UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default The mechanical bettery

On 24/08/2020 11:10, N_Cook wrote:

snip

Wasn't there a totally above the rail (no counterweights below)
gyro-stabilised monorail system somewhere, Ireland ISTR?


There was a 'Lartigue' monorail which was effectively a train straddling
a raised rail as if it were a wall, but no gyro one that I'm aware of.

There was talk a few years ago among some local enthusiasts of building
a Brennan monorail in or near Castlebar Co. Mayo where Brennan was born.
I don't know where that got to, I'm guessing it didn't make it past the
talking stage.

--
Cheers
Clive
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,237
Default The mechanical bettery

williamwright wrote:

On 24/08/2020 10:59, Radio Man wrote:
williamwright wrote:
On 22/08/2020 17:27, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QLEERYS5C8

No-one seems to know why flywheels store energy. Not really.

Bill


Angular momentum.



That's just words.

Bill


I find it simplest to avoid the question of whether it *stores* energy
and just accept that it can provide energy to a system that slows it
down to the same speed and orientation as the rest of the planet. And,
symmetrically, you can provide it with energy to start it spinning
again. Whether it is stored or simply doesn't exist when you are not
using it is a philosophical point, to which the philosophical answer is
that energy is conserved in the system containing the flywheel. But
that is just words, what matters is that you can put energy in and take
energy out, the conservation of energy being a property of the system
rather than of the flywheel.

--

Roger Hayter
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,681
Default The mechanical bettery

On 24/08/2020 13:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
williamwright wrote:

On 24/08/2020 10:59, Radio Man wrote:
williamwright wrote:
On 22/08/2020 17:27, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QLEERYS5C8

No-one seems to know why flywheels store energy. Not really.

Bill


Angular momentum.



That's just words.

Bill


I find it simplest to avoid the question of whether it *stores* energy
and just accept that it can provide energy to a system that slows it
down to the same speed and orientation as the rest of the planet. And,
symmetrically, you can provide it with energy to start it spinning
again. Whether it is stored or simply doesn't exist when you are not
using it is a philosophical point, to which the philosophical answer is
that energy is conserved in the system containing the flywheel. But
that is just words, what matters is that you can put energy in and take
energy out, the conservation of energy being a property of the system
rather than of the flywheel.


or you can just accept that the energy is real and its existence is
intrinsic to the mass-energy equivalence in relativity - a theory which
has been tested by a wide range of experiments (and applies to
rotational energy as to other forms)


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  #44   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default The mechanical bettery

On 24/08/2020 10:59, Radio Man wrote:
williamwright wrote:
On 22/08/2020 17:27, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QLEERYS5C8

No-one seems to know why flywheels store energy. Not really.

Bill


Angular momentum.



no, angular kinetic energy

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

  #45   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default The mechanical bettery

On 24/08/2020 13:11, Roger Hayter wrote:

I find it simplest to avoid the question of whether it *stores* energy
and just accept that it can provide energy to a system that slows it
down to the same speed and orientation as the rest of the planet. And,
symmetrically, you can provide it with energy to start it spinning
again. Whether it is stored or simply doesn't exist when you are not
using it is a philosophical point, to which the philosophical answer is
that energy is conserved in the system containing the flywheel. But
that is just words, what matters is that you can put energy in and take
energy out, the conservation of energy being a property of the system
rather than of the flywheel.


Yes, all that makes sense. But I was trying to get to a deeper truth!

Bill


  #46   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default The mechanical bettery

On 24/08/2020 17:39, Chris Hogg wrote:

Bill might just as well ask why a mass travelling in a straight line
stores energy.


Why does it?

Bill
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default The mechanical bettery

On Monday, 24 August 2020 10:02:23 UTC+1, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 18:23:40 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:


All is fine until there is an accident. The flywheel dislodges and


continues like a much more energetic panjanderam, demolishing

everyone
and everything in its very long path.


Yes, though that's mostly solvable. 2 counterrotating flywheels in one
casing with a mechanism to jam them together on impact.


