Why you don't let students design real products

[exar333]

Not the same thing at all.

If you had read the article, you'd see the students working on the project specifically address the limitations and challenges the design faces. You then can't wait to make a post trashing their idea for reasons they themselves are aware of.

I think a group of college kids putting a bike like this together is worthy of praise. If you have criticisms, that is OK, but you can at the very least acknowledge the impressive workmanship before you shit all over their work.

Agreed. I think there is value in building something non-traditional. You learn about unique problems and issues that you wouldn't see otherwise by following convention. It's challenging and interesting.

For all the folks here complaining about the application here, relax. The purpose here isn't to build a new commercial offering, it's all about the process and learning along the way.

Also, many 'absurd' ideas turn out to be revolutionary. Some people here sound the same detractors of Galileo when he said the world was round. Think about a little.

 

[Ferzerp]

Some people here sound the same detractors of Galileo when he said the world was round. Think about a little.

Big gaping huge fallacy there.

Because some people were incorrect in disagreeing with something all people are incorrect in disagreeing with anything?

 

[SSSnail]

This is exactly what's wrong with our government today, idiots like these experimenting with our tax dollars doing idiotic things that were never thoroughly thought out. Worse is that you'd have people cheering them on.

Yeah, I too can put oars on cars and call it ”creative”.

One of the benefit of intelligence is recognizing stupid ideas and not wasting more time and resources on them. When you look at a project, realizing that it's never going to work, that you'd have physics working against you, and if successful would serve no purpose, and not any better than anything currently in place, and you go ahead with the project anyways, there's a name for what's wrong with these individuals.

Some of us are not closed minded, as someone was quickly pointed out. I would expect the people to see this for what it is - a stupid idea - are very sharp. I too can put oars in cars and engineer the contraption to make them maneuver like boats, but why?

 

[SSSnail]

On further note, if these students applied this same research to wheel chairs, I'm all for it. This whole concept just tells me that they're doing it just to be ”cool”. Appalling, really.

 

[exar333]

This is exactly what's wrong with our government today, idiots like these experimenting with our tax dollars doing idiotic things that were never thoroughly thought out. Worse is that you'd have people cheering them on.

Yeah, I too can put oars on cars and call it ”creative”.

One of the benefit of intelligence is recognizing stupid ideas and not wasting more time and resources on them. When you look at a project, realizing that it's never going to work, that you'd have physics working against you, and if successful would serve no purpose, and not any better than anything currently in place, and you go ahead with the project anyways, there's a name for what's wrong with these individuals.

Some of us are not closed minded, as someone was quickly pointed out. I would expect the people to see this for what it is - a stupid idea - are very sharp. I too can put oars in cars and engineer the contraption to make them maneuver like boats, but why?

Alexander Graham Bell:

"There are no unsuccessful experiments. Every experiment contains a lesson. If we stop right here, it is the man that is unsuccessful, not the experiment."

 

[SSSnail]

Alexander Graham Bell:

"There are no unsuccessful experiments. Every experiment contains a lesson. If we stop right here, it is the man that is unsuccessful, not the experiment."

Well, I never said we shouldn't experiment. But, if there are already imperial evidence that goes against an experiment in all facets, by previous experimentation and common knowledge, then the people undertaking that project are simply foolish, or stupid.

If Alexander was alive, he would say ” the lesson here is don't experiment with obvious stupid idea”.

Back to my previous point, why didn't they experiment this on wheel chair mobility?

 

[JCH13]

Well, I never said we shouldn't experiment. But, if there are already imperial evidence that goes against an experiment in all facets, by previous experimentation and common knowledge, then the people undertaking that project are simply foolish, or stupid.

If Alexander was alive, he would say ” the lesson here is don't experiment with obvious stupid idea”.

Back to my previous point, why didn't they experiment this on wheel chair mobility?

Because wheel chairs are not as cool or glamorous as motorcycles?

I'll add that it's not necessarily a bad idea to attempt to solve a previously un-solved problem, pure science is a wonderful thing. This is very different from building a product with no real target market though.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

So basically the limit of your traction is entirely dependent on the amount of traction those tiny rollers have on the balls....

Sounds like it would be a very imprecise, spongy ride.

I mean, it's neat in the sense that maneuverability would be amazing. This bike could drive horizontally into a parking space for example.

A crotch rocket type thing that looks like it's designed to go fast is perhaps not the best foundation to use this concept on.

I'm thinking something where maneuverability is paramount above all else. That's essentially what you use ball joints for at a fundamental level.

Also because no matter which way you're going, one of the little rollers is going to be perpendicular to the way the ball is rolling, so it's going to be a very bumpy ride. You can see it in the video, the ball goes all over the place.

