This is a sponsored article brought to you by Freudenberg Sealing Technologies. The increasing deployment of collaborative robots (cobots) in outdoor environments presents significant engineering challenges, requiring highly advanced sealing solutions to ensure reliability and durability. Unlike industrial robots that operate in controlled indoor environments, outdoor cobots are exposed to extreme weather conditions that can compromise their mechanical integrity. Maintenance robots used in servicing wind turbines, for example, must endure intense temperature fluctuations, high humidity, prolonged UV radiation exposure, and powerful wind loads. Similarly, agricultural robots operate in harsh conditions where they are continuously exposed to abrasive dust, chemically aggressive fertilizers and pesticides, and mechanical stresses from rough terrains. To ensure these robotic systems maintain long-term functionality, sealing solutions must offer effective protection against environmental ingress, mechanical wear, corrosion, and chemical degradation. Outdoor robots must perform flawlessly in temperature ranges spanning from scorching heat to freezing cold while withstanding constant exposure to moisture, lubricants, solvents, and other contaminants. In addition, sealing systems must be resilient to continuous vibrations and mechanical shocks, which are inherent to robotic motion and can accelerate material fatigue over time. Comprehensive Technical Requirements for Robotic Sealing Solutions The development of sealing solutions for outdoor robotics demands an intricate balance of durability, flexibility, and resistance to wear. Robotic joints, particularly those in high-mobility systems, experience multidirectional movements within confined installation spaces, making the selection of appropriate sealing materials and geometries crucial. Traditional elastomeric O-rings, widely used in industrial applications, often fail under such extreme conditions. Exposure to high temperatures can cause thermal degradation, while continuous mechanical stress accelerates fatigue, leading to early seal failure. Chemical incompatibility with lubricants, fuels, and cleaning agents further contributes to material degradation, shortening operational lifespans. Friction-related wear is another critical concern, especially in robotic joints that operate at high speeds. Excessive friction not only generates heat but can also affect movement precision. In collaborative robotics, where robots work alongside humans, such inefficiencies pose safety risks by delaying response times and reducing motion accuracy. Additionally, prolonged exposure to UV radiation can cause conventional sealing materials to become brittle and crack, further compromising their performance. Advanced IPSR Technology: Tailored for Cobots To address these demanding conditions, Freudenberg Sealing Technologies has developed a specialized sealing solution: Ingress Protection Seals for Robots (IPSR). Unlike conventional seals that rely on metallic springs for mechanical support, the IPSR design features an innovative Z-shaped geometry that dynamically adapts to the axial and radial movements typical in robotic joints. Numerous seals are required in cobots and these are exposed to high speeds and forces.Freudenberg Sealing Technologies This unique structural design distributes mechanical loads more efficiently, significantly reducing friction and wear over time. While traditional spring-supported seals tend to degrade due to mechanical fatigue, the IPSR configuration eliminates this limitation, ensuring long-lasting performance. Additionally, the optimized contact pressure reduces frictional forces in robotic joints, thereby minimizing heat generation and extending component lifespans. This results in lower maintenance requirements, a crucial factor in applications where downtime can lead to significant operational disruptions. Optimized Through Advanced Simulation Techniques The development of IPSR technology relied extensively on Finite Element Analysis (FEA) simulations to optimize seal geometries, material selection, and surface textures before physical prototyping. These advanced computational techniques allowed engineers to predict and enhance seal behavior under real-world operational conditions. FEA simulations focused on key performance factors such as frictional forces, contact pressure distribution, deformation under load, and long-term fatigue resistance. By iteratively refining the design based on simulation data, Freudenberg engineers were able to develop a sealing solution that balances minimal friction with maximum durability. Furthermore, these simulations provided insights into how IPSR seals would perform under extreme conditions, including exposure to humidity, rapid temperature changes, and prolonged mechanical stress. This predictive approach enabled early detection of potential failure points, allowing for targeted improvements before mass production. By reducing the need for extensive physical testing, Freudenberg was able to accelerate