h a l f b a k e r yI think this would be a great thing to not do.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
I think we should probably use the cone-sphericon version
of this which is a bisected cone rotated 120 degrees
against itself, rather than the bicone-shpericon which is a
bicone split and rotated 90 degrees against itself, since
the bicone sphericon is more like a wheel in that it
rotates rather than undulates. Undulation seems to me to
be more in line with nature. Wheels, axles... (shudder). |
|
| |
[JHC], given the abundance of "wobbly things with feathers" ideas which you have vomited forth of late, and given their immense simplicity, perhaps it would be more efficient for you to actually make some of these things and let us know how well they fly. |
|
| |
Appears to be a malfunction. Try turning off the [JesusHChrist] and turning it back on again. |
|
| |
I've tried, but the switch is labelled "on" in both positions. |
|
| |
That clears up some questions I had about Christianity. |
|
| |
So, anyway, what is the orientation of the axis of rotation of this sphericon? |
|
| |
And, just a thought. You do realize, [JHC] that the sphericon only wobbles in that seductive way because the two curved edges are supporting it (alternately) as it rolls over a solid surface? If the thing were airborne, it wouldn't do that. |
|
| |
So your sphericon can only fly as long as it remains in contact with ground, but won't anyway. |
|
| |
I looked forward to continuing our little side-bar on the last incarnation of this idea... and you delete it! |
|
| |
I actually put some serious brain-stress into figuring out how to make the damn thing wobble its way upwards for a bit... 'for you', and I still think it would have worked... any then you delete it before I could learn what, if anything, was wrong with the premise?!!! |
|
| |
Stop that! I'm doing my damndest to keep your account from getting fragged and getting you over this feather hump rut you seem to be stuck in. Fucked if I know why I even give a crap but I do. Quit friggin sabotaging yourself already. |
|
| |
[MB] I still don't know what was wrong with my mental projection of how it would work. You'll just have to put any unresolved intuitive physics charges on my bill. Get it?, cuz you said it was like a duck and they've got... |
|
| |
Anyway, my fundamental point is that a sphericon is only interesting because of the way it wobbles as it rolls on a surface. If it's not in contact with the ground, it's no different from a tetrahedron, a cube, or a cucumber. |
|
| |
So you might as well attach your feathers to a cucumber - it's cheaper than a sphericon, and just as likely to become airborne. |
|
| |
I don't think that to be true. The same physics can be mimicked from manipulating the interior of the shape as it spins... as I was saying before we were so rudely interrupted. |
|
| |
// attach your feathers to a cucumber |
|
| |
Please don't give him any ideas. |
|
| |
// The same physics can be mimicked from manipulating the interior of the shape as it spins// |
|
| |
Yes, but the external shape is irrelevant then. And, if you want to mimic physics, you might as well mimic the physics of, say, something that flies. |
|
| |
But a sphericon flies, [Asshike] |
|
| |
Well, that seems like an irrefutable argument, even more compelling than "fuck you maxwell". |
|
| |
I don't suppose you've got a video to back that up, by any chance, old chap? (I mean the flying sphericon, not the "fuck you" bit.) |
|
| |
So, to summarize where we're up to so far: |
|
| |
"This sphericon wobbles when it rolls. Wobbling will make it fly. This sphericon will fly!" |
|
| |
"Yes, this sphericon will fly!" |
|
| |
"But it won't wobble unless it's rolling on a flat surface. So if it flies because it wobbles, then it won't wobble, so it won't fly." |
|
| |
"Uh - this sphericon will fly!" |
|
| |
um... I was trying to explain how it could be made to work and your arguments were basically to fling insults.
Face facts [MB]. You sir, are a bully. |
|
| |
An exceptionally brilliant and perhaps occasionally lovable bully... but a bully nonetheless. |
|
| |
Not everybody enjoys getting singled out and harassed like I do. |
|
| |
I get the feeling that, given enough power, it would fly very badly. Given a strong enough engine and probably a moving weight inside the wossername would produce a modest amount of flapping. |
|
| |
When I am the voice of reason on here, then something is terribly wrong... |
|
| |
//An exceptionally brilliant and perhaps occasionally lovable bully... but a bully nonetheless.// |
|
| |
Absolutely (though I'd dispute the lovable bit). If someone is prepared to vomit ill-considered hallucinatory ideas all over the place, I am happy to harangue, harass, and <anything else beginning with har> them. That's the only way that I can get as much fun out of this as [JHC] is clearly getting. As far as I know (which is often a surprisingly short distance), the 'bakery is a place where notions can be picked apart and fault-found by means of <sometimes> intelligent criticism. I believe we even have a tagline to the effect that this is not the happy cuddles club. |
|
| |
However, to stick to the nub of the argument: |
|
| |
(1) An object rotating about a horizontal axis, if placed in the air, will generate thrust (if any) equally in all directions radial to that axis. Hence, there is no preferential thrust in one direction and, hence, no lift. |
|
| |
(2) [JHC]'s obsession with the sphericon is based on its wobbly rolling motion. But that wobble only happens when it is rolling on a flat surface, such that the two orthogonal curved edges provide support. In air, there is no such wobble. |
|
| |
(3) Hence, from (1) it follows that the thing won't fly and, from (2) it follows that the sphericon shape is irrelevant. |
|
| |
Now, is that a sufficiently objective interpretation of the facts? |
|
| |
//rotating about a horizontal access// |
|
| |
That would be a revolving door. Those things are well known to fly. They have to be anchored to the lintel to prevent accidental take-off. |
|
| |
// can only fly as long as it remains in contact with the
ground // |
|
| |
//That would be a revolving door.// Sp. fixed, but a revolving door is traditionally set with its access and axis both vertical, for the convenience of the users. |
|
| |
// can only fly as long as it remains in contact with the ground |
|
| |
I was wonder how the Australians get around this, but then realised the problem would worst at the equator. |
|
| |
But anyway, found something that meets some kind of criteria of a wobbly shape that flies, but it's gas-filled, so maybe not really self-flying. Festo Bionics, see link. |
|
| |