cone by sliding and overlapping, and Section IV derives the relation between the sliding angle and the bottom-circle diameter, d = 2R(1 - theta/(2*pi)). The prototype is driven by a motorized roller mechanism, and experiments measure scooped fraction across container sizes and end-effector diameters (Table II), against a rigid metal-sheet version and a commercial silicone ladle (Table III), and with different granular materials (Table IV). The headline claims are more than 95% scooping for containers from 67 mm to 110 mm and about 20% higher scooping capacity than a commercial tool.

Significance. If the claimed performance holds, the contribution is a simple, low-cost end-effector that addresses a real bottleneck in small-scale laboratory automation. The central geometric relation in Eq. (1) is parameter-free and correctly derived, and the design rationale based on developable surfaces is clearly presented. The comparison against two baselines and the small standard deviations in the experimental tables are strengths. However, the generality of the 'without force sensing' advantage and the 'universal' claim currently rest on an unquantified trajectory-tolerance band and on in-sample selection of the optimal end-effector diameter, so additional experiments or a stated scope limitation are needed before the claims can be taken at face value.

major comments (4)

[V-B, Tables II-III] The experimental evaluation reports only 10 trials per condition and provides no statistical significance tests or confidence intervals. For example, in Table II the 110 mm container yields 95.5% with the 90 mm end-effector versus 86.8% with the 80 mm end-effector, and in Table III the PP sheet outperforms the commercial ladle by roughly 20 percentage points; these differences may be real, but the point estimates alone do not establish them with the precision implied by the abstract. Please report confidence intervals or perform a paired statistical test on the per-trial scooped amounts.
[VI] The discussion acknowledges that the SCU-Hand 'must remain within a certain range of error relative to the optimal trajectory' to prevent spillage, but this tolerance band is never quantified and no perturbation or calibration-repeatability experiments are reported. This is load-bearing for the central claim that flexibility removes the need for force sensing or learning-based control: if the allowable trajectory error is comparable to the arm's repeatability or to container-fixture placement error, the >95% scooping result would not generalize to new container placements. Please either measure the tolerance band or explicitly state the positioning accuracy required by the system.
[V-A1 and Table II] The optimal end-effector diameter for each container is selected from the same experimental data that is then used to report the >95% performance. Because Table II reports the best of three tested diameters per container, the headline numbers are in-sample maxima and may overstate out-of-sample performance. An independent validation set, a pre-specified selection rule, or a cross-validation procedure is needed to support the claimed universal performance.
[IV-B, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) defines the vertex angle as phi = arcsin(d/(2R)), but Table I and the subsequent minimum-diameter calculation use phi = 2*arcsin(d/(2R)). For R = 50 mm and d = 70.7 mm, Eq. (4) as written gives phi = 45 degrees, not the 90 degrees listed in Table I. This inconsistency affects the derivation of the minimum practical diameter and should be corrected, or phi should be explicitly defined as the half-angle of the cone throughout.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'end-efector' in Figure 2, 'end-effecter' in Table II, and inconsistent capitalization such as 'SCU-Hand' and 'SCU-hand'. The manuscript also uses 'scoped' where 'scooped' is intended.
[IV-A] The statement that there are 'only five types of surface that can be deformed from a continuous sheet' is mathematically imprecise; developable surfaces form a broader family (planes, cylinders, cones, and tangent surfaces) rather than exactly five discrete types. Rephrasing would avoid a technically incorrect claim.
[V-A] The description of the arm trajectory is ambiguous: 'among which only those for scooping are fixed in a plane passing through the center of the container' should be clarified, since it is not clear how the non-scooping waypoints are generated or whether the trajectory is tuned per container.
[V-B, Tables II-III] The red color highlighting in Table II is not accessible in grayscale printing and no legend is provided. Consider adding boldface or a separate column to indicate which values exceed 95%.
[VI] The discussion notes that the non-perfectly circular sheet causes asymmetric deformation and a diameter smaller than predicted by Eq. (1), but no quantitative data are given. A brief measurement of the actual diameter versus the predicted diameter would help readers assess the severity of this deviation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SCU-Hand's geometric model is derived from first principles and the performance claims are benchmarked against external rigid and commercial tools.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained geometry. Equation (1), d = 2R(1 - theta/2pi), follows from equating the remaining arc length of the circular sheet to the circumference of the cone's bottom circle, and Eq. (4) is the standard relation for the cone vertex angle; neither equation contains fitted parameters or imports the experimental results. The design choice of a cone over other developable surfaces is justified by the mathematical classification of developable surfaces cited to an external reference [26], not to the authors' own work. The performance claims in Tables II-IV are direct experimental measurements; the optimal end-effector size per container is explicitly stated to have been determined in Experiment 1 and then used in the comparative experiments, so there is no hidden renaming of a fit as a prediction. The self-citations ([6], [24]) are used only to set the prototype's maximum diameter and to survey prior morphing mechanisms; neither is load-bearing for the paper's claims. The acknowledged trajectory-tolerance limitation in Section VI is an external validity or robustness concern, not a circularity: the paper never derives the >95% result from that tolerance. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the geometric model of rolling a circular sheet into a cone (Eqs. 1-4), on the assumption that flexible contact seals powder, and on the tested experimental conditions. No free parameters are fitted, and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