the development cycle while ensuring high-performance reliability. Material Innovations: Superior Resistance and Longevity The effectiveness of a sealing solution is largely determined by its material composition. Freudenberg utilizes advanced elastomeric compounds, including Fluoroprene XP and EPDM, both selected for their exceptional chemical resistance, mechanical strength, and thermal stability. Fluoroprene XP, in particular, offers superior resistance to aggressive chemicals, including solvents, lubricants, fuels, and industrial cleaning agents. Additionally, its resilience against ozone and UV radiation makes it an ideal choice for outdoor applications where continuous exposure to sunlight could otherwise lead to material degradation. EPDM, on the other hand, provides outstanding flexibility at low temperatures and excellent aging resistance, making it suitable for applications that require long-term durability under fluctuating environmental conditions. To further enhance performance, Freudenberg applies specialized solid-film lubricant coatings to IPSR seals. These coatings significantly reduce friction and eliminate stick-slip effects, ensuring smooth robotic motion and precise movement control. This friction management not only improves energy efficiency but also enhances the overall responsiveness of robotic systems, an essential factor in high-precision automation. Extensive Validation Through Real-World Testing While advanced simulations provide critical insights into seal behavior, empirical testing remains essential for validating real-world performance. Freudenberg subjected IPSR seals to rigorous durability tests, including prolonged exposure to moisture, dust, temperature cycling, chemical immersion, and mechanical vibration. Throughout these tests, IPSR seals consistently achieved IP65 certification, demonstrating their ability to effectively prevent environmental contaminants from compromising robotic components. Real-world deployment in maintenance robotics for wind turbines and agricultural automation further confirmed their reliability, with extensive wear analysis showing significantly extended operational lifetimes compared to traditional sealing technologies. Safety Through Advanced Friction Management In collaborative robotics, sealing performance plays a direct role in operational safety. Excessive friction in robotic joints can delay emergency-stop responses and reduce motion precision, posing potential hazards in human-robot interaction. By incorporating low-friction coatings and optimized sealing geometries, Freudenberg ensures that robotic systems respond rapidly and accurately, enhancing workplace safety and efficiency. Tailored Sealing Solutions for Various Robotic Systems Freudenberg Sealing Technologies provides customized sealing solutions across a wide range of robotic applications, ensuring optimal performance in diverse environments. Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs) operate in industrial settings where they are exposed to abrasive contaminants, mechanical vibrations, and chemical exposure. Freudenberg employs reinforced PTFE composites to enhance durability and protect internal components. Delta robots can perform complex movements at high speed. This requires seals that meet the high dynamic and acceleration requirements.Freudenberg Sealing Technologies Delta robots, commonly used in food processing, pharmaceuticals, and precision electronics, require FDA-compliant materials that withstand rigorous cleaning procedures such as Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) and Sterilization-In-Place (SIP). Freudenberg utilizes advanced fluoropolymers that maintain structural integrity under aggressive sanitation processes. Seals for Scara robots must have high chemical resistance, compressive strength and thermal resistance to function reliably in a variety of industrial environments.Freudenberg Sealing Technologies SCARA robots benefit from Freudenberg’s Modular Plastic Sealing Concept (MPSC), which integrates sealing, bearing support, and vibration damping within a compact, lightweight design. This innovation optimizes robot weight distribution and extends component service life. Six-axis robots used in automotive, aerospace, and electronics manufacturing require sealing solutions capable of withstanding high-speed operations, mechanical stress, and chemical exposure. Freudenberg’s Premium Sine Seal (PSS), featuring reinforced PTFE liners and specialized elastomer compounds, ensures maximum durability and minimal friction losses. Continuous Innovation for Future Robotic Applications Freudenberg Sealing Technologies remains at the forefront of innovation, continuously developing new materials, sealing designs, and validation methods to address evolving challenges in robotics. Through strategic customer collaborations, cutting-edge material science, and state-of-the-art simulation technologies, Freudenberg ensures that its sealing solutions provide unparalleled reliability, efficiency, and safety across all robotic platforms.

