Self-assembly of Milli-scale Robotic Manipulators:

A Path to Highly Adaptive, Robust Automation

Systems
Ron Pelrine, Annjoe Wong-Foy, Allen Hsu, Brian McCoy
Robotics Laboratory
SRI International
Menlo Park, CA USA
ron.pelrine@sri.com

Abstract—Today, trends in manufacturing automation favor experiments reported here, the driver functions similarly to a
high levels of adaptability and flexibility for rapid product multi-degree-of-freedom (DOF) linear stepper motor.
change, customization, and new process integration. This paper
looks at a new technology, diamagnetic micro manipulation
(DM3), for taking adaptability of automation to a higher level.
Experiments reported here show a path to automation systems
that can self-assemble their own robotic manipulators, fabricate
tools-on-demand to execute new processes, optimize existing
processes, and/or replace or repair tools. These printed circuit
board (PCB) systems can control very large numbers of milli-
scale robots. Hence, as described in this paper and in contrast to
conventional robotic systems, only a small percentage of DM3
system resources, approximately 5-10% of system area and robot
numbers, are needed to achieve on-board self-assembly and tool-
on-demand functions. This paper describes the key step of self-
assembly of self-levitating magnet arrays using 1 mm x 1 mm x
0.4 mm magnets, with self-assembly times of less than 10 s. We
also report experiments showing how milli-robots can build
simple end effector tools (a straight probe tip, a forked tip, and a
hook tip) on other milli-robots for on-board, tool-on-demand
functions.

Keywords—levitated robots, adaptive systems, diamagnetism,

self-assembly, self-repair, robot replication
I. INTRODUCTION
Highly adaptive, automated manufacturing systems that can
implement rapid product and process changes and adjust for
wear and other damage while maintaining optimal, or at least
acceptable, performance are highly desirable. One approach to
achieving both goals is a mechanical system that can make and
implement its own mechanical parts within the same system.
This paper presents recent results of in-system replication
of manipulators using a new milli (1-10 mm) robot technology
known as diamagnetic micro manipulation (DM3). In this
paper, manipulators refer to all moving parts of the robot,
including any on-board sensors and electronics. DM3 systems
were originally developed for manufacturing, using the bio-
inspired approach of ant-size, controllable robots in large
numbers for massively parallel manufacturing applications [1].
The name DM3 derives from the use of diamagnetic graphite
to reduce or eliminate friction and wear between the moving
manipulator and the workspace shown in Fig. 1. In the
Fig.1. Structure of a DM3 system. A robot consisting of a magnet array and
end effector self-levitates over diamagnetic graphite (top left). Driver PCB uses
two layers per DOF with quadrature drive and an eddy current damping layer
(bottom left). Operation on a flex circuit which provides 3D and interconnect
capability, enabling the systems to be modular (top right).
Milli- and micro-robots using permanent magnets have
long been an area of investigation, and drives using printed
circuits have been previously reported as well [1-5]. However,
a new aspect of DM3 systems is that robot precision, control,
and reliability is greatly enhanced by the diamagnetic layer.
The increase in reliability enables large numbers of small robot
manipulators (> 1000) and large areas (> 0.1 m2) to be operated
as a single integrated system [6]. This observation is relevant
because it sets the typical system size for considering tool-on-
demand, self-repair, and related replication functions. While
these functions are obviously of system value, they are rarely
possible with macro automation because providing the
functions would overwhelm the system (analogous to including
an entire macro robot-making factory with each robot system).
In contrast, based on the experiments described here, typical
DM3 systems existing today can include self-repair and tool-
on-demand functions using as little as 5-10% of system
resources in area, power, and number of robots.