standard math A single circular sheet can be morphed into a cone by sliding and overlapping without stretching or tearing.
Used in Section IV-B to derive Eqs. 1-4 for the cone diameter and vertex angle.
domain assumption Flexible deformation of the cone against the container maintains sufficient contact to prevent powder escape.
Central to the claimed advantage over rigid tools; supported only by the 10-trial experiments, not by a contact model.
domain assumption The container is fixed and the robot follows a pre-defined trajectory for each container, so no force sensing is needed.
The robustness claim depends on the trajectory being within the tolerance band; acknowledged in Section VI.
domain assumption Powder behavior for flour, coffee, and rice can be treated as granular media that is fully swept when the sheet maintains contact.
The >95% scooping claim is empirical for these three materials only and may not extend to other granular or viscous media.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SCU-Hand: Soft Conical Universal Robotic Hand for Scooping Granular Media from Containers of Various Sizes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JVKTTROQ

@misc{pith2026250504162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SCU-Hand: Soft Conical Universal Robotic Hand for Scooping Granular Media from Containers of Various Sizes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JVKTTROQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04162}
}

read the original abstract

Automating small-scale experiments in materials science presents challenges due to the heterogeneous nature of experimental setups. This study introduces the SCU-Hand (Soft Conical Universal Robot Hand), a novel end-effector designed to automate the task of scooping powdered samples from various container sizes using a robotic arm. The SCU-Hand employs a flexible, conical structure that adapts to different container geometries through deformation, maintaining consistent contact without complex force sensing or machine learning-based control methods. Its reconfigurable mechanism allows for size adjustment, enabling efficient scooping from diverse container types. By combining soft robotics principles with a sheet-morphing design, our end-effector achieves high flexibility while retaining the necessary stiffness for effective powder manipulation. We detail the design principles, fabrication process, and experimental validation of the SCU-Hand. Experimental validation showed that the scooping capacity is about 20% higher than that of a commercial tool, with a scooping performance of more than 95% for containers of sizes between 67 mm to 110 mm. This research contributes to laboratory automation by offering a cost-effective, easily implementable solution for automating tasks such as materials synthesis and characterization processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04162 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** (a)-(d) are developable surfaces and can be deformed from a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Different adaptive deformations caused by differences in end [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) Force generated on the cone structure during the scooping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Schematic of relation between sliding angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Experimental setup for scooping tasks. into a deep container. The rollers consist of a combination of a nitrile rubber roller and a free roller made of polyacetal, and the sheet is driven by pinching it with the two rollers ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Human versus robots in the discovery and crystallization of gigantic polyoxometalates,

V . Duros, J. Grizou, W. Xuan, Z. Hosni, D.-L. Long, H. N. Miras, and L. Cronin, “Human versus robots in the discovery and crystallization of gigantic polyoxometalates,” Angewandte Chemie, vol. 129, no. 36, pp. 10 955–10 960, 2017

work page 2017
[2]

Self- driving laboratories for chemistry and materials science,

G. Tom, S. P. Schmid, S. G. Baird, Y . Cao, K. Darvish, H. Hao, S. Lo, S. Pablo-Garc ´ıa, E. M. Rajaonson, M. Skreta et al. , “Self- driving laboratories for chemistry and materials science,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 124, no. 16, pp. 9633–9732, 2024

2024
[3]

Navigating phase diagram complexity to guide robotic inorganic materials synthesis,

J. Chen, S. R. Cross, L. J. Miara, J.-J. Cho, Y . Wang, and W. Sun, “Navigating phase diagram complexity to guide robotic inorganic materials synthesis,” Nature Synthesis, vol. 3, pp. 606–614, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

A mobile robotic chemist,

B. Burger, P. M. Maffettone, V . V . Gusev, C. M. Aitchison, Y . Bai, X. Wang, X. Li, B. M. Alston, B. Li, R. Clowes et al. , “A mobile robotic chemist,” Nature, vol. 583, no. 7815, pp. 237–241, 2020

work page 2020
[5]