 

[exar333]

The article talks about forklift-type application too, which is definitely a possibility. I do agree the idea is probably a little silly for a motorcycle, but that's probably to 'sex up' the project and make it more visibly exciting.

Would we be talking about this if the article had a picture of a forklift or wheelchair with this tech?

Question answered!

 

[jagec]

This bike could drive horizontally into a parking space for example.

Which would be a really, really awful way to park a motorcycle. "Hey, this way I can take up three times the space that I need, AND if someone else rides up with the same type of bike they can block me in! Hurr durr."

As was mentioned previously, this would be a GREAT concept for a forklift or a wheelchair. Piss-poor idea for a motorcycle.

 

[MixMasterTang]

Like someone said above, these projects are about overcoming challenges and they often lead to proving smaller basic functionality concepts than the end goal. They might perfect 1 or 2 of the moving parts in this project which could lead to another completely different invention or discovery.

 

[Ferzerp]

GREAT concept for a forklift

It would have to compete with the likes of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlmKcohyXG0&feature=related (WARNING LOUD MUSIC)

 

[sdifox]

Looks perfect for Mario Cart

 

[SSSnail]

LOL, if you think friction is going to drive a heavy ass forklift and its payload, I got more news for you. Besides, you don't need a gyro for forklift application if you want to improve its mobility.

So basically, they took some idea that is already working perfectly in other application, and said to themselves ” let's see how retarded we can turn this into”.

 

[phucheneh]

Here's my problem (okay, I have lots of problems, and have spent multiple posts complaining about the stupidity of this ballercycle (yeah, you wish you came up with that term, admit it) but I'm boiling it down here (p.s. parentheses)):

Experimenting with a valid technology in a slightly silly way in order to prove it's efficacy is not itself a bad thing. Yes, they will learn from their ballercycle.

...they will learn what a terrible idea it was. They will learn (hopefully) that things should generally be done in the simplest, most reliable, cost-effective manner; not in the most unreliable, convoluted, pants-on-head-retarded way they can possibly concieve. Especially when the former, simple, working device has already been invented.

Essentially, if it takes thousands upon thousands of dollars in failed design experiments to teach these students common sense, they need to be yanked out of MIT or wherever and put into ditch-digging school.

 

[Greenman]

Wow lots of haters. Please show me the amazingly cool thing you did as a college project???

I didn't try to redesign a motorcycle after 45 hits off the bong. They gave me a masters.

 

[jagec]

LOL, if you think friction is going to drive a heavy ass forklift and its payload, I got more news for you. Besides, you don't need a gyro for forklift application if you want to improve its mobility.

Of course you wouldn't need a gyro, and you think that forklifts aren't driven by friction?

The solution that Ferzerp posted looks like a better way to leverage current technology, though.

 

[phucheneh]

Of course you wouldn't need a gyro, and you think that forklifts aren't driven by friction?

The solution that Ferzerp posted looks like a better way to leverage current technology, though.

Forklifts are not driven by friction in the sense he is talking about. Yes, you can apply 'friction' to mean, say, a clutch, which certainly transmits power.

But there's nothing out there (okay, someone dig up an obscure example) where a wheel is driven by another wheel pressing against it. Because we have, I dunno, shafts? Gears? Chain-drives? Essentially, a whole mess of other drive mechanisms that are more efficient and more durable?

Again, you defenders-of-crap-technology really need to step back and think more practically instead of just oohing and awing over something because it's different.

How successful was the Segway, again? By their initial claims/estimates, I'd rate it one notch below 'abysmal failure.' And that actually used gyro balancing in a useful way...

...to balance a stand-up, battery powered unicycle. With two wheels...okay, now that I say it, nevermind, that doesn't seem useful at all.

edit: Also, some seem not to understand the whole 'gyro' thing. There are two different things to talk about: One, the natural gyroscopic effects exhibited by a spinning wheel (the force that makes a moving bike want to stay up), and two, 'gyroscopes' as they are known in the engineering world, which are essentially devices that help to balance things that would otherwise not have any force compelling them to not fall over (like design in OP, or aforementioned segway).

also I've just realized I want a real computer stabilized unicycle. That I can ride down the highway.

 

[jagec]

Forklifts are not driven by friction in the sense he is talking about. Yes, you can apply 'friction' to mean, say, a clutch, which certainly transmits power.

But there's nothing out there (okay, someone dig up an obscure example) where a wheel is driven by another wheel pressing against it. Because we have, I dunno, shafts? Gears? Chain-drives? Essentially, a whole mess of other drive mechanisms that are more efficient and more durable?

Everything with wheels is driven by friction.

Efficiency concerns aside, there is no reason that a wheel driving a ball generating force on the ground would be unreliable or unable to drive heavy loads, particularly at the low speeds that forklifts use.

As for a wheel driving a wheel, I know that there was a microcar that used that form of "transmission".

 

[phucheneh]

Everything with wheels is driven by friction.

Efficiency concerns aside, there is no reason that a wheel driving a ball generating force on the ground would be unreliable or unable to drive heavy loads, particularly at the low speeds that forklifts use.

As for a wheel driving a wheel, I know that there was a microcar that used that form of "transmission". Oh, and bumper cars.

Um. I think you're confusing 'generates friction with the ground' with 'driven by friction.' Again, aside from friction couplings (which generally spend most of their time solidly connected), no, drive mechanisms do not rely on friction.

You can't rely on rubber on rubber contact to both move something forward and keep it balanced. Think about what happens when a tire loses traction- sucks, but generally recoverable. Now think about what happens when that little shopping cart wheel loses traction with that bedliner-coated globe- you wipe the fuck out.

 

[jagec]

Um. I think you're confusing 'generates friction with the ground' with 'driven by friction.' Again, aside from friction couplings (which generally spend most of their time solidly connected), no, drive mechanisms do not rely on friction.

You can't rely on rubber on rubber contact to both move something forward and keep it balanced. Think about what happens when a tire loses traction- sucks, but generally recoverable. Now think about what happens when that little shopping cart wheel loses traction with that bedliner-coated globe- you wipe the fuck out.

If you don't "generate friction with the ground" you don't "drive" anything. It's a transparent distinction. Furthermore, anything that needs to be dynamically balanced is also completely dependent on continuous friction with the road. Also, every CVT is belt driven, which means that they rely on friction before any power gets to the ground.

As far as the practicality of the concept for forklifts (the ONLY claim I'm defending), we're talking about 4-wheel (globe?) low-speed devices, not the ridiculous thing in the OP. Drive, not balance. No comment on the size or composition of their drive wheels, either.

 

[phucheneh]

If you don't "generate friction with the ground" you don't "drive" anything. It's a transparent distinction. Furthermore, anything that needs to be dynamically balanced is also completely dependent on continuous friction with the road. Also, every CVT is belt driven, which means that they rely on friction before any power gets to the ground.

As far as the practicality of the concept for forklifts (the ONLY claim I'm defending), we're talking about 4-wheel (globe?) low-speed devices, not the ridiculous thing in the OP. Drive, not balance. No comment on the size or composition of their drive wheels, either.

Dude, we really seem to be agreeing with each other here- the principle in the OP (driven spherical wheels), to some extent, could have applications.

I have no interest in arguing. But you need to get your terminology down if you're going to try. You don't say that a car, or any wheeled vehicle, works by 'driving the ground.' You're not causing the earth to rotate by pushing the gas pedal in your car. There are DRIVING mechanisms, and DRIVEN mechanisms. Your engine drives your transmission. That drives axles and therefore wheels. It is all (aside from the limited slip of clutches, which, ideally, need to become statically connected as soon as possible) based on STATIC friction.

Driving a wheel against another wheel is completely different. With both components moving, it is a great degree harder to eliminate slip than it is with friction clutches that solidly connect with each other.

And no, CVT's are not really belt driven. While I will admit that they obviously do not utilize cogs like a typical chain drive, the 'belt' is made of very strong metal, which is actively squeezed between very strong steel pulleys. It's not exactly the same as using a small rubber wheel to turn a giant rubber ball.

 

[dawp]

pertinent quote here:

"This is more of a proof of concept," Parmar said. "We want to show that something like this is actually possible."

y'all are reading too much into this. they just picked a 2 wheeled vehicle to see if it could work with other applications farther down the line. I don't think they plan on going into production with this initial design.

 

[lakedude]

Motorcycle, NO!

...but wheelchair/"Rascal", maybe.

Also maybe some kind of lawn mowing ZTR?

A pyramid config might make it a great Mars rover ATV?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Just in case you missed it...

Rudimentary knowledge of physics is not as good as rudimentary reading comprehension.

LOL, no, your ignorance of physics has meant that you can't grasp the ramifications of what you've read.
The Segway is not controlled by friction rollers on its wheels, and it only needs to be stabilized along its drive axis.

This is a retarded design. It adds driveline losses where there need be none (two contact patches per wheel instead of one) and then adds more losses just to keep it upright along a second axis.

Also, every CVT is belt driven, which means that they rely on friction before any power gets to the ground.

Belts have a lot more contact area.