Simple magnet array patterns can be magnetically self-
assembled on fast (< 10 s) time scales using a DM3 system,
and, as indicated by Fig. 2, these magnetic arrays are robot
manipulators in the DM3 system. Although robotic self-
assembly processes, including magnetic self-assembly, have
been demonstrated using motorized components [7-19],
examining replication processes has revealed that motorized
components tend to have longer and more difficult replication
process sequences (Fig. 2) than DM3 systems. DM3s belong to
a larger class of robots that might be called open-bearing
(unconstrained in multiple degrees of freedom (DOF), wave-
driven robots. Other examples of open bearing, wave-driven
robots include acoustic and photonic (laser) levitation of rigid
bodies with multi-DOF control [20, 21]; electrostatic drives of
rigid bodies on air bearings [22]; and others [23]. Open
bearing, wave-driven machines enable relatively unstructured
rigid bodies of single materials to operate as robotic
manipulators. For example, a hypothetical manipulator
replication system could use acoustic waves to manipulate an
unstructured particle to cut or chip off another unstructured
particle from a block of material. If the second unstructured
particle could also be manipulated in three programmable
DOF, it would then qualify as a robotic manipulator in this
hypothetical system. In the actual experiments reported here,
the input is not as simple as a block of uniform material, but it
is still fairly simple, using small, 1 x 1 x 0.4 mm magnets.
Motor
Ore Magnetic Unmagnetized Single Magnet Bearings & Motor Electrical
Processing Material Magnets Magnets Arrays Shaft
Coils Connections Assembly
Ore
Self-assembly Building with
Robots
Ore Magnetic Unmagnetized Single Magnet
Processing Material Magnets Magnets Arrays Complex Manipulators
Ore (sensors,
communication, etc.)
Becomes a
robot here
Fig. 2. Conceptual comparison of replication process sequences for
conventional motor-driven robot manipulators that carry their own motors
(top), and for DM3 manipulators (bottom). Conventional, motor-driven
manipulators have longer, more complex process sequences to reach robotic
manipulator capabilities.
Although the open-bearing, wave-driven approach enables
simple input materials to reach robotic motion capabilities,
much of the interest in machine self-replication for system
adaptability is in the self-replication of complex machines that
can perform specific tasks, rather than just simple replicating
particles. Making more complex machines typically requires a
variety of differentiated tools (end effectors) on the
manipulator to automate other processes. A second experiment
shows a milli-robot building three simple, but different tools
(straight probe, hook, and fork) on three different DM3
manipulators using a carbon suspension material. These results
along with other data showing DM3s building integrated
electronic and mechanical structures [6], testing [24], weighing
[1], and performing other automated process functions [25]
establishes the potential for DM3 systems to perform both the
self-replication steps in Fig. 2, from input of single magnets to
self-construction, and the implementation of highly complex
and capable manipulators.
II. PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION
Current DM3 systems use arrays of millimeter-size
magnets to form the mobile unit, which is part or all of the
robot manipulator depending on whether tools and other
devices are added. The magnet array is driven magnetically by
a printed circuit board (PCB) or a flex circuit (Fig. 1). The
PCB acts as fixed stator. Electrical currents, typically on the
order of 0.1 – 1.0 A, are driven through the traces in the circuit
to generate local magnetic fields and field gradients. The
resulting magnetic forces and torques accelerate the magnet
array, typically in the range of 0.1 – 10 g’s (1-100 m/s2).
Serpentine traces in the PCB or flex circuit are used to
generate a repeating magnetic wave pattern that pulls or pushes
the permanent magnetic array in multiple DOF. As previously
reported [1, 25], four layers of serpentine copper traces in a
PCB are used to make a two-DOF (x,y) or three-DOF (x,y,z)
controllable zone in a typical configuration, although other
patterns for rotation and tilt can be used. In essence, the magnet
array forms the moving part of a multi-DOF linear motor.
Although such motors are not new, the use of a PCB for the
stator and the size scale are not common, primarily due to the
difficulties of reliably controlling friction, surface adhesion,
and wear on smaller scales [26-29].
Becomes a
robot here DM3 systems address the surface contact problems on
smaller scales using a layer of diamagnetic material such as
Multi-DOF pyrolytic graphite [30, 31]. The diamagnetic repulsive force
Motor
between the diamagnetic layer and the magnet array pushes up
Complex Manipulators
(sensors, on the array, reducing both contact pressure and area [32, 33].
communication, etc.)
