h a l f b a k e r yRIFHMAO
(Rolling in flour, halfbaking my ass off)
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,
|
|
|
| |
[If you're googling this, search on "wheg robot" or you a lot of stuff about Wisconsin. Wherever that is.] |
|
| |
I'm kinda missing the point of minimizing friction on a highway - you need a whole bunch of it to go fast (or your wheels will just be spinning in place - think driving on ice). |
|
| |
And whegs seem to be less like tires and more like bicycle wheels without the rim. |
|
| |
frictionless impoves mileage |
|
| |
a wheg could use normal surface to attain velocity then go to metal surface to keep velocity |
|
| |
Treon, do you actually know what
percentage of a car's energy is wasted in
overcoming wheel friction when travelling
at any particular speed? |
|
| |
Actually, I retract that, since it seems that
tread friction is not insignificant. My
apologies. However, I would bet my hat
against your shift key that whegs are not
the solution. |
|
| |
Treon, you really need to work on providing some background information so that your decipherer's can have a clue as to what you're saying. It looks to me like a wheg would be a terribly bumpy ride at a fast rotation, no? |
|
| |
visualize a humaniform robot running at 70 mph I'm thinking that a wheg would be as bumpy as such a robot carrying a person with their vibration n momentum controlling arms |
|
| |
actually the spooky thing is this: the new autonomous robot cars that are recently featured could improve vehicle mileage notably if they just tossed metal flats after them n had whegs |
|
| |
a RR thing i read suggested these have hundreds of mpg compared with trucks as they are metal on metal plus travel at aerodynamically friendly velocities |
|
| |
wheg equipped autonomous vehicles could travel on metal strewn gound at hundreds of mpg at moderate burlington northern like velocity |
|
| |
In what way would this be simpler than laying smooth rails to run rigid wheels on? My experience with active suspension tells me that the necessary processing speed is far above what is currently achievable and the power required to reprofile the wheel would also be prohibitive, even if you just consider the acceleration of the 'tyre' mass.
bone. |
|
| |
[Treon], I see no evidence anywhere to suggest that this offers any benefits, other than your own opinion. "I've found whegs... computer-controlled whegs are the way of the future" is missing a logical step or two. I could, for instance, argue that a slug-like locomotion based on melted cheese was even better, all I need to do is avoid presenting any facts or logic. |
|
| |
And what [Twizz] alluded to - build a railway. For one, you won't be bouncing the entire mass of the vehicle up and down significantly at 3Hz [edit: that should be 3x rotational speed], so you'll save a lot of energy over these whegs right away. |
|
| |
A railway uses only the friction co-efficient between the interacting surfaces to gain a vector in the required direction (a lot of waste energy). Quite obviously, an intelligent use of the vector result of the interaction of two surfaces would be beneficial. This works in the same way that an elephant can crush a skull, yet step gently over dry leaves. However your "dollops" of metal overlook phase intergration. And, if random, overlook any type of energy efficiency. |
|
| |
[4whom], I don't see where the huge energy wastage is on a railway. If you pass more power than the wheels can handle, then slippage, wastage and severe wear results, but that's not how a train starts. Rather, power is carefully managed so that each wheelset is right on the edge of slipping, but still just hanging on. It's a very efficient mode of transport. |
|
| |
Shaka, when the walls fell |
|
| |