hot combs—they all obviously benefited from the jolt of electrification. But the eraser? What was so problematic about the humble eraser that it needed electrifying? 1935 patent application for an apparatus for erasing, “Hand held rubbers are clumsy and cover a greater area than may be required.” Aye, there’s the rub, as it were. Lukowski’s cone-tipped electric eraser, he argued, could better handle the fine detail. Consider the careful technique Roscoe C. Sloane and John M. Montz suggest in their 1930 book Elements of Topographic Drawing. To make a correction to a map, these civil engineering professors at Ohio State University recommend the following steps: With a smooth, sharp knife pick the ink from the paper. This can be done without marring the surface. Place a hard, smooth surface, such as a [drafting] triangle, under the erasure before rubbing starts. When practically all the ink has been removed with the knife, rub with a pencil eraser. Erasing was not for the faint of heart! A Brief History of the Eraser Where did the eraser get its start? The British scientist Joseph Priestley is celebrated for his discovery of oxygen and not at all celebrated for his discovery of the eraser. Around 1766, while working on The History and Present State of Electricity, he found himself having to draw his own illustrations. First, though, he had to learn to draw, and because any new artist naturally makes mistakes, he also needed to erase. In 1766 or thereabouts, Joseph Priestley discovered the erasing properties of natural rubber.Alamy Alas, there weren’t a lot of great options for erasing at the time. For items drawn in ink, he could use a knife to scrape away errors; pumice or other rough stones could also be used to abrade the page and remove the ink. To erase pencil, the customary approach was to use a piece of bread or bread crumbs to gently grind the graphite off the page. All of the methods were problematic. Without extreme care, it was easy to damage the paper. Using bread was also messy, and as the writer and artist John Ruskin allegedly said, a waste of perfectly good bread. Priestley may have discovered this attribute of rubber, but Edward Nairne, an inventor, optician, and scientific-instrument maker, marketed it for sale. For three shillings (about one day’s wages for a skilled tradesman), you could purchase a half-inch (1.27-cm) cube of the material. Priestley acknowledged Nairne in the preface of his 1770 tutorial on how to draw, A Familiar Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Perspective, noting that caoutchouc was “excellently adapted to the purpose of wiping from paper the marks of a black-lead-pencil.” By the late 1770s, cubes of caoutchouc were generally known as rubbers or lead-eaters. What was so problematic about the humble eraser that it needed electrifying? Luckily, there were lots of other people looking for ways to improve natural rubber, and in 1839 Charles Goodyear developed the vulcanization process. By adding sulfur to natural rubber and then heating it, Goodyear discovered how to stabilize rubber in a firm state, what we would call today the thermosetting of polymers. In 1844 Goodyear patented a process to create rubber fabric. He went on to make rubber shoes and other products. (The tire company that bears his name was founded by the brothers Charles and Frank Seiberling several decades later.) Goodyear unfortunately died penniless, but we did get a better eraser out of his discovery. Who Really Invented the Electric Eraser? Albert Dremel, who opened his eponymous company in 1932, often gets credit for the invention of the electric eraser, but if that’s true, I can find no definitive proof. Out of more than 50 U.S. patents held by Dremel, none are for an electric eraser. In fact, other inventors may have a better claim, such as Homer G. Coy, who filed a patent for an electrified automatic eraser in 1927, or Ola S. Pugerud, who filed a patent for a rotatable electric eraser in 1906. The Dremel Moto-Tool, introduced in 1935, came with an array of swappable bits. One version could be used as an electric eraser.Dremel In 1935 Dremel did come out with the Moto-Tool, the world’s first handheld, high-speed rotary tool that had interchangeable bits for sanding, engraving, burnishing, and sharpening. One