For diamagnetically enhanced sliding and micro-hopping
systems, the diamagnetic force reduces wear and surface
adhesion and somewhat improves open-loop precision. On
small scales, however, the diamagnetic force is strong enough
that magnet arrays will self-levitate [34] with zero surface
contact above the graphite (Fig. 1), completely eliminating
surface contact problems of the manipulator drive. Micro-robot
operation in this regime has zero wear, zero surface adhesion,
and orders of magnitude improved open-loop precision at
submicron levels.
A key aspect of these DM3 systems is that they can drive
and manipulate virtually any alternate polarity (checkerboard-
type) magnetic array of the appropriate pitch placed on the
system’s surface. The systems are typically divided into
independently controlled areas or zones so that one
manipulator can be controlled independently of another
manipulator in another area. Control zones can also control
different numbers of DOF with different trace patterns, and
some zones can fully levitate manipulators while others with
thinner graphite are just diamagnetically enhanced to reduce
contact pressure but not eliminate it entirely. In most systems,
the manipulators are mobile and can move freely between
different zones.
 The PCB used for the self-assembly experiments described
below used 1-mm center-to-center trace spacing. The system
uses a quadrature drive in each of two DOF for the self-
assembly process. For simplicity, the current in each trace is
always fully on, and only the current direction is switched to
move the robot. If +1 denotes positive current polarity for the
trace, and -1 denotes negative polarity, then the control pattern
to move in the positive x-direction is (1,1), (1,-1), (-1,-1), (-1,1)
where (x1, x2) denotes the current polarity in the two traces, x1
and x2, that control x-direction motion. A similar drive is used
to control two traces that move the manipulator in the y-
direction. With simple stepper control, the system is a multi-
DOF linear stepper motor. However, because the top layers of
the PCB are closer to the manipulator than deeper layers, the
absolute value of the current for each layer is different. For the
self-assembly system described here, the current amplitudes
were set at 0.27 A, 0.33 A, 0.5 A, and 0.75 A for layers 1 (top),
2, 3, and 4, respectively.
As noted earlier, DM3 systems use diamagnetic graphite to
reduce or eliminate adverse effects from surface contact.
Panasonic graphite film (EYG-A121807M) measuring roughly
70 µm thick with adhesive backing was used in the magnet
self-assembly experiment. The end-effector process described
below was an earlier experiment and used the same PCB
control but with a thicker, 0.5-mm pyrolytic graphite. DM3
systems can also use conductive metal layers to increase eddy
current damping and improve control. The system for
fabricating the three end effectors described below used an
18-µm thick aluminum layer on top; the experimental self-
assembly system omitted the conductive layer and used sliding
friction for damping. Although the two systems were
configured slightly differently, this difference is not considered
significant, and both systems can execute both processes.
III. EXPERIMENTS
A. Self-Assembly of Magnet Array Manipulators
Individual magnets were placed on the PCB in the desired
magnetic orientation. Three types of magnets were tested
separately with similar results, except as noted below. One set
of magnets used 1.4 x 1.4 x 0.4 mm neodymium-iron magnets
grade 50M. The second test used 1 x 1 x 0.4 mm neodymium-
iron magnets grade 52, and a third test used cylindrical grade
52 magnets with 1-mm diameter and 0.5-mm thickness. With
sufficiently thick graphite and the proper magnetic design, all
three types can diamagnetically self-levitate, and self-levitation
was confirmed using self-assembled 2x2 arrays of 1 x 1 x 0.4
mm magnets.
As shown in Fig. 3, the PCB traces drive the magnets into a
mechanical structure (incubator) for self-assembly. The
incubator is a fixed part of the system structure and, from the
robot’s point of view, part of the environment. Magnets in
these experiments were manually fed into the system and
placed 2.5-10 cm away from the incubator on the system’s
surface. A future design for adaptive manufacturing envisions
an automated feed from a magnet reservoir or source.
