Maxon - B7E7C938897D - Motor - DCX10S EB KL 9V + Gearhead - GPX10 A 256:1

[Lawproto]

Description	Field
Datasheet component	b7e7c938897d_2.pdf
Project	Mk5 hand
Alias Creo	MAXON_B7E7C938897D
IIT-Code	16582
Applicant	Lorenzo Protopapa, @Lawproto
Supervisor	Luca Fiorio, @fiorisi
Maintainer	Marcello Savoldi, @marcellosavoldi
Coworkers	@icub-tech-iit/silo-mech

Attachment:

Notes:

Checklist:

Complete the checklist in order to proceed with the request.

• [x] Created the Alias following the standard convention.
• [x] Added, if necessary, the source files (STEP, IGS, etc), the links/datasheets/drawings or other information used to create the library part.
• [x] File imported using the Creo start part commercial.
• [x] Checked mass properties.
• [x] Checked if one special case applies to this component.
• [x] Converted the files with the EDU-COM license.
• [x] Created IIT code in WINGST with manufacturer and at least one supplier.

[Lawproto]

Assigned density so that the mass is 15 g as per datasheet.

to be weighted when available in real life.

[Lawproto]

Weight of the physical object implemented.

Closing.

[fiorisi]

Thanks @Lawproto. I wonder if the 2.5 grams of difference between the datasheet and the weight scale are due to the wires. Considering that currently in our CAD models we don't have cables, and considering that usually the weight of the real robot is less than the one estimated by the CAD, I would use 15 grams instead of 17.5.

What do you think?

NOTE. This is not about the 2.5 grams of course, but rather a proposed approach to adopt also for other commercial parts. cc @icub-tech-iit/silo-mech

[Lawproto]

@fiorisi given a commercial component, how do we decide when to prioritise the datasheet weight over the measured one? If a clear and easy criterion does not come mind, I prefer to stick with the simpler rule we adopted until now. Also considering the difference is small enough.