Er, Where does all the kinetic energy go?


- friction - heat. where else?

OK in theory you have equal
an opposite amounts so they "cancel out".


since they're geared together & balanced they have identical speed & energy storage

But two identical cars
traveling at the same speed in opposite directions into each other
end up a right mess disspiating their kinetic energy,


yep, they do what they're designed to

I think you'd get a big BANG, the desruction of the flywheels and
generation of lots of high speed shrapnel.


you get what you design it to do. If you put teeth that interlock onto the flywheels & break when engaged, breakage is what you get. If you put a friction lining between them that brakes the flywheels within the time they have to stop without exceeding their tensile strengths, then stop is what you get. Etc.

The latter might be
possible to contain, they manage it with blade failures on jet
engines.


An outer case does allow for some degree of destructive breakage. And that generally will happen even if the flywheels are stationary.


NT
  #48   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default The mechanical bettery

On Monday, 24 August 2020 10:05:57 UTC+1, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 24/08/2020 02:36, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 23 August 2020 12:34:19 UTC+1, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 23/08/2020 12:13, N_Cook wrote:

snip


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireless_locomotive


Don't know about locomotives , but for road transport ,they came to an
abrupt abondonment. All is fine until there is an accident. The flywheel
dislodges and continues like a much more energetic panjanderam,
demolishing everyone and everything in its very long path.

These never caught on either...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyro_monorail


too many errors

...but it doesn't con men trying...

https://www.litmotors.com/


what's con about that?

The big issue people have with gyro balancing is that if things go wrong, stability is lost & carnage results. And IRL things go wrong & lawyers get greedy.


NT

The con is that, while it can balance, it can only be an impractical
novelty, and I'm sure that Daniel Kim (Lit Motors owner) knows that.


why?

All these years and you just get a few seconds of video, usually without
sound and without tripod. It's noisy - maybe that could be overcome -
but it's constantly rocking about it's balance point, which can't be.


I've seen footage of gyro stabilised vehicles. They rock about when the gyro speed is too low, otherwise they're stable. It seems to be quite usable. I'd think 4 wheels a more sensible option, but for a niche market I don't see any inherent large problem with gyro stabilisation. Ultimately 2 wheels & gyro is a less efficient layout, the problem is worse than the cost of 2 more wheels, but it's perfectly doable & some people want novelty.


The gyros can only supply one-way torque for a limited time
(newton-metre-seconds?) before they hit their 'end-stops', no way round
that, so to balance, the thing has to actively push against a side force
so that its weight counteracts it. In the large Brennan prototype for
example, as the passengers move to one side, the car tips sideways the
other way to maintain balance.


I'm not making much sense of that.

If you push on it with a finger, it will actively push you back, I mean
actually move you back so that its weight balances against your finger.
Of course, that's how it automatically leans into a curve.

Imagine that in traffic with constant changing blustery side winds.


the gyro stabilises it. I've watched a car drive into the side of a gyro stabilised 2 wheeler. It got knocked sideways but didn't fall over.


Imagine one stationary near a solid object and trying to squeeze past -
it would crush you.


Surely it's basic sense that the driver knows it's not always completely upright. If they choose to squeeze a person between car & wall they have only their own foolish actions to blame.


I think Kim revived the idea with a view to getting lots of investment
and advance orders, he seems to have disappeared.

An interesting subject though. There have been a few prototype
vehicles, mostly very old, and Ford experimented with their 'Gyron'.
There are some youtube videos of home made toys using the idea, I think
a properly made say OO scale monorail would be fun, and maybe some sort
of fairground ride - the idea of using a wire rope as a bridge is appealing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Gyron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrocar


AIUI Russia were particularly interested in a national monorail system because it would save them so much on rails. Bridge savings are also attractive.. For cars there seems little real upside bar novelty. Given the bridge situation perhaps it would suit North Korea.