version of the Moto-Tool was sold as an electric eraser, although it was held more like a hammer than a pencil. Introduction to Cataloging and the Classification of Books. She described a flat, round rubber eraser mounted on a motor-driven instrument similar to a dentist’s drill. The eraser could remove typewriting and print from catalog cards without leaving a rough appearance. By 1937, discussions of electric erasers were part of the library science curriculum at Columbia University. Electric erasers had gone mainstream. To erase pencil, the customary approach was to use a piece of bread to gently grind the graphite off the page. In 1930, the Charles Bruning Co.’s general catalog had six pages of erasers and accessories, with two pages devoted to the company’s electric erasing machine. Bruning, which specialized in engineering, drafting, and surveying supplies, also offered a variety of nonelectrified eraser products, including steel erasers (also known as desk knives), eraser shields (used to isolate the area to be erased), and a chisel-shaped eraser to put on the end of a pencil. Loren Specialty Manufacturing Co. arrived late to the electric eraser game, introducing its first such product in 1953. Held in the hand like a pen or pencil, the Presto electric eraser would vibrate to abrade a small area in need of correction. The company spun off the Presto brand in 1962, about the time the Presto Model 80 [shown at top] was produced. This particular unit was used by officer workers at the New York Life Insurance Co. and is now housed at the Smithsonian’s Cooper Hewitt. The Creativity of the Eraser When I was growing up, my dad kept an electric eraser next to his drafting table. I loved playing with it, but it wasn’t until I began researching this article that I realized I had been using it all wrong. The pros know you’re supposed to shape the cylindrical rubber into a point in order to erase fine lines. Darrel Tank, who specializes in pencil drawings. I watched several of his surprisingly fascinating videos comparing various models of electric erasers. Seeing Tank use his favorite electric eraser to create texture on clothing or movement in hair made me realize that drawing is not just an additive process. Sometimes it is what’s removed that makes the difference. - YouTube Susan Piedmont-Palladino, an architect and professor at Virginia Tech’s Washington-Alexandria Architecture Center, has also thought a lot about erasing. She curated the exhibit “Tools of the Imagination: Drawing Tools and Technologies from the Eighteenth Century to the Present” at the National Building Museum in 2005 and authored the companion book of the same title. Piedmont-Palladino describes architectural design as a long process of doing, undoing, and redoing, deciding which ideas can stay and which must go. Of course, the pencil, the eraser (electric or not), and the computer are all just tools for transmitting and visualizing ideas. The tools of any age reflect society in ways that aren’t always clear until new tools come to replace them. Both the pencil and the eraser had to be invented, and it is up to historians to make sure they aren’t forgotten. Part of a continuing series looking at historical artifacts that embrace the boundless potential of technology. An abridged version of this article appears in the April 2025 print issue as “When Electrification Came for the Eraser.” References The electric eraser, more than any object I have researched for Past Forward, has the most incorrect information about its history on the Internet—wrong names, bad dates, inaccurate assertions—which get repeated over and over again as fact. It’s a great reminder of the need to go back to original sources. As always, I enjoyed digging through patents to trace the history of invention and innovation in electric erasers. Other primary sources I consulted include Margaret Mann’s Introduction to Cataloging and the Classification of Books, a syllabus to Columbia University’s 1937 course on Library Service 201, and the Charles Bruning Co.’s 1930 catalog. Although Henry Petroski’s The Pencil: A History of Design and Circumstance only has a little bit of information on the history of erasers, it’s a great read about the implement that does the writing that needs to be erased.

