The rotating-accelerometer centripetal term is the inward acceleration contribution $-r{\omega }^2$ at a sensor rigidly attached a distance $r$ from a rotation axis. With outward radial unit vector ${\mathbf{e}}_r$ and tangential vector ${\mathbf{e}}_t$, differentiating the rotating position givesIt is a real kinematic acceleration, rather than an electronic zero error. A rotating accelerometer measures the relevant projection of specific force, so center motion and gravitational acceleration must also be included when interpreting an actual channel. A primary rotating-sensor experiment explicitly separates radial and tangential measurement contributions.^[ref]

At $r=0.020\mathrm{m}$ and $\omega =100rad/s$, the radial contribution is $-200m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. It is steady in the rotating radial coordinate even though its direction continuously turns in a laboratory frame. Reversing rotation preserves this term because $\omega$ is squared; the tangential term instead follows angular acceleration.

A rotating-accelerometer speed-ripple term remains when speed is not constant. If $\omega (t)={\omega }_0+\epsilon \cos \Omega t$, thenFor the preceding radius, ${\omega }_0=100rad/s$ and ripple amplitude $\epsilon =1rad/s$ give mean $-200.01m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, fundamental ripple amplitude4m/s² and second-ripple amplitude0.01m/s². Subtracting a record's mean removes only the steady part. A spectral component can therefore arise from speed variation in this kinematic term, which should be checked against the measured rotation history before attributing it to another vibration source.

A configuration-space obstacle is a set of robot configurations whose occupied geometry intersects an obstacle. It translates a collision question about an extended robot into an excluded region of configuration space. The excluded coordinates can include rotation and joint angles as well as position. Hauser's primary planning formulation describes feasibility using the robot's occupied workspace set at each configuration.^[ref]

For an original fixed-orientation translation model, let $R$ be the robot's shape relative to its reference point, $O$ the physical obstacle and $q$ the reference-point translation. Collision meansThis is equivalent to $q+r=o$ for some $r\in R$, $o\in O$, and thereforeThe Minkowski sum must use the reflected robot shape. When $R$ is symmetric about its reference point, reflection leaves it unchanged; for an asymmetric reference choice, omitting the minus sign changes the collision region.

A one-dimensional example makes the reflection visible. Let a robot occupy $R=[0,0.30]$ metres relative to its left endpoint, and let the obstacle be the point $O=\{1\}$ metre. The forbidden reference positions are $[0.70,1.00]$ metres. At $q=0.80$, the robot spans $[0.80,1.10]$ and hits the obstacle. Using $O\oplus R=[1.00,1.30]$ would wrongly miss this collision and exclude some clear positions.

For a centered circular footprint of radius $r$ and a circular obstacle of radius $a$, the forbidden center positions form a disk of radius $a+r$. For axis-aligned rectangular shapes, each obstacle side expands by the robot's corresponding half-width. These are exact reductions for the stated geometry and fixed orientation.

An orientation-dependent configuration-space obstacle instead has a different translation-space cross-section for each orientation. A thin centered rod of length $0.40\mathrm{m}$ collides with a radius-$0.03\mathrm{m}$ obstacle centered at $(0.18,0)$ when the rod lies along the horizontal axis. At the same center position, a vertical rod is clear. The shared center point cannot encode the difference without the orientation coordinate.

For closed occupied sets, touching belongs to the forbidden set under this definition; a required clearance margin can enlarge it further. A proposed geometric check places the modeled robot at selected boundary configurations, compares the predicted intersections with measured geometry, and then verifies the path between them. Testing a few clear endpoint configurations alone does not establish a collision-free continuous motion.