NT
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,237
Default The mechanical bettery

Robin wrote:

On 24/08/2020 13:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
williamwright wrote:

On 24/08/2020 10:59, Radio Man wrote:
williamwright wrote:
On 22/08/2020 17:27, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QLEERYS5C8

No-one seems to know why flywheels store energy. Not really.

Bill


Angular momentum.



That's just words.

Bill


I find it simplest to avoid the question of whether it *stores* energy
and just accept that it can provide energy to a system that slows it
down to the same speed and orientation as the rest of the planet. And,
symmetrically, you can provide it with energy to start it spinning
again. Whether it is stored or simply doesn't exist when you are not
using it is a philosophical point, to which the philosophical answer is
that energy is conserved in the system containing the flywheel. But
that is just words, what matters is that you can put energy in and take
energy out, the conservation of energy being a property of the system
rather than of the flywheel.


or you can just accept that the energy is real and its existence is
intrinsic to the mass-energy equivalence in relativity - a theory which
has been tested by a wide range of experiments (and applies to
rotational energy as to other forms)


I know nothing of this. I am just treating the flywheel as a form of
magic box with defined propertiies, just as a way for simple people such
as myself to look at it.


--

Roger Hayter
  #50   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default The mechanical bettery

On 24/08/2020 21:37, wrote:

On Monday, 24 August 2020 10:05:57 UTC+1, Clive Arthur wrote:


snipped

The gyros can only supply one-way torque for a limited time
(newton-metre-seconds?) before they hit their 'end-stops', no way round
that, so to balance, the thing has to actively push against a side force
so that its weight counteracts it. In the large Brennan prototype for
example, as the passengers move to one side, the car tips sideways the
other way to maintain balance.


I'm not making much sense of that.


You can't exert a torque or force indefinitely without something to
react against, which you don't have with two wheels. So to balance
against a constant side force, the only way to do it is to use your
weight. You need to push the force away to a position where your weight
(the horizontal component) balances the applied force.

If you lean against a gyro stabilised motorcycle or monorail, it will
push against you, not just in the sense that a wall 'pushes back', but
to physically move you back. This can be seen (briefly) in one of the
Lit Motors video clips where Kim leans against the vehicle, it's also
noted in the Brennan stuff, and is the way the vehicle automatically
leans into corners - it's balancing the outward force with its weight.

If you push on it with a finger, it will actively push you back, I mean
actually move you back so that its weight balances against your finger.
Of course, that's how it automatically leans into a curve.

Imagine that in traffic with constant changing blustery side winds.


the gyro stabilises it. I've watched a car drive into the side of a gyro stabilised 2 wheeler. It got knocked sideways but didn't fall over.


That's different. Yes, knock one with a brief transient and it will
wobble and possibly slide, but hopefully remain 'upright'. Blow against
one and it will lean towards you. Unlike a normal bike, you're
insulated from the wind by the cabin, so you just get the buffeting for
no obvious reason.
Imagine one stationary near a solid object and trying to squeeze past -
it would crush you.


Surely it's basic sense that the driver knows it's not always completely upright. If they choose to squeeze a person between car & wall they have only their own foolish actions to blame.


Say the vehicle is waiting at the lights, alongside a normal car, or
worse, another gyro bike. A cyclist squeezes between and brushes the
gyro bike. The bike leans into him, the force increases, the bike leans
more, the force increases...

Or you somehow put your foot, or your dog, under the vehicle on one
side. Stationary vehicles shouldn't be inherently dangerous.

AIUI Russia were particularly interested in a national monorail system because it would save them so much on rails. Bridge savings are also attractive. For cars there seems little real upside bar novelty. Given the bridge situation perhaps it would suit North Korea.

Well, it might if it worked as well as first imagined, but it can't.
Brennan's vision was long distance monorails in Australia, and there
were somewhat fanciful pictures of wide carriages with billiard tables.
You know when you're on a train and you pass another one at speed -
imagine what that would be like as the gyros compensate for the
violently changing side forces.