Autonomous biomimetic solid dispensing using a dual-arm robotic manipulator,

Y . Jiang, H. Fakhruldeen, G. Pizzuto, L. Longley, A. He, T. Dai, R. Clowes, N. Rankin, and A. I. Cooper, “Autonomous biomimetic solid dispensing using a dual-arm robotic manipulator,” Digital Dis- covery, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 1733–1744, 2023

2023
[6]

Robotic powder grinding with a soft jig for laboratory automation in material science,

Y . Nakajima, M. Hamaya, Y . Suzuki, T. Hawai, F. v. Drigalski, K. Tanaka, Y . Ushiku, and K. Ono, “Robotic powder grinding with a soft jig for laboratory automation in material science,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2022, pp. 2320–2326

work page 2022
[7]

Learning robotic powder weighing from simulation for laboratory automation,

Y . Kadokawa, M. Hamaya, and K. Tanaka, “Learning robotic powder weighing from simulation for laboratory automation,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2023, pp. 2932–2939

work page 2023
[8]

An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials,

N. J. Szymanski, B. Rendy, Y . Fei, R. E. Kumar, T. He, D. Milsted, M. J. McDermott, M. Gallant, E. D. Cubuk, A. Merchant et al. , “An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials,” Nature, vol. 624, no. 7990, pp. 86–91, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 26 references

[9]

Accelerating laboratory automation through robot skill learning for sample scraping,

G. Pizzuto, H. Wang, H. Fakhruldeen, B. Peng, K. S. Luck, and A. I. Cooper, “Accelerating laboratory automation through robot skill learning for sample scraping,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14875, 2022

2022 arXiv
[10]

Universal robotic gripper based on the jamming of granular material,

E. Brown, N. Rodenberg, J. Amend, A. Mozeika, E. Steltz, M. R. Zakin, H. Lipson, and H. M. Jaeger, “Universal robotic gripper based on the jamming of granular material,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 107, no. 44, pp. 18 809–18 814, 2010

2010
[11]

Soft robotic grippers,

J. Shintake, V . Cacucciolo, D. Floreano, and H. Shea, “Soft robotic grippers,” Advanced Materials, vol. 30, no. 29, p. 1707035, 2018

2018
[12]

Learning bi- manual scooping policies for food acquisition,

J. Grannen, Y . Wu, S. Belkhale, and D. Sadigh, “Learning bi- manual scooping policies for food acquisition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14652, 2022

2022 arXiv
[13]

Scone: A food scooping robot learning framework with active perception,

Y .-L. Tai, Y . C. Chiu, Y .-W. Chao, and Y .-T. Chen, “Scone: A food scooping robot learning framework with active perception,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 849–865

2023
[14]

Design and control of soft-rigid grippers for food handling,

V . Bo, L. Franco, E. Turco, M. Pozzi, M. Malvezzi, D. Prattichizzo et al. , “Design and control of soft-rigid grippers for food handling,” in ICRA2024 Workshop on Cooking Robotics: Perception and Motion Planning, 2024

2024
[15]

Pouch motors: Printable soft actuators integrated with computational design,

R. Niiyama, X. Sun, C. Sung, B. An, D. Rus, and S. Kim, “Pouch motors: Printable soft actuators integrated with computational design,” Soft Robotics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 59–70, 2015

2015
[16]

aeroMorph - heat-sealing inflatable shape-change mate- rials for interaction design,

J. Ou, M. Skouras, N. Vlavianos, F. Heibeck, C.-Y . Cheng, J. Peters, and H. Ishii, “aeroMorph - heat-sealing inflatable shape-change mate- rials for interaction design,” in Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . New York, NY , USA: Association for Comput...

2016
[17]

A design method for 3d origami based on rotational sweep,

J. Mitani, “A design method for 3d origami based on rotational sweep,” Computer-Aided Design and Applications , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 69–79, 2009

2009
[18]

A vacuum-driven origami “magic-ball

S. Li, J. J. Stampfli, H. J. Xu, E. Malkin, E. V . Diaz, D. Rus, and R. J. Wood, “A vacuum-driven origami “magic-ball” soft gripper,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2019, pp. 7401–7408

2019
[19]

Kiri-spoon: A soft shape-changing utensil for robot-assisted feeding,

M. N. Keely, H. Nemlekar, and D. P. Losey, “Kiri-spoon: A soft shape-changing utensil for robot-assisted feeding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05784, 2024

2024 arXiv
[20]