The incubator provides a series of mechanical stops so that
the magnet(s) do not have to be precisely controlled. The
magnets are driven to the incubator, then down a square tube
with one open and one closed end formed by the roof of the
incubator, the PCB floor, and side spacers (black rods visible
in the upper photos of Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Dashed line shows motion of single 1.4 x 1.4 x 0.4 mm magnet into an
incubator structure (upper left). Additional magnets are driven into the
incubator to make an Nx1 array, which can then exit the incubator (upper
right). Freestyle self-assembly using cylindrical magnets with only the top of
the incubator used as a glass confining structure (lower left). More complex
arrays can be made with square magnets using this technique, e.g., five self-
assembled manipulators (lower right). See video [35].
The top of the tube prevents the magnets from flipping over
on top of each other, a lower magnetic energy state. Instead,
because the side-by-side checkerboard pattern of polarities is
magnetically stable (just not at the global lowest energy state),
as individual magnets are fed in, they form a 1 x N
checkerboard magnet array, where N is the number of
alternating polarity magnets fed into the system. N is
theoretically limited only by the length of the incubator
structure. We tested up to N=4.
For N=3, the current microfactory system can build further
magnets onto the array in a freestyle fashion. That is, a 1 x 3
array is held magnetically by the DM3 system underneath a
roof with no other confining structure. In our experiment, the
roof was a glass plate held 0.5 mm above the PCB driver board
by spacers, giving a nominal 0.1 mm clearance using 0.4 mm
thick magnets. The system can then bring in other magnets to
magnetically lock in desired locations on the array by holding
the array fixed with one set of PCB traces, while another set of
nearby, independent traces brings in other magnets. Because
the magnetic lock can be quite violent mechanically with high
strength magnets, the roof prevents magnet flipping, and the
1x3 array starts the process with greater inertia and holding
power than a single magnet can provide at current system
power levels.
Freestyle building with the cylindrical magnets was more
limited in that the magnets would often rotate away from a
desired location to form 1-dimensional chains as seen in the
lower left photo of Fig. 3. A variety of array geometries can be
self-assembled using these techniques, such as the V-shaped
arrays in Fig. 3, lower left. Regular arrays, such as 2x2 and
3x3, can also be made with an incubator structure by
combining 2x1 and 3x1 arrays, respectively. Most experiments
used 2.4 cm spacing between feed magnets, with speeds of
approximately 3-6 cm/s. The 5-magnet V-shaped manipulators
in Fig. 3 took 6 s to assemble. Hence, depending on the size of
the array, manipulators can be assembled in less than 10 s. As
with any checkerboard magnet array of suitable pitch, the
arrays can exit the self-assembly area and be driven throughout
the DM3 system, such as to locations where end effectors and
other features (electronics, sensors, etc.) can be added.
Performance of the self-assembled arrays as robotic
manipulators has not yet been tested extensively, but
qualitatively they seem to perform similar to hand-assembled
arrays, with 5-10 cm/s operating speeds in 3 DOF
demonstrated. Most self-assembly processes we tested used
small areas, about 25 cm2, including areas from magnet input
to self-assembled manipulator exit.
B. End-Effector Experiments: Robots Building Robots
As noted earlier, much of the interest in robot replication is
motivated by the need to replicate complex and/or highly
capable or adaptable machines. This is shown as the last
conceptual process step in Fig. 1. The complexity may require
structural complexity to perform some task, but may also
include electronics, sensors, and other components. Robots are
well-suited for making complex structures because of their
programmable, multi-DOF motion. However, in addition to
controllable motion, robot manipulators need various tools for
different types of building tasks. Ordinarily, tools are added to
robots based on the desired task, but for self-replication, adding
a tool changes the task because now the added tool, which
becomes part of the robot’s manipulator, must be replicated as
well.
The problem is how to go from simple to complex without
making the tools too difficult to replicate. One attractive option
is to use the micro robots to execute a 3D printing process. A
robot with a simple rod or a rod with a loop at the end picks up
a droplet of curable or self-curing liquid, such as evaporating
suspensions, UV curable adhesive, or meltable materials. The
robot controls the rod to touch the liquid onto a building
surface, such as for building end effector(s) on magnet arrays
or other structures, as seen in Fig. 4. Repeated liquid deposition
and curing from different directions builds up a 3D part. The
building robot(s) can be a “seed” robot made using other
methods (by hand in this case), or, in a future version of the
technology, it could be a robot made earlier by other robots.
