3 ms·
Reminds me of the self balancing train that rode on a single, small rail track. Project got cancelled because the double rail system was already well establishe
by navane 3y ago
Reminds me of the self balancing train that rode on a single, small rail track. Project got cancelled because the double rail system was already well established.
- ravenstine 3y agoIsn't it more likely that idea got abandoned because a failure of the balancing system would be catastrophic?
- rvnx 3y ago+ intensive in terms of energy usage + needed a second gyro to feel like you are standing in a flat environment.
- IggleSniggle 3y agoIirc the second gyro is necessary to ensure the train doesn't course correct itself right off the rail in the case of a curve? Coupled together to make the "correct" side more responsive for any given direction? Dunno.
- FinnKuhn 