Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #10521
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: Dave Hrynkiw dave@solarbotics.com
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:34:35 -0700
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Was solarbotics pager mtr+fan Is: Torque and propellers
At 01:47 PM 2/20/00 , Timothy Flytch wrote:
>I would like to ad that the v-22 osprey uses counter rotating rotors
>because of precession problems in the forward flight mode... not to
>counter tork...
Love to hear the source of this little tidbit. Propellers that HUGE are
going to generate a crap-load of torque. I can't believe it's strictly for
the precession problem.
(for those who want to know: precession is the little wobble motion in the
vertical axis when you spin a top or a gyroscope).
-Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Um, no - that's H,R,Y,N,K,I,W. No, not K,I,U,U, K,I,_W_. Yes,
that's right. Yes, I know it looks like "HOCKYRINK." Yup, only
2 vowels. Pronounciation? _SMITH_".
http://www.solarbotics.com
10522 Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:42:25 -0600 [alt-beam] Re: solarbotics pager mtr+fan beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Brad Guillot
Timothy Flytch wrote:
>
> Well thanks for the encouragement... I've been slammed hard!!! on my other
> list for non topic discussion...
> I would like to ad that the v-22 osprey uses counter rotating rotors because
> of precession problems in the forward flight mode... not to counter tork...
> Timothy...
to Put it simply, that is not true. the osprey is a tiltroror aircraft,
so when its proplers/rotors are skyward, it works like a helicopter to
counteract torque. this goes bact to the whole thing about why
helicoptors have tailrotors. All in all counterroating props help your
airspeed because you are not correcting a yaw proplem that would ocuor
in aircraft with props that rotate in the same direction. the reason
most aircraft have props that rotate in the same direction is for
cutting down manfuracturing costs. That is why alot of military aircraft
have counterrotating props, because they want the preformance and they
can pay the extra for it.
Read some books on the way helocoptors work to help you understand this
concept better, because at times it can be confusing.
Brad
> ______________________________________________________
>
10523 Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:45:35 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization "Dennison Bertram" For example, in humans (If I remember my bio right) our spine cordinates
much of our imporant reflex movements, and other lowlevel, yet highly
important tasks, (like heart beating). I'm a big proponent of the Horse and
Rider type design. The walking can be handled by the BEAM, the directional
controll and so forth is a more complicated issue which can be handled by a
CPU. The issue then is how one accuratly and effectively combines the two.
Digital, to analog.
dennison
> I firmly believe that BEAM and CPU robotics have a tough future ahead.
> However when we merge BEAM and CPU robotics, I think such a path to a
> complex humanoid robot (or other task achieving robots) is much faster.
> If you look to nature you see that although almost every creature has
> reflexes, almost every creature also possesses a complex (sometimes not)
> brain. If humans needed to think about the complexity of every single
> footstep, I don't think much would get done. You could potentially save
a
> great deal of processing power by using robotic reflexes (BEAM tech) for
> such things as movement.
> Just a few thoughts.
>
>
>
>
> |___|
> -------O()O-------
> James Taylor
> URL: http://fly.to/springmeadows
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2000 2:42 PM
> Subject: Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization
>
>
> > that is kinda wierd to think of. i'm only 16 and probably will be
building
> > electronic devices the rest of my life. can't imagine what kind of
strange
> > and bizarre things BEAM might turn to? humanoid walkers, flying
> helicopters,
> > things to attack your neighbors dog. crazy! i'll be happy just as long
as
> > mine work!
> >
> > back on topic, i find that sometimes miniturazation tends to
decomplicate
> the
> > project. none of my small bots are very complex, while when i made my
> larger
> > photovore, it was a cinch to put on the bells and wistles, bigger solar
> > panels, and touch sensors. perhaps its going back to that complexity
issue
> > with CPU controlled bots. where as the CPU bots cant find enough
> processing
> > power, BEAM bots can't find efficient enough higher voltage circutry, or
> just
> > flat out big enough motors with enough torque to lift themselves up.
maybe
> > gas powered bots is the next step. hehe, put photo diodes in place of
> > headlights on my civic, hook it up to the power steering unit, wait, no,
> i'd
> > probably kill myself or destroy somthing expensive nevermind. i'll just
> stick
> > to the little bastards.
> >
> > -Spencer
> >
>
>
Home