For example, the three different end effectors, probe, hook,
and Y-fork, in Fig. 4 were made by another micro robot using
Wire Gluetm, a carbon-based suspension that cures or dries to a
conductive solid. Because curable liquids typically tend to
adversely build up on end effectors and degrade or even stop
the building process, an important part of these processes is a
cleaning reservoir for the robot to access (dip into) periodically
for cleaning. For Wire Gluetm, we used a warm water cleaning
reservoir, but other builds, such as the plastic UV-cured part
shown in Fig. 4 (lower right photo), may use acetone or other
aggressive solvents for end-effector cleaning. This part used
roughly 1000 droplets of UV adhesive, and further validates
the feasibility of making complex parts by micro robotic 3D
printing. The end-effector building experiment in Fig. 4 used
roughly 50 cm2 of PCB (robot driver) area.
Fig. 4. DM3 robot (left) building three different end effectors (upper right).
Example of a plastic part built by the robot manipulator shown with drop
deposition (lower right). See video [35]
The structures in Fig. 4 are crude (low precision) structures
because these early experiments didn’t use feedback other than
manually fixing an occasional motion error. However, with
fixed sensors providing feedback (fixed and therefore not part
of the manipulator replication), it should be possible to make
structures with resolutions approximating the motion resolution
of the DM3 systems, currently on the order of 25-50 µm for a
diamagnetically enhanced (sliding) system, and on the order of
0.1-0.5 µm for a diamagnetically levitated system [1, 25] .
End effectors, not much more complex than the robot-made
ones in Fig. 4, using flat wetting pads have been demonstrated
building with electronics, carbon rods, fiberglass, and other
materials using DM3 magnet arrays [6]. Typically, surface
tension from water and other liquids on a wet structure (e.g., a
loop or pad) can be used to pick and place small parts,
eliminating the need to replicate complex, active gripping
mechanisms. If these end effectors for building with other
materials were made from a 3D micro robotic printing process
on self-assembled magnet arrays, the system could then,
theoretically, bootstrap to self-replicating very complex
manipulators, starting with a few simple materials.
IV. ANALYSIS
The self-assembly process for in-system fabrication of
magnet arrays works well in testing to date. Based on
preliminary experiments, it may be possible to eliminate part or
all of the incubator structure, particularly using higher power
and/or system design to maintain control of the magnet-to-
magnet impact. However, the incubator is a simple, relatively
compact structure and may offer more robust control over a
variety of conditions.
The 3D micro robotic printing process demonstrated by the
fabrication of straight, hook, and fork end effectors (and other
parts such as the one in Fig. 3) is a promising path to in-system
fabrication of complex manipulators for highly adaptive systems
and tool-on-demand. These structures are still fairly crude and
built open loop. It may be possible to build with precision
using some purely open-loop processes, but higher precision
might be more easily obtained using feedback from micro
robot-compatible sensors, such as photo-interrupters for robot
tactile sensing, to detect the part surface as it is being built.
Fig. 5. Example configuration using a flex circuit or other DM3 3D motion
capabilities to allow complete access for building 3D structures (end
effectors) on magnet arrays. An alternate configuration is for the building
robot to come from above the magnet array, an orientation and process similar
to some conventional drop-deposition 3D printers.
Another limitation of the experimental end effector
fabrication method reported here is that it can only build in one
plane. Fortunately, DM3 systems can access the part being
built in 3D using a variety of configurations, such as the one
shown in Fig. 5.
Although a first step with significant limitations, these
experiments illustrate that DM3 adaptive capabilities using
replication can be implemented using only a small portion of
system resources. The end-effector building experiment used
roughly 50 cm2 of PCB surface. The incubator itself uses only
about 10 cm2 of PCB surface area, and even allowing
additional area for automatic feed, the self-assembly could be
approximately 50 cm2 or less. By comparison, DM3 systems
having 1000 cm2 or more usable surface area are fabricated
today using commercial PCB technology. Hence, it is easy to
imagine DM3 systems using replication and in-system
fabrication functions at a minor system cost compared to the
potential benefits in adaptability and robustness.