An end effector is the device at a robot arm's working end that directly performs its task: for example, a gripper, welding tool or suction cup. The arm places and orients it, while the tool's geometry and contact behavior determine how that motion affects the object. A tool-tip frame can differ from the mounting-flange frame, so its offset must be included in forward kinematics.^[ref]

For example, suppose a two-finger gripper holds an object vertically by dry friction. If each finger applies normal force $N$ and the coefficient of friction is $\mu$, the ideal upward friction capacity is $2\mu N$. With $\mu =0.5$ and $N=10\mathrm{N}$ per finger, that capacity is $10\mathrm{N}$, just above the weight of a one-kilogram object near Earth's surface. A real test varies gripping force and load while observing slip; contact material, deformation and acceleration can invalidate the simple estimate. Positioning accuracy alone therefore does not establish grasp reliability.

The MIT Cheetah robot is an electrically actuated quadrupedal robot research platform used to investigate dynamic legged locomotion and control. Specific demonstrations must be identified by version and experiment. In the primary MIT account of a 2015 running-jump demonstration, onboard Lidar estimated obstacle height and distance, software adjusted the approach strides, and a subsequent calculation selected the jumping action.^[ref]

The experiment connects perception to physical contact. Detecting an obstacle does not by itself establish a feasible jump: the machine must reach a suitable takeoff state and supply forces within its motor and ground-contact constraints. Computation is performed while the robot approaches the obstacle, so available decision time is also a physical constraint.

An original ballistic approximation illustrates one requirement. If the center of mass must rise $\Delta h$ after takeoff, with gravity the only vertical force during flight, its launch velocity must satisfyFor $\Delta h=0.20\mathrm{m}$, this is about $1.98m/s$. If the vertical velocity starts at zero and that change is generated over $0.10\mathrm{s}$ of contact, vertical impulse balance givesThese values are illustrative requirements for the stated center-of-mass model, not measured MIT parameters. Foot clearance, body orientation, leg motion and landing cannot be inferred from this one vertical calculation.

The primary report describes tests on both a treadmill and an indoor track. The available approach distance differed, and the reported clearance success differed as well. This makes the observation conditional on apparatus and trial conditions rather than a universal performance figure.^[ref]

The scientific value of the platform is that a proposed controller has to close the loop through actual motors, contacts and sensor estimates. Successful trials demonstrate a capability in the tested conditions; robustness to other surfaces, disturbances or obstacles requires additional experiments.

A quadrupedal robot is a robot with four legs used for support and locomotion. Its gait determines which feet contact the ground and when; having four legs does not imply that all four feet remain planted. Leg geometry, contact sensing and control of forces connect a desired body motion to feasible ground reactions.

An original statics calculation explains one advantage and one limitation of multiple feet. Assume point contacts on a horizontal floor, vertical gravity only, no contact moments and no acceleration. For robot mass $m$ and upward foot forces $F_i\ge 0$, force and moment balance requireHere $(x_c,y_c)$ is the vertical projection of the center of mass. Dividing by $mg$ expresses this point as a convex combination of foot locations. It must lie in their convex hull, the support polygon. A point on its boundary has no positive geometric margin against tipping in the corresponding direction.

For example, feet at $(\pm 0.50,\pm 0.30)\mathrm{m}$ surround a centered mass projection. Remove the front-left contact $(0.50,0.30)\mathrm{m}$: the origin now lies on the diagonal edge of the remaining triangle. The balance equations load the opposite two feet at $mg/2$ each and leave the third unloaded. Merely retaining three contacts has not created a positive margin. Shifting the mass projection to $(-0.10,-0.10)\mathrm{m}$ places it strictly inside that triangle, permitting three positive vertical reactions.

Dynamic running and jumping require a different balance including acceleration and angular momentum. An airborne robot has no ground support polygon at all. In the 2015 MIT Cheetah demonstration, onboard lidar estimated obstacle size and distance; control adjusted the approach strides and planned motor forces for a running jump.^[ref] The apparatus demonstrates coordinated perception and dynamic contact control, rather than a static support rule.