Your weekly selection of awesome robot videos Video Friday is your weekly selection of awesome robotics videos, collected by your friends at IEEE Spectrum robotics. We also post a weekly calendar of upcoming robotics events for the next few months. Please send us your events for inclusion. RoboSoft 2025: 23–26 April 2025, LAUSANNE, SWITZERLAND ICUAS 2025: 14–17 May 2025, CHARLOTTE, NC ICRA 2025: 19–23 May 2025, ATLANTA, GA London Humanoids Summit: 29–30 May 2025, LONDON IEEE RCAR 2025: 1–6 June 2025, TOYAMA, JAPAN 2025 Energy Drone & Robotics Summit: 16–18 June 2025, HOUSTON, TX RSS 2025: 21–25 June 2025, LOS ANGELES ETH Robotics Summer School: 21–27 June 2025, GENEVA IAS 2025: 30 June–4 July 2025, GENOA, ITALY ICRES 2025: 3–4 July 2025, PORTO, PORTUGAL IEEE World Haptics: 8–11 July 2025, SUWON, KOREA IFAC Symposium on Robotics: 15–18 July 2025, PARIS RoboCup 2025: 15–21 July 2025, BAHIA, BRAZIL RO-MAN 2025: 25–29 August 2025, EINDHOVEN, NETHERLANDS Enjoy today’s videos! This robot can walk, without electronics, and only with the addition of a cartridge of compressed gas, right off the 3D-printer. It can also be printed in one go, from one material. Researchers from the University of California San Diego and BASF, describe how they developed the robot in an advanced online publication in the journal Advanced Intelligent Systems. They used the simplest technology available: a desktop 3D-printer and an off-the-shelf printing material. This design approach is not only robust, it is also cheap—each robot costs about $20 to manufacture. And details! [ Paper ] via [ University of California San Diego ] Why do you want a humanoid robot to walk like a human? So that it doesn’t look weird, I guess, but it’s hard to imagine that a system that doesn’t have the same arrangement of joints and muscles that we do will move optimally by just trying to mimic us. [ Figure ] I don’t know how it manages it, but this little soft robotic worm somehow moves with an incredible amount of personality. Soft actuators are critical for enabling soft robots, medical devices, and haptic systems. Many soft actuators, however, require power to hold a configuration and rely on hard circuitry for control, limiting their potential applications. In this work, the first soft electromagnetic system is demonstrated for externally-controlled bistable actuation or self-regulated astable oscillation. [ Paper ] via [ Georgia Tech ] Thanks, Ellen! A 180-degree pelvis rotation would put the “break” in “breakdancing” if this were a human doing it. [ Boston Dynamics ] My colleagues were impressed by this cooking robot, but that may be because journalists are always impressed by free food. [ Posha ] This is our latest work about a hybrid aerial-terrestrial quadruped robot called SPIDAR, which shows unique and complex locomotion styles in both aerial and terrestrial domains including thrust-assisted crawling motion. This work has been presented in the International Symposium of Robotics Research (ISRR) 2024. [ Paper ] via [ Dragon Lab ] Thanks, Moju! This fresh, newly captured video from Unitree’s testing grounds showcases the breakneck speed of humanoid intelligence advancement. Every day brings something thrilling! [ Unitree ] There should be more robots that you can ride around on. [ AgileX Robotics ] There should be more robots that wear hats at work. [ Ugo ] iRobot, who pioneered giant docks for robot vacuums, is now moving away from giant docks for robot vacuums. [ iRobot ] There’s a famous experiment where if you put a dead fish in current, it starts swimming, just because of its biomechanical design. Somehow, you can do the same thing with an unactuated quadruped robot on a treadmill. [ Delft University of Technology ] Mush! Narrowly! [ Hybrid Robotics ] It’s freaking me out a little bit that this couple is apparently wandering around a huge mall that is populated only by robots and zero other humans. [ MagicLab ] I’m trying, I really am, but the yellow is just not working for me. [ Kepler ] By having Stretch take on the physically demanding task of unloading trailers stacked floor to ceiling with boxes, Gap Inc has reduced injuries, lowered turnover, and watched employees get excited about automation intended to keep them safe. [ Boston Dynamics ] Since arriving at Mars in 2012, NASA’s Curiosity rover has been ingesting samples of Martian rock, soil, and air to better understand the past and present habitability of the Red Planet. Of particular interest to its search are organic molecules: the building