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Although DM3 systems are new, and their ultimate
capabilities are presently unknown, these early experiments in
self-assembly and robot-building-robots indicate that DM3
systems are capable of functions such as tool-on-demand and
robust self-repair. And, unlike conventional macro automation,
such functions in DM3 systems can be implemented with an
attractive tradeoff in system cost (size, power, etc.) versus the
potential benefits.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Pelrine, A. Wong-Foy, A., B. McCoy, D. Holeman, R. Mahoney, G.
Myers, J. Herson, and T. Low, “Diamagnetically levitated robots: An
approach to massively parallel robotic systems with unusual motion
properties,” in Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation (ICRA), pp. 739-744, 2012.
[2] S. Chowdhury, W. Jing, D. Cappelleri, “Towards independent control of
multiple magnetic microrobots,” Micromachines, Vol. 7, Issue 1, Article
3, 2016.
[3] S. Floyd, C. Pawashe, and M. Sitti, Two-dimensional contact and non-
contact micro-manipulation in liquid using an untethered mobile
magnetic micro-robot, IEEE Transactions on Robotics, Vol. 25,
pp. 1332-1342, 2009.
[4] E. B. Steager, M. S. Sakar, C. Magee, M. Kennedy, A. Cowley, and
V. Kumar, “Automated biomanipulation of single cells using magnetic
microrobots,” International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 32, No.
3, p346–359, 2013.
[5] R. Pelrine, “Maglev microrobotics: an approach toward highly
integrated small scale manufacturing systems,” Proceedings of the
Electronic Manufacturing Technology Symposium, Seventh
IEEE/CHMT, pp. 273–276, 1989.
[6] SRI International, “Magnetically actuated micro-robots for advanced
manufacturing applications,” 2015.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxb3-bT8uxk; see also,
“Magnetically actuated micro-robots for advanced manipulation
applications,” 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL6e3co4Qqc
[7] K. Lee and G. S. Chirikjian, “Robotic self-replication,” IEEE Robot.
Autom. Mag., Vol. 14, 2007.
[8] V. Zykov, E. Mytilinaios, B. Adams, and H. Lipson, “Robotics: Self-
reproducing machines,” Nature, Vol. 435, pp. 163–164, 2005.
[9] M. Yim, et al., “Modular self-reconfigurable robot systems [Grand
Challenges of Robotics],” IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag., Vol. 14, pp. 43–
52, 2007.
[10] D. Rus, “Self-reconfiguring robots,” IEEE Intell. Syst. Their Appl.,
Vol. 13, pp. 2–4, 1998.
[11] D. Rus and M. Vona, “Crystalline Robots: Self-reconfiguration with
compressible unit modules,” Auton. Robots, Vol. 10, pp. 107–124,
2001.
[12] V. Zykov, E. Mytilinaios, M. Desnoyer, and H. Lipson, “Evolved and
designed self-reproducing modular robotics,” IEEE Trans. Robot., Vol.
23, pp. 308–319, 2007.
[13] S. Griffith, D. Goldwater, and J. M. Jacobson, “Robotics: Self-
replication from random parts,” Nature, Vol. 437, pp. 636–636, 2005.
[14] M. Sipper, “Fifty years of research on self-replication: an overview,”
Artif. Life, Vol. 4, pp. 237–257, 1998.
[15] R. Gross, E. Tuci, M. Dorigo, M. Bonani, and F. Mondada, “Object
transport by modular robots that self-assemble,” Proceedings 2006 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2006,
pp. 2558–2564, 2006. doi:10.1109/ROBOT.2006.1642087
[16] K. Lee, M. Moses, and G. S. Chirikjian, “Robotic self-replication in
structured environments: physical demonstrations and complexity
measures,” Int. J. Robot. Res., Vol. 27, pp. 387–401, 2008.