For a controlled walking test, record foot-contact times and body motion while changing one planned contact at a time. The geometric criterion above checks only the stipulated static model. Friction, actuator limits, terrain inclination and motion can make a geometrically supported pose physically infeasible. Conversely, a dynamic maneuver can pass through a pose that could not be maintained at rest.

RtcB is an RNA ligase that seals an RNA $3^{\prime }$ phosphate to a $5^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group. It also accepts an RNA cyclic phosphate end, which is first opened to a linear $3^{\prime }$ phosphate. Its reaction class, EC6.5.1.8, uses GTP and a divalent metal cofactor; guanosine monophosphate and diphosphate appear in the overall accounting.^[ref]

A 2012 study separated the reaction into experimentally testable steps. GTP first supplies a guanylate group that becomes covalently attached to the enzyme. Transfer to the RNA end creates an activated intermediate; the incoming $5^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group then completes the junction. The authors followed labelled substrates and products using denaturing polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and found that cyclic-phosphate opening was fast enough to precede joining.^[ref]

A staged interpretation explains a useful experimental distinction. A variant might open a cyclic end yet fail to complete RNA ligation; another defect might prevent the initial enzyme activation. Both could yield little final product, while accumulating different intermediates. Measuring only joined RNA would merge these failures. Resolving the intermediate species helps locate which chemical step has changed.

An ATP-dependent RNA ligase catalyzes RNA ligation using ATP to activate the joining chemistry. For the activity EC6.5.1.3, a $3^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group is joined to a $5^{\prime }$ phosphate, yielding a phosphodiester bond, adenosine monophosphate and inorganic pyrophosphate. The accepted activity name specifies both compatible terminal groups and an energy-coupled reaction.^[ref]

The reaction proceeds through distinct activation states. An adenylate group first attaches to a lysine residue of the RNA ligase, then transfers to the RNA $5^{\prime }$ phosphate. Attack by the $3^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group completes the junction and releases the adenylate as adenosine monophosphate.^[ref] The enzyme can enter another catalytic cycle, whereas the ATP-derived chemical inventory has changed.

For an idealized inventory, start with four nanomoles of one RNA end, three nanomoles of its compatible partner and two nanomoles of ATP. Assume initially unactivated enzyme, no preactivated RNA and no nucleotide regeneration. At most two nanomoles of joined product can form through the stated route, leaving at least two and one nanomoles of the respective fragments. A smaller enzyme amount can still process multiple substrate molecules over repeated cycles; the amount and activity of enzyme affect how quickly that limit is approached.

The original T4-induced ligase purification linked ATP dependence and end modification to measurable products, including evidence for intramolecular circularization under the tested conditions.^[ref] The end requirements distinguish this route from RtcB's GTP-dependent chemistry.

Torsional strain is an increase in the energy of a molecule associated with an unfavourable torsion angle, relative to a stated reference conformation. Rotation about a bond can change the relative orientations of substituents without changing which atoms are bonded. The IUPAC definition of strain explicitly includes unfavourable dihedral angles alongside bond-length and bond-angle distortions.^[ref]

Consider ethane viewed along its central carbon–carbon bond. An eclipsed conformation aligns projected carbon–hydrogen bonds, whereas a staggered conformation places them between one another. An idealized threefold potential energy model iswith $\varphi =0$ chosen eclipsed. It gives $V(0)=V_3$ and $V(\pi /3)=0$: a finite rotational barrier separates equivalent minima. The model is a teaching parametrization; $V_3$ must be obtained independently rather than read from the drawing.

The 1937 paper by J. D. Kemp and K. S. Pitzer explicitly connected the entropy of ethane and the third law of thermodynamics with hindered methyl-group rotation.^[ref] This historical connection shows why internal rotation is a measurable molecular degree of freedom, not simply unrestricted motion around a single bond. In a ring, geometric closure can restrict accessible torsion angles; ring strain can therefore include torsional strain as well as other contributions. Assigning a separate torsional energy is model-dependent, rather than a complete account of every electronic interaction.