e-NABLE Device Evaluations

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K
1					Established	$30-50	>75 Badges	Low	High
2	Evaluate these devices: link to feedback form				Being Adopted	$51-$100	20-75 Badges	Moderate	Moderate
3					Experimental	>$100	<20 Badges	High	Low
4	Device	Pros	Cons	Assembly Quirks, Cautions	Maturity	Cost of Materials	Popularity	Difficulty	Grip Strength	License	e-NABLE Hub Page

5	e-NABLE Phoenix Hand v3	Currently recommended design. Labels added to snap pins for easier assembly.	Plastic mesh palm must be heat formed in a convex fashion. Similar to Phoenix V2, angle of palm/gauntlet should be 30-35%	Probably the easiest design to fabricate and assemble for beginners. Straightforward, high profile elastic bands provide finger extension. Beware that loose finger/phalanges joints can trap the elastic bands, constricting return motion.						Creative Commons - Attribution	https://hub.e-nable.org/content/perma?id=11965
6	Kinetic Hand	A beautiful design, modeled from real human anatomy. Extensive high-quality documentation covering all aspects of preparation, printing, and assembly.	Requires the printing of flexible materials, which not all 3D printers are configured for. The performance of the flexible hinges varies based on the scale of the device (due to the increasing weight of the finger phalanges). The flexibility in the palm mesh and tensioners reduce the mechanical efficiency when gripping.	The flexible components are the trickiest part of this design. Both the printing and assembly are challenging for different reasons. When printing, the 3D printer needs to be designed to handle flexible materials (i.e. a direct drive extruder is very helpful). When assembling, the hinges have to be inserted into slots in each finger phalange, and the insertion can be difficult.						Creative Commons - Attribution - Non-Commercial - Share Alike	https://hub.e-nable.org/content/perma?id=35203
7	Phoenix V2	Solid design, scale @120% is for large child, small adult	Whipple-Tree design a bit more complex	Must remember to keep palm/gauntlet angle at 30-35% when stringing and tensioning. The combination of angle, and tensioning of 3 strings can be tricky, particularly at first						Creative Commons - Attribution - Non-Commercial - Share Alike	https://hub.e-nable.org/content/perma?id=385
8	Cyborg Beast	Popular design, particularly for children. Printed finger bumps assist grip without need for Tippi	Uses specialty Chicago bolts. Need to tension 5 fingers individually is added complication.	Chicago bolts protrude, particularly for gauntlet strap, which can impede movement of outer two tensioners. Tensioning of 5 individual fingers is difficult						Creative Commons - Attribution - Non-Commercial	https://hub.e-nable.org/content/perma?id=399
9	Osprey	Use of high Bowden strength plastic eliminates need for separate tendons and straighteners. Most fluid action of all designs.	Leather gauntlet and palm adds expense, complexity.	Need for 10 small set screws is a complexity, and assembly instructions do not clearly explain how far to tighten and tension. Trial and error here.						Creative Commons - Public Domain Dedication	https://hub.e-nable.org/content/perma?id=389
10	Unlimbited Phoenix Hand	Solid design, use of 3 tensioners aids assembly. Similar to Osprey, a smooth action	Plastic mesh palm must be heat formed in a convex fashion. Similar to Phoenix V2, angle of palm/gauntlet should be 30-35%	Probably the easiest design to fabricate and assemble for beginners. Straightforward, high profile elastic bands provide finger extension. Beware that loose finger/phalanges joints can trap the elastic bands, constricting return motion.						Creative Commons - Attribution - Non-Commercial	https://hub.e-nable.org/content/perma?id=387
11	Flexy Hand 2	Anthropomorphic design is appealing. Use of Flexible hinges eliminates need for separate elastic tendons	Finger return is marginal, particularly at larger scales. Beautiful design, but low grip strength.	Flexible hinges extremely difficult to assemble in fingers and phalanges…..use caution. Also, hinges required cutting and shaving to fit properly (instructions indicate this possibility). Even with 100% infill, hinges are marginal in return strength at larger size. Tensioning of 5 individual fingers an added complexity. Thermoforming of gauntlet was tricky due to extremely high arch							https://hub.e-nable.org/content/perma?id=403
12	Unlimbited Arm v2.1	Good design, straightforward assembly and tensioning of hand, idential to Unlimbited hand version.	More difficult assembly due to thermoforming of forearm.	Forearm thermoforming is tricky because of the need to form in 2 directions- circular form for arm, and 90 degree rotation of hand relative to gauntlet. Personal experience was several re-attempts at reforming in order to have proper alignment. Additionally, end of forearm needs to be depressed thermally in order to allow smooth access of strings to the palm holes.							https://hub.e-nable.org/content/perma?id=393
13	Raptor Reloaded	At 100% scale, very small, good for small child	Stringing of both elastic and fishing line through same holes in palm an added complexity. Small size at 100% is definitely a challenge for assembly	At 100% scale, only thin elastic can be used due to small diameter of holes in palm…..this limits the finger return strength. Tensioning of 5 individual fingers an added complexity							https://hub.e-nable.org/content/perma?id=395
14	Kwawu Arm 2.0 Thermoform Version	A visually beautiful arm…very anthropomorphic	Large Adult size required printing in segments and plastic welding and gluing…..much added complexity. Flexible hinges in large size were not adequate to return fingers. Stringing using 2 whipple trees complex	Probably the most difficult of the devices to assemble. Small radius, blind holes in fingertips were extremely difficult to string. Use of 2 whipple trees an added complexity. Single biggest problem was at a purposely large adult size, the flexible hinges are not torsionally strong enough to return the fingers. Would not recommend in large sizes, over 100% due to weight of fingers							https://hub.e-nable.org/content/perma?id=460