Energy mini- mization for self-organized structure formation and actuation,

G. Kofod, W. Wirges, M. Paajanen, and S. Bauer, “Energy mini- mization for self-organized structure formation and actuation,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 90, no. 8, 2007

2007
[21]

Simultaneous 3d forming and patterning method of realizing soft ipmc robots,

K. Kubo, H. Nabae, T. Horiuchi, K. Asaka, G. Endo, and K. Suzumori, “Simultaneous 3d forming and patterning method of realizing soft ipmc robots,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2020, pp. 8815–8822

2020
[22]

Electromechanical coupling and output efficiency of piezoelectric bending actuators,

Q.-M. Wang, X.-H. Du, B. Xu, and L. E. Cross, “Electromechanical coupling and output efficiency of piezoelectric bending actuators,” IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 638–646, 1999

1999
[23]

A loop- shaped flexible mechanism for robotic needle steering,

A. Yamada, S. Naka, N. Nitta, S. Morikawa, and T. Tani, “A loop- shaped flexible mechanism for robotic needle steering,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 648–655, 2017

2017
[24]

Two-sheet type rotary-driven thin bending mechanism realizing high stiffness,

T. Takahashi, M. Watanabe, K. Tadakuma, E. Takane, M. Konyo, and S. Tadokoro, “Two-sheet type rotary-driven thin bending mechanism realizing high stiffness,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 8333–8340, 2021

2021
[25]

Rapid grasping of fabric using bionic soft grippers with elastic instability,

Z. Xiong, Z. Guo, L. Yuan, Y . Su, Y . Liu, and H. Lipson, “Rapid grasping of fabric using bionic soft grippers with elastic instability,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2023, pp. 6449–6455

2023
[26]

Developable surfaces: their history and application,

S. Lawrence, “Developable surfaces: their history and application,” Nexus Network Journal , vol. 13, pp. 701–714, 2011

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Human versus robots in the discovery and crystallization of gigantic polyoxometalates,

V . Duros, J. Grizou, W. Xuan, Z. Hosni, D.-L. Long, H. N. Miras, and L. Cronin, “Human versus robots in the discovery and crystallization of gigantic polyoxometalates,” Angewandte Chemie, vol. 129, no. 36, pp. 10 955–10 960, 2017

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Self- driving laboratories for chemistry and materials science,

G. Tom, S. P. Schmid, S. G. Baird, Y . Cao, K. Darvish, H. Hao, S. Lo, S. Pablo-Garc ´ıa, E. M. Rajaonson, M. Skreta et al. , “Self- driving laboratories for chemistry and materials science,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 124, no. 16, pp. 9633–9732, 2024

2024

[3] [3]

Navigating phase diagram complexity to guide robotic inorganic materials synthesis,

J. Chen, S. R. Cross, L. J. Miara, J.-J. Cho, Y . Wang, and W. Sun, “Navigating phase diagram complexity to guide robotic inorganic materials synthesis,” Nature Synthesis, vol. 3, pp. 606–614, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

A mobile robotic chemist,

B. Burger, P. M. Maffettone, V . V . Gusev, C. M. Aitchison, Y . Bai, X. Wang, X. Li, B. M. Alston, B. Li, R. Clowes et al. , “A mobile robotic chemist,” Nature, vol. 583, no. 7815, pp. 237–241, 2020

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Autonomous biomimetic solid dispensing using a dual-arm robotic manipulator,

Y . Jiang, H. Fakhruldeen, G. Pizzuto, L. Longley, A. He, T. Dai, R. Clowes, N. Rankin, and A. I. Cooper, “Autonomous biomimetic solid dispensing using a dual-arm robotic manipulator,” Digital Dis- covery, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 1733–1744, 2023

2023

[6] [6]

Robotic powder grinding with a soft jig for laboratory automation in material science,

Y . Nakajima, M. Hamaya, Y . Suzuki, T. Hawai, F. v. Drigalski, K. Tanaka, Y . Ushiku, and K. Ono, “Robotic powder grinding with a soft jig for laboratory automation in material science,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2022, pp. 2320–2326

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Learning robotic powder weighing from simulation for laboratory automation,

Y . Kadokawa, M. Hamaya, and K. Tanaka, “Learning robotic powder weighing from simulation for laboratory automation,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2023, pp. 2932–2939

work page 2023

[8] [8]

An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials,

N. J. Szymanski, B. Rendy, Y . Fei, R. E. Kumar, T. He, D. Milsted, M. J. McDermott, M. Gallant, E. D. Cubuk, A. Merchant et al. , “An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials,” Nature, vol. 624, no. 7990, pp. 86–91, 2023

work page 2023