The fact that it's not been achieved after over 100 years also indicates
something. A great idea, but just not quite practical, though as an
indoor novelty monorail it would be fun. This is an interesting piece...

http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/odgyro.Html

NT

--
Cheers
Clive



  #51   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default The mechanical bettery

On Monday, 24 August 2020 23:18:08 UTC+1, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 24/08/2020 21:37, tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 24 August 2020 10:05:57 UTC+1, Clive Arthur wrote:


snipped

The gyros can only supply one-way torque for a limited time
(newton-metre-seconds?) before they hit their 'end-stops', no way round
that, so to balance, the thing has to actively push against a side force
so that its weight counteracts it. In the large Brennan prototype for
example, as the passengers move to one side, the car tips sideways the
other way to maintain balance.


I'm not making much sense of that.


You can't exert a torque or force indefinitely without something to
react against, which you don't have with two wheels. So to balance
against a constant side force, the only way to do it is to use your
weight. You need to push the force away to a position where your weight
(the horizontal component) balances the applied force.


I'm making no sense of most of that. I've seen enough footage to know it is workable, albeit generally not the most efficient use of resources, and of course real problems ensue if the gyro bearings seize.

Billiard tables are afaik not relevant, and I don't see any particular difficulty in not going so close to walls as to create a hazard for cyclists.

And yes it has been done, long ago, multiple times. It's seldom done now for the reasons I've addressed, nothing to do with not working.

FWIW Schilovsky used to drive his gyrocar round London over a century ago. The only problem he encountered was asymmetric cornering ability due to having only one flywheel.


NT


If you lean against a gyro stabilised motorcycle or monorail, it will
push against you, not just in the sense that a wall 'pushes back', but
to physically move you back. This can be seen (briefly) in one of the
Lit Motors video clips where Kim leans against the vehicle, it's also
noted in the Brennan stuff, and is the way the vehicle automatically
leans into corners - it's balancing the outward force with its weight.

If you push on it with a finger, it will actively push you back, I mean
actually move you back so that its weight balances against your finger..
Of course, that's how it automatically leans into a curve.

Imagine that in traffic with constant changing blustery side winds.


the gyro stabilises it. I've watched a car drive into the side of a gyro stabilised 2 wheeler. It got knocked sideways but didn't fall over.


That's different. Yes, knock one with a brief transient and it will
wobble and possibly slide, but hopefully remain 'upright'. Blow against
one and it will lean towards you. Unlike a normal bike, you're
insulated from the wind by the cabin, so you just get the buffeting for
no obvious reason.
Imagine one stationary near a solid object and trying to squeeze past -
it would crush you.


Surely it's basic sense that the driver knows it's not always completely upright. If they choose to squeeze a person between car & wall they have only their own foolish actions to blame.


Say the vehicle is waiting at the lights, alongside a normal car, or
worse, another gyro bike. A cyclist squeezes between and brushes the
gyro bike. The bike leans into him, the force increases, the bike leans
more, the force increases...

Or you somehow put your foot, or your dog, under the vehicle on one
side. Stationary vehicles shouldn't be inherently dangerous.

AIUI Russia were particularly interested in a national monorail system because it would save them so much on rails. Bridge savings are also attractive. For cars there seems little real upside bar novelty. Given the bridge situation perhaps it would suit North Korea.

Well, it might if it worked as well as first imagined, but it can't.
Brennan's vision was long distance monorails in Australia, and there
were somewhat fanciful pictures of wide carriages with billiard tables.
You know when you're on a train and you pass another one at speed -
imagine what that would be like as the gyros compensate for the
violently changing side forces.

The fact that it's not been achieved after over 100 years also indicates
something. A great idea, but just not quite practical, though as an
indoor novelty monorail it would be fun. This is an interesting piece...

http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/odgyro.Html

  #52   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,159
Default The mechanical bettery

On 24/08/2020 18:32, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:46:55 +0100, williamwright
wrote:

On 24/08/2020 17:39, Chris Hogg wrote:

Bill might just as well ask why a mass travelling in a straight line
stores energy.