[17] R. Pfeifer, M. Lungarella, and F. Iida, “Self-organization, embodiment,
and biologically inspired robotics,” Science, Vol. 318, pp. 1088–1093,
2007.
[18] J. Romanishin, K. Gilpin, and D. Rus, “M-blocks: Momentum-driven,
magnetic modular robots,” in 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference
on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 4288–4295, 2013.
doi:10.1109/IROS.2013.6696971
[19] S. M. Felton, M. T. Tolley, C. D. Onal, D. Rus, and R. J. Wood, “Robot
self-assembly by folding: A printed inchworm robot,” in 2013 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) pp. 277–
282, 2013. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2013.6630588
[20] Y. Ochiai, T. Hoshi, and J. Rekimoto, “Three-dimensional mid-air
acoustic manipulation by ultrasonic phased arrays,” PLoS ONE, Vol. 9,
e97590, 2014.
[21] A. Ashkin, “Acceleration and trapping of particles by radiation
pressure,” Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 24, pp. 156–159, 1970.
[22] R. S. Fearing, “A planar milli-robot system on an air bearing,” Robotics
Research (eds. Giralt, G. & Hirzinger, G.), pp. 570–581 (Springer
London, 1996. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4471-0765-1_64
[23] E. Diller, C. Pawashe, S. Floyd, and M. Sitti, Assembly and disassembly
of magnetic mobile micro-robots towards deterministic 2-D
 reconfigurable micro-systems, Int. J. Robot. Res., 0278364911416140,
2011. doi:10.1177/0278364911416140
[24] D. L. Christensen, E. W. A. Hawkes, A. Wong-Foy, R. Pelrine, and M.
R. Cutkosky, Incremental inspection for microrobotic quality assurance,
V001T09A030, 2013. doi:10.1115/DETC2013-12790
[25] R. Pelrine, A. Wong-Foy, A., B. McCoy, D. Holeman, R. Mahoney,
“Micro robot manufacturing,” MFG 2011 Workshop, August 8-10,
2011, Napa, California, USA. http://www.transducer-research-
foundation.org/archive/mfg2011/
[26] N. Tas, T. Sonnenberg, H. Jansen, R. Legtenberg, and M. Elwenspoek,
“Stiction in surface micromachining.” J. Micromechanics
Microengineering, Vol. 6, pp. 385, 1996.
[27] J. M. Bustillo, R. T. Howe, and R. S. Muller, “Surface micromachining
for microelectromechanical systems.” Proc. IEEE, Vol. 86, pp. 1552–
1574, 1998.
[28] C. H. Mastrangelo, “Adhesion-related failure mechanisms in
micromechanical devices.” Tribol. Lett., Vol. 3, pp. 223–238, 1997.
[29] R. Maboudian and R. T. Howe, “Critical Review: Adhesion in surface
micromechanical structures,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B, Vol. 15, pp. 1,
1997.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/avs/journal/jvstb/15/1/10.1116/1.589247
[30] D. B. Fischbach, “Diamagnetic susceptibility of pyrolytic graphite,”
Phys. Rev., Vol. 123, pp. 1613–1614, 1961.
[31] R. D. Waldron, “Diamagnetic levitation using pyrolytic graphite,” Rev.
Sci. Instrum., Vol. 37, pp. 29–35, 1966.
[32] W. Braunbeck, “Free suspension of bodies in electric and magnetic
fields,” Zeitschrift für Physik, Vol. 112, pp. 753–763, 1939.
[33] R. Pelrine, “Room temperature, open-loop levitation of microdevices
using diamagnetic materials,” in IEEE Micro Electro Mechanical
Systems, 1990, Proceedings, An investigation of micro structures,
sensors, actuators, machines and robots, pp. 34–37, 1990.
doi:10.1109/MEMSYS.1990.110242
[34] R. Pelrine, “Magnetic field levitation,” U.S. Patent 5,396,136, 1995.
[35] SRI International, “SRI Micro Robots Self Assesmbly and Tools Fab,”
2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JNQW34P74o&feature=youtu.be