Robots don’t have to be large and imposing to be impressive. As this tiny quadruped from [Dorian Todd] demonstrates, some simple electronics and a few servos can create something altogether charming on their own.

This little fellow is named Sesame. A quadruped robot, it’s built out of 3D-printed components. Each leg features a pair of MG90S hobby servos, one of which rotates the leg around the vertical axis, while the other moves the foot. The ESP32 microcontroller controls all eight servos, enabling remote control of Sesame via its built-in wireless connectivity. Sesame also gets a 128×64 OLED display, which it uses to display a range of emotions.

Mechanically, the Sesame design isn’t particularly sophisticated. Where it shines is that even with such a limited range of motion, between its four legs and its little screen, this robot can display a great deal of emotion. [Dorian] shows this off in the project video, in which Sesame scampers around a desktop with all the joy and verve of a new puppy. It’s also very cheap; [Dorian] estimates you can build your own Sesame for about $60. Files are on GitHub for the curious.

If you prefer your quadrupeds built for performance over charm, you might consider an alternative build. Video after the break.

If you ever built a line following robot, you’ll be nostalgic about [Jeremy’s] light-seeking robot. It is a very simple build since there is no CPU and, therefore, also no software.

The trick, of course, is a pair of photo-sensitive resistors. A pair of motors turns the robot until one of the sensors detects light, then moves it forward.

This is a classic beginner project made even easier with a 3D printer and PCB to hold the components. You might consider using an adjustable resistor to let you tune the sensitivity more easily. In addition, we’ve found that black tubes around the light sensors in this sort of application give you a better directional reading, which can help.

The robot only has two wheels, but a third skid holds the thing up. A freely-rotating wheel might work better, but for a simple demonstration like this, the skid plate is perfectly fine.

This is a good reminder that not every project has to be fantastically complex or require an RTOS and high-speed multi-core CPUs. You can do a lot with just a handful of simple components.

If you want to follow a line, the basic idea is usually the same, with perhaps some different sensors. Usually, but not always.

When it comes to designing a mopping robot, there are a number of approaches you can pick from, including just having the movement of the robot push the soggy mop over the floor, having spinning pads, or even a big spinning roller. But what difference does it make? Recently the [Vacuum Wars] channel ran a comparison to find out the answer.

The two spinning pad design is interesting, because it allows for the bot to move closer to objects or walls, and the base station doesn’t need the active scrubber that the simple static pad requires. The weakness of both types of flat mop design is that they are quickly saturated with dirt and moisture, after which they’ll happily smear it over the floor.

The spinning roller is the most complex, with the robot having its own onboard water tank, and a way to extract the dirty water from the mop and store it for disposal in the base station. Theoretically this would be the clear winner, with basically all of them having features like avoiding carpet.

Taking the test data from 150 different mopping robots that were made to clean up dried-up coffee stains, the results weren’t as clear-cut as one might perhaps expect due to the very limited scope of the test. But the comments to the video are perhaps more revealing. After all, most people don’t briefly run their robot mop over a few dried-up stains, but are faced with more severe real-life scenarios.

One commentator mentions their dogs dragging in a lot of mud on rainy days, in which case the spinning pads robot would end up spreading a thin film of mud across the floor. After upgrading to a spinning roller version this issue was resolved, though it’s readily admitted to be the more expensive system, with a much larger base station.

When in the video you see the details of what each approach involves on the side of the robot, the base station and the human caretaker, trade-offs are clear. Having the fixed flat pad is simple, but moves all complexity to the base station, with the spinning pads removing at least the need to motorize the base station. If you have small children or pets with muddy paws around, neither option works well, so you either have to whip out the human-powered mop or shell out for the high-end robotic solution.

Of course, you can also build your own super-charged robot mop, or a very thorough one, but definitely avoid mopping robots that are too cheap to actually work.

A common task in a laboratory setting is that of sampling, where a bit of e.g. liquid has to be sampled from a series of containers. Doing this by hand is possible, but tedious, ergo an autosampler can save a lot of time and tedium. Being not incredibly complex devices that have a lot in common with e.g. FDM 3D printers and CNC machines, it makes perfect sense to build one yourself, as [Markus Bindhammer] of Marb’s Lab on YouTube has done.

The specific design that [Markus] went for uses a sample carousel that can hold up to 30 bottles of 20 mL each. An ATmega-based board forms the brain of the machine, which can operate either independently or be controlled via I2C or serial. The axes and carousel are controlled by three stepper motors, each of which is driven by a TB6600 microstep driver.

Why this design is a time saver should be apparent, as you can load the carousel with bottles and have the autosampler handle the work over the course of however long the entire process takes instead of tying up a human. Initially the autosampler will be used for the synthesis of cadmium-selenium quantum dots, before it will be put to work for an HPLC/spectrometer project.

Although [Markus] intends this to be an open hardware and software project, it will take a bit longer to get all the files and documentation organized. Until then we will have to keep manually sampling, or use the video as the construction tutorial.

One of the perennial challenges of building robots is minimizing the size and weight of drive systems while preserving power. One established way to do this, at least on robots with joints, is to fit each joint with a quasi-direct-drive motor integrating a brushless motor and gearbox in one device. [The 5439 Workshop] wanted to take this approach with his own robot project, but since commercial drives were beyond his budget, he designed his own powerful, printable actuator.

The motor reducing mechanism was the biggest challenge: most quasi-direct drives use a planetary gearbox, but this would have been difficult to 3D-print without either serious backlash or limited torque. A cycloidal drive was an option, but previous printable cycloidal drives seemed to have low efficiency, and they didn’t want to work with a strain-wave gearing. Instead, he decided to use a rope drive (this seems to be another name for a kind of Capstan drive), which doesn’t require particularly strong materials or high precision. These normally use a rope wound around two side-by-side drums, which are difficult to integrate into a compact actuator, but he solved the issue by putting the drums in-line with the motor, with two pairs of pulleys guiding the rope between them in a “C” shaped path.

The actual motor is a hand-wound stator inside a 3D-printed rotor with magnets epoxied into it. The printed rotor proved problematic when the attraction between the rotor and magnets caused it to flex and scrape against the housing, and it eventually had to be reinforced with some thin metal sheets. After fixing this, it reached five Newton-meters of torque at one amp and nine Newton-meters at five amps. The diminishing returns seem to be because the 3D-printed pulley wheels broke under higher torque, which should be easy to fix in the future.

This looks like a promising design, but if you don’t need the output shaft inline with the motors, it’s probably easier to build a simple Capstan drive, the mathematics of which we’ve covered before. Both makers we’ve previously seen build Capstan drives used them to make robot dogs, which says something for their speed and responsiveness.