Why does it?

Bill


Why do two masses attract each other? Why do magnets attract each
other? Why do the four fundamental forces exist and how do they work?
Some things just are; they're the basics of the Universe.

God did it! :-)

If there's really no better explanation you don't need the smiley.

Bill
  #53   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default The mechanical bettery

On 24/08/2020 17:39, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 15:22:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/08/2020 10:59, Radio Man wrote:
williamwright wrote:
On 22/08/2020 17:27, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QLEERYS5C8

No-one seems to know why flywheels store energy. Not really.

Bill


Angular momentum.



no, angular kinetic energy


Bill might just as well ask why a mass travelling in a straight line
stores energy.

Energy is a way of describing the work you need to do to stop it
Guys: Energy is a character in a story. Its not real. What is real is
the reading on your meters


--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.
  #54   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default The mechanical bettery

On 24/08/2020 17:39, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 15:22:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/08/2020 10:59, Radio Man wrote:
williamwright wrote:
On 22/08/2020 17:27, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QLEERYS5C8

No-one seems to know why flywheels store energy. Not really.

Bill


Angular momentum.



no, angular kinetic energy


Bill might just as well ask why a mass travelling in a straight line
stores energy.

Because it ****ing well feels like it, mkay?

--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default The mechanical bettery

On 24/08/2020 22:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
Robin wrote:

On 24/08/2020 13:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
williamwright wrote:

On 24/08/2020 10:59, Radio Man wrote:
williamwright wrote:
On 22/08/2020 17:27, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QLEERYS5C8

No-one seems to know why flywheels store energy. Not really.

Bill


Angular momentum.



That's just words.

Bill

I find it simplest to avoid the question of whether it *stores* energy
and just accept that it can provide energy to a system that slows it
down to the same speed and orientation as the rest of the planet. And,
symmetrically, you can provide it with energy to start it spinning
again. Whether it is stored or simply doesn't exist when you are not
using it is a philosophical point, to which the philosophical answer is
that energy is conserved in the system containing the flywheel. But
that is just words, what matters is that you can put energy in and take
energy out, the conservation of energy being a property of the system
rather than of the flywheel.


or you can just accept that the energy is real and its existence is
intrinsic to the mass-energy equivalence in relativity - a theory which
has been tested by a wide range of experiments (and applies to
rotational energy as to other forms)


I know nothing of this. I am just treating the flywheel as a form of
magic box with defined propertiies, just as a way for simple people such
as myself to look at it.


Far more sensible than accepting that 'energy' is 'real'...

--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.


  #56   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default The mechanical bettery

On 25/08/2020 01:31, wrote:
On Monday, 24 August 2020 23:18:08 UTC+1, Clive Arthur wrote:


snipped

You can't exert a torque or force indefinitely without something to
react against, which you don't have with two wheels. So to balance
against a constant side force, the only way to do it is to use your
weight. You need to push the force away to a position where your weight
(the horizontal component) balances the applied force.


I'm making no sense of most of that.


It's not intuitive, but it is fundamental to their operation! You
simply can't generate/supply a torque indefinitely without something to
react against. If you could 'meddle with the laws of physics' in such a
way, satellite manufacturers would be beating a path to your door.

Look at it this way. Without external influence, you can't hold a bike
leaning to one side using gyros, the best you could do is keep it there
for a very short time while your gyros precessed over their useful
range. It's an inverted pendulum and needs constant correction to
remain upright.

You can hold a bike leaning to one side if you let it rest on your
finger, and this is the quiescent situation which the gyros enforce -
touch a balancing bike and your finger is pushed and moved back
dynamically until the system is at rest leaning against it.

I've seen enough footage to know it is workable...


I'd like to see that footage. Yes, it can be made to work after a
fashion, but not well enough for other than novelty or demonstration
purposes. Lit motors has a lot of animations but very little real video
- you'd think no-one had access to a video camera. I don't know if it
was a scam from the start or if there was a sudden 'oh ****' moment when
they made their prototype some years ago.

