Table 1.
Comparison between this work and some soft forward jumping robots.
| Soft jumping robots | Energy-storing jumping | Actuation methods | Weight (g) | Jumping distance | Jumping height | Propulsive interval time (s) | Landing stability | Straight line jumping capability | Direction-adjusting capability | Unit cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kovač (2013)7 | Yes | Spring | 14.00 | ≈2.55 BD | ≈3.44 BD | ≥5.00 | Medium | Low | Directional jumping (∞ directions) | High |
| Zhakypov (2019)18 | Yes | SMA | 9.70 | 3.97 BL | 2.50 BH | >24.00 | High | High | No | High |
| Huang (2018)19 | Yes | SMA | 3.00 | ≈2.00 BL | 1.00 BH | ≈3.00 | High | High | No | High |
| Hu (2018)21 | Yes | Magnetic | N/A | ≈1.63 BL | 2.44 BL | >10.00 | Low | Medium | Steered jumping (≈15.0°/s) | N/A |
| Ahn (2019)22 | Yes | Light | N/A | 8.00 BL | 5.00 BH | ≥100.00 | High | High | No | N/A |
| Hu (2017)23 | Yes | Light | N/A | N/A | 5.00 BH | ≈10.56 | High | High | No | N/A |
| Duduta (2020)25 | Yes | DEA | 0.90 | 1.34 BL | 1.16 BL | ≥6.00 | High | High | No | Low |
| Zhao (2019)26 | No | DEA | 6.50 | ≈0.29 BL | <0.25 BH | ≈0.03 | High | High | No | Low |
| Ni (2015)27 | No | Pneumatic | N/A | ≈0.64 BL | ≈0.64 BH | ≥0.75 | High | High | No | High |
| Liu (2020)29 | No | Pneumatic | 0.45 | ≈0.90 BL | ≈0.80 BL | ≥0.28 | High | High | No | Low |
| Tolley (2014)30 | No | Chemical | 510.00 | 7.50 BH | 7.50 BH | ≥0.03 | Low | Low | Directional jumping (3 directions) | High |
| Loepfe (2015)31 | No | Chemical | 2100.00 | 2.78 BD | 1.11 BD | ≈4.50 | Medium | Low | No | High |
| Bartlett (2015)32 | No | Chemical | Tethered: 478.60 | Tethered: N/A | Tethered: 2.35 m | ≥2.45 | High | Low | Directional jumping (3 directions) | High |
| Untethered: 964.60 | Untethered: 0.50 BL | Untethered: 6.00 BH | ||||||||
| Churaman (2011)33 | No | Chemical | 0.314 | ≈21.78 BL | 80 mm | ∞ | Low | Low | No | Low |
| Li (2017)34 | No | Motor | 250.00 | 2.57 BL | 1.00 BH | ≈10.00 | Medium | Low | Steered jumping (≈0.6°/s) | High |
| Mintchev (2018)36 | No | Motor | 37.00 | ≈3.35 BD | 2.86 BD | ≈3.00 | Medium | Low | No | High |
| Wu (2019)37 | No | PVDF | ≈0.06 | ≈0.11 BL | <0.25 BH | <0.01 | High | High | Steered jumping (≈0.8°/s) | Low |
| This work | No | sEHBA | 1.10 | 1.46 BL | 7.68 BH | ≈0.01 | High | High | Single-body: No | Low |
| Dual-body: steered jumping (138.4°/s) |
Notes: BL body length, BH body height, BD body diameter, N/A not available. Landing stability, straight line jumping, and unit cost were evaluated in three (high, medium, and low) levels. The following are the detailed level judgment criteria:
● Landing stability:
(1) High. After the robot lands, it does not roll and does not need artificial/self-righting before the next jumping.
(2) Medium. The robot is capable of self-righting. After landing, it rolls a distance and sometimes needs self-righting based on its posture.
(3) Low. The robot is not capable of self-righting. After landing, it rolls a distance and sometimes needs artificial-righting based on its posture.
● Straight line jumping capability:
(1) High. There is no need for artificial direction adjustment in continuous forward jumping process. Connecting several continuous landing points as a line, it is basically a straight line.
(2) Medium. The robot needs artificial direction adjustment in continuous forward jumping process. Connecting several continuous landing points as a line, it is basically a straight line.
(3) Low. The landing points have some randomness in continuous jumping process. Connecting several continuous landing points as a line, it is a curve.
● Unit cost:
We estimate the unit price based on the main material and component price (from a Chinese e-commerce website) of the robot.
(1) High. The unit price exceeds 10 RMB.
(2) Low. The unit price does bot exceeds 10 RMB.