15	Kwawu Arm 2.0 Socket Version	Absolutely beautiful arm with anthropomorphic appearance. Adaptable grip a positive, as is rotatable hand.	Printing with PETG straightforward. Even at this size flexible hinges were marginal, particularly the thumb knuckle. Stringing using 2 whippletrees complex	Much like the thermoform version, very difficult to assemble. Had to shave plastic in hidden joint areas for smooth movement. Also had to print very oversized flexible hinges and shave them individually to size. Very small, tight curve holes in fingertips required extensive work to string with fishing line. Would not recommend anything larger than these parameters: 229mm length, 216mm bicep, 208 forearm, 100% hand size.							https://hub.e-nable.org/content/perma?id=460
16	K-1 Hand	Sleek anthropomorphic hand. Action of fingers fairly easy. Lack of tensioners makes printing easier, but stringing of flexor strings is challenging. In-situ finger joints eliminate need for additional pins.	Pins and gauntlet to palm fit poor. Pins too loose, lack of holes in gauntlet made tensioning difficult Finger hinge supports on palm very thin and fragile. Printed "in-situ" finger joints are innovative, albeit a bit loose.	Printing of two large plastic parts (palm and gauntlet) in vertical position can lead to issues. Pin sizing in fingers and wrist poor. Online documentation showed holes for string on gauntlet, but files did not have any….made tensioning difficult. Had to use lightweight elastic tendons because holes in plam small....would rather have used larger elastic for stronger finger return action. Very fragile finger hinges on palm would limit strength of grip and weight to be grasped. Overall opinion is further engineering of parts is necessary.							https://hub.e-nable.org/content/perma?id=410
17	RIT Arm, V2	The socket and gauntlet are very robust and fit together nicely. The rather complex internal stringing holes and channels are clear and well designed. The overall look is pleasingly robotic for children	At a scale of 100% the hand and fingers are extremely small. Only small diameter elastic can be used. Hence, the stringing is difficult. Also, the rather large whippletree is difficult to string and fit into the small palm cavity. In particular the palm thumb hole is a challenge to reach.	The single largest issue with the files of this design are the poor fitting of the phalanges into both the palm and fingertips. As printed at 100%, the phalanges are too large to freely fit into the palm and fingers. I had to scale them down to 90% in the thickness dimension in order to obtain a smooth, free fit. At 90% thickness the already small elastic and tendon channels were difficult to clear and string. Overall a good arm design, but I believe work needs to be done on the .stl file sizing, and also potentially on the channel designs to allow easier stringing and a subsequent stronger grip. I believe this device is best printed at 120% and higher, but even then the .stl files for the phalanges need to be adjusted.
18	Gripper Thumb Terminal Device	Very simple design, only 2 parts. The grip is extremely strong due to the use of a strong castration band as the thumb tensor.	The large hand is somewhat challenging to print clean, since supports are needed. Also, the cable ties for the castration band have to be strong, but not too big on the buckle end in order for the buckle to recess into the palm inset.	Overall a good device for someone who has one fully functional arm in order to be able to manually open and close the thumb on the prosthesis.							https://hub.e-nable.org/content/perma?id=407
19	Snap Talon Terminal Device	A simple design, only 6 parts. Fingers snap into place, eliminating need for pins.	While the fingers snap into place, there is considerable lateral play in the joints, which can lead to binding. Also, the fixed thumb means there is a small space in which to work for the palm stringing of the whippletree. The recommended materials of monofilament and crystal string is troublesome due to both being slippery, and knots not holding.	An interesting design due to snap-in fingers, however the lateral movement I believe is an issue. There is binding of the ball joints….repetitious movement is needed to create smooth mating surfaces on the parts. A think layer of silicone grease considerably improved the smooth motion of the fingers.
20	e-Talon Forearm	Complex electro-mechanical design using a linear actuator. Actuator and rechargable battery pack in forearm with Snap Talon Terminal Device works well. Ability to grip smaller objects, and lock grip in positions is a plus. Expensive device to produce.	Difficult to print in large sizes because the various openings for switches, jacks size with the overall device. There is a great deal of customization work required in fitting all the components and wiring everything together. The forearm and hand assembly is also rather heavy at 1lb8oz.	A workable, interesting EM device, albeit expensive. The mechanical and electrical parts alone were $125 in cost, the linear actuator being the single largest expense. I also printed and fabricated the guantlet with the "winch" type lace enclosure, but I don't believe it would be very effective. The gauntlet I found to be difficult to fabricate.
21
22	To share your feedback about an e-NABLE device and have that incorporated into this matrix, please fill out this form:				https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdhXbiOOM0osnWC3ZsImSWuSblbbnKVcWtzMesCU_ynLmFhjg/viewform
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100