Schilovsky's vehicle was an impractical novelty too, it demonstrated a
principle. One of the best photographs from the Brennan monorail shows
his young daughter sat in a small scale monorail car balanced on a wire
rope several feet off the ground. You can see how this might easily
impress investors, though I think Brennan was genuine.

(Gyro bearing seizing is a non-issue from the safety perspective if you
have two.)

--
Cheers
Clive
  #57   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,829
Default The mechanical bettery

Clive Arthur wrote:

You simply can't generate/supply a torque indefinitely without something
to react against.Â* If you could 'meddle with the laws of physics' in
such a way, satellite manufacturers would be beating a path to your door.


How does a reaction wheel differ from a flywheel then?
  #58   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default The mechanical bettery

On 25/08/2020 09:34, Andy Burns wrote:
Clive Arthur wrote:

You simply can't generate/supply a torque indefinitely without
something to react against.Â* If you could 'meddle with the laws of
physics' in such a way, satellite manufacturers would be beating a
path to your door.


How does a reaction wheel differ from a flywheel then?


Both gyros and reaction wheels are used, I think gyros are more compact,
but they both need to be periodically reset with a burst of rockety gas
stuff (or something reacting against the earth's magnetic field I think,
or maybe solar wind, ask an expert) if required to compensate for a
constant applied torque.

Reactionless torque is like reactionless drive, it needs a special sort
of physics found only on YouTube.

--
Cheers
Clive
  #59   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default The mechanical bettery

On Tuesday, 25 August 2020 09:21:39 UTC+1, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 25/08/2020 01:31, tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 24 August 2020 23:18:08 UTC+1, Clive Arthur wrote:


snipped

You can't exert a torque or force indefinitely without something to
react against, which you don't have with two wheels. So to balance
against a constant side force, the only way to do it is to use your
weight. You need to push the force away to a position where your weight
(the horizontal component) balances the applied force.


I'm making no sense of most of that.


It's not intuitive, but it is fundamental to their operation! You
simply can't generate/supply a torque indefinitely without something to
react against. If you could 'meddle with the laws of physics' in such a
way, satellite manufacturers would be beating a path to your door.

Look at it this way. Without external influence, you can't hold a bike
leaning to one side using gyros, the best you could do is keep it there
for a very short time while your gyros precessed over their useful
range. It's an inverted pendulum and needs constant correction to
remain upright.

You can hold a bike leaning to one side if you let it rest on your
finger, and this is the quiescent situation which the gyros enforce -
touch a balancing bike and your finger is pushed and moved back
dynamically until the system is at rest leaning against it.

I've seen enough footage to know it is workable...


I'd like to see that footage. Yes, it can be made to work after a
fashion, but not well enough for other than novelty or demonstration
purposes. Lit motors has a lot of animations but very little real video
- you'd think no-one had access to a video camera. I don't know if it
was a scam from the start or if there was a sudden 'oh ****' moment when
they made their prototype some years ago.


Google away, there have been a handful of gyro cars, some filmed. Eg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTCVn4EByfI


Schilovsky's vehicle was an impractical novelty too, it demonstrated a
principle.


It was a demonstrator for his proposed railway. He drove it around London, it worked.


One of the best photographs from the Brennan monorail shows
his young daughter sat in a small scale monorail car balanced on a wire
rope several feet off the ground. You can see how this might easily
impress investors, though I think Brennan was genuine.

(Gyro bearing seizing is a non-issue from the safety perspective if you
have two.)


The 2 are connected together. If one stops, so does the other. If that didn't happen, things would be much worse!


NT
  #60   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default The mechanical bettery

On 25/08/2020 19:28, wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 August 2020 09:21:39 UTC+1, Clive Arthur wrote:


snipped

Google away, there have been a handful of gyro cars, some filmed. Eg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTCVn4EByfI

That sort of makes the point. Barely jogging speed, rocking around. A
fun toy. Even the later track test shows the driver really fighting
with the steering.