blocks of life. Now, Curiosity’s onboard chemistry lab has detected long-chain hydrocarbons in a mudstone called “Cumberland,” the largest organics yet discovered on Mars. [ NASA ] This University of Toronto Robotics Institute Seminar is from Sergey Levine at UC Berkeley, on Robotics Foundation Models. General-purpose pretrained models have transformed natural language processing, computer vision, and other fields. In principle, such approaches should be ideal in robotics: since gathering large amounts of data for any given robotic platform and application is likely to be difficult, general pretrained models that provide broad capabilities present an ideal recipe to enable robotic learning at scale for real-world applications. From the perspective of general AI research, such approaches also offer a promising and intriguing approach to some of the grandest AI challenges: if large-scale training on embodied experience can provide diverse physical capabilities, this would shed light not only on the practical questions around designing broadly capable robots, but the foundations of situated problem-solving, physical understanding, and decision making. However, realizing this potential requires handling a number of challenging obstacles. What data shall we use to train robotic foundation models? What will be the training objective? How should alignment or post-training be done? In this talk, I will discuss how we can approach some of these challenges. [ University of Toronto ]

Video Friday is your weekly selection of awesome robotics videos, collected by your friends at IEEE Spectrum robotics. We also post a weekly calendar of upcoming robotics events for the next few months. Please send us your events for inclusion. European Robotics Forum: 25–27 March 2025, STUTTGART, GERMANY RoboSoft 2025: 23–26 April 2025, LAUSANNE, SWITZERLAND ICUAS 2025: 14–17 May 2025, CHARLOTTE, NC ICRA 2025: 19–23 May 2025, ATLANTA, GA London Humanoids Summit: 29–30 May 2025, LONDON IEEE RCAR 2025: 1–6 June 2025, TOYAMA, JAPAN 2025 Energy Drone & Robotics Summit: 16–18 June 2025, HOUSTON, TX RSS 2025: 21–25 June 2025, LOS ANGELES ETH Robotics Summer School: 21–27 June 2025, GENEVA IAS 2025: 30 June–4 July 2025, GENOA, ITALY ICRES 2025: 3–4 July 2025, PORTO, PORTUGAL IEEE World Haptics: 8–11 July 2025, SUWON, KOREA IFAC Symposium on Robotics: 15–18 July 2025, PARIS RoboCup 2025: 15–21 July 2025, BAHIA, BRAZIL Enjoy today’s videos! Every time you see a humanoid demo in a warehouse or factory, ask yourself: Would a “superhumanoid” like this actually be a better answer? [ Dexterity ] The only reason that this is the second video in Video Friday this week, and not the first, is because you’ve almost certainly already seen it. This is a collaboration between the Robotics and AI Institute and Boston Dynamics, and RAI has its own video, which is slightly different: - YouTube [ Boston Dynamics ] via [ RAI ] Well this just looks a little bit like magic. [ University of Pennsylvania Sung Robotics Lab ] After hours of dance battles with professional choreographers (yes, real human dancers!), PM01 now nails every iconic move from Kung Fu Hustle. [ EngineAI ] Sanctuary AI has demonstrated industry-leading sim-to-real transfer of learned dexterous manipulation policies for our unique, high degree-of-freedom, high strength, and high speed hydraulic hands. [ Sanctuary AI ] This video is “introducing BotQ, Figure’s new high-volume manufacturing facility for humanoid robots,” but I just see some injection molding and finishing of a few plastic parts. [ Figure ] DEEP Robotics recently showcased its “One-Touch Navigation” feature, enhancing the intelligent control experience of its robotic dog. This feature offers two modes: map-based point selection and navigation and video-based point navigation, designed for open terrains and confined spaces respectively. By simply typing on a tablet screen or selecting a point in the video feed, the robotic dog can autonomously navigate to the target point, automatically planning its path and intelligently avoiding obstacles, significantly improving traversal efficiency. What’s in the bags, though? [ Deep Robotics ] This hurts my knees to watch, in a few different ways. [ Unitree ] Why the recent obsession with two legs when instead robots could have six? So much cuter! [ Jizai ] via [ RobotStart ] The world must know: who killed Mini-Duck? [ Pollen ] Seven hours of Digit robots at work at ProMat. And there are two more days of these livestreams if you need more! [ Agility ]