Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #03206
To: Wouter Brok w.j.m.brok@stud.tue.nl, beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Dennison dennlill@buffnet.net
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 17:54:30 -0400
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Inertial Rotation
Well, I was a little skeptical about how well this device could actually
point twards light, but after building a prototype, I'll admit I am
surprised how well the device works. It does point itself twards the light.
Your right about tuning also. Because overcompensation is really noticiable.
One of the coolest aspects to the bot is you can spin the robot by hand and
it reasonably quickly compensates for the spin. One of the more important
things to look at is the weight of the robot and box, and the weight of your
weight. Which ever is the lighter object will spin first. And eventually
both objects will catch up to one another. Also, if you spin them too fast,
then you won't acomplish anything, but if you spin it too slow, then the
effects may be negated. Otherwise, neat bot. And your right, I looked it up,
and this is essentially the way they direct missles and control satelites,
although these are more gyroscopes then anything else I suppose.
cheers!
Dennison
>Hello everybody,
>
>Wow, I'm overwhelmed with the reactions on the idea I proposed. Of course
>the concept of using inertia as a way to create motion was already known
>for a long time and I didn't really expect to introduce something new
>(actually I thought this was a concept that may have been tried as
>satillite-positioning and maybe is actually used this way), but I guess I
>did make up a new thing by coupling Nv-nets with inertia as a way to
>position an object.
>I agree with Wilf, after having read the messages, that it is possible to
>distinguish two concepts of inertia related to BEAM:
>
>- one that has been known to the members of this list for a while already;
>the 'wobble' drive as Wilf called it, and
>- the one that came up in me last sunday, which can be called (thank you
>Wilf !!) 'inertial rotation'.
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>
>The concept of 'inertial rotation' is: by means of a motor, with a weight
>fixed to its axis, the object to which the motor is attached can be made to
>rotate around the line set by the axis of the motor. Not only can the
>object be made to rotate, it also can be stopped rotating around this
>rotational axis by the same motor and in this way the object can be
>positioned pointing with one side in a particular direction.
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>
>My original figure illustrated this idea by a box, free to rotate around a
>line set by a wire from which it hung under the ceiling (or whatever). The
>box should rotate itself so that with one particular side it will point in
>the direction of the highest light-intensity.
>
>Of course instead of one rotational axis one can make something with two or
>three rotational axes (Jeremy: with the object inside a sort of gyro) and
>naturally it doesn't matter how the object is fixed (for example standing
>on a low friction bearing like Wilf proposed to me) so that it is free to
>rotate around one or more axes. Loads of varieties possible.
>
>Thank you all for making me aware of the fact that the idea isn't 'useless'
>as I thought it was.
>
>I will construct the thing of my drawing with, of course, a bicore-circuit
>(love those !!), to see how good the thing will be able to keep pointing at
>a light-source, and how difficult it will be to tune it to be stable (not
>overcompensating itself, etc.). I'll let you guys know what's happening.
>
>Regards,
>
>Wouter Brok.
>
>
>PS: somehow I get the feeling that I actually am contributing to the list;
>feels good !!
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.eGroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
Home