Schilovsky's vehicle was an impractical novelty too, it demonstrated a
principle.


It was a demonstrator for his proposed railway. He drove it around London, it worked.


After a fashion. 'Around London' is a bit of a stretch, and driven
slowly and gingerly according to contemporaneous reports. I think the
Schilovsky vehicle, in addition to the gyros, used moving mass to help
balance, maybe that was later. He only had the one gyro, so cornering
was rather asymmetric.

(Gyro bearing seizing is a non-issue from the safety perspective if you
have two.)


The 2 are connected together. If one stops, so does the other. If that didn't happen, things would be much worse!


In which vehicle are the two connected? Not Lit, not Brennan. That's
one of the safety features, if a gyro fails you still have the one to
hold you steady enough for a while.

There's one of Brennan's prototypes in the York railway museum, maybe
about the size of a very small car.

Such a shame, but it's been shown to be inadequate for practical use
several times over the last century. Almost there, but never quite.

This guy has a lot of fun with them...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGYXJjRfgTM

NT

--
Cheers
Clive


  #61   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,556
Default The mechanical bettery

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 24/08/2020 17:39, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 15:22:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/08/2020 10:59, Radio Man wrote:
williamwright wrote:
On 22/08/2020 17:27, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QLEERYS5C8

No-one seems to know why flywheels store energy. Not really.

Bill


Angular momentum.



no, angular kinetic energy

Bill might just as well ask why a mass travelling in a straight line
stores energy.

Energy is a way of describing the work you need to do to stop it
Guys: Energy is a character in a story. Its not real. What is real is
the reading on your meters


God invented work. And to do work you need energy. So she invented
energy. Simples.
--
bert
  #62   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default The mechanical bettery

On Tuesday, 25 August 2020 22:55:33 UTC+1, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 25/08/2020 19:28, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 August 2020 09:21:39 UTC+1, Clive Arthur wrote:


snipped

Google away, there have been a handful of gyro cars, some filmed. Eg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTCVn4EByfI


That sort of makes the point. Barely jogging speed, rocking around. A
fun toy. Even the later track test shows the driver really fighting
with the steering.

Schilovsky's vehicle was an impractical novelty too, it demonstrated a
principle.


It was a demonstrator for his proposed railway. He drove it around London, it worked.


After a fashion. 'Around London' is a bit of a stretch, and driven
slowly and gingerly according to contemporaneous reports. I think the
Schilovsky vehicle, in addition to the gyros, used moving mass to help
balance, maybe that was later. He only had the one gyro, so cornering
was rather asymmetric.

(Gyro bearing seizing is a non-issue from the safety perspective if you
have two.)


The 2 are connected together. If one stops, so does the other. If that didn't happen, things would be much worse!


In which vehicle are the two connected? Not Lit, not Brennan. That's
one of the safety features, if a gyro fails you still have the one to
hold you steady enough for a while.

There's one of Brennan's prototypes in the York railway museum, maybe
about the size of a very small car.

Such a shame, but it's been shown to be inadequate for practical use
several times over the last century. Almost there, but never quite.

This guy has a lot of fun with them...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGYXJjRfgTM


it seems to work in that demo


NT
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BLD-3 Lithium Ion Battery Specs Mechanical and Electrical. Ian Stirling Electronics Repair 0 July 21st 04 11:20 PM
toro GTS OHV 21" lawnmower "mechanical hard parts" - seeking source bill yohler Home Repair 2 May 14th 04 01:55 AM
WTD: Sony DV MECHANICAL ADJUSTMENT MANUAL Jack Electronics Repair 0 March 8th 04 07:21 PM
Mechanical jamming problem with CD shuffle carrier mechanism Nigel Cook Electronics Repair 4 October 18th 03 04:20 PM
Toshiba SD-2805 5-disc carousel open/close tray mechanical problem Maren Electronics Repair 4 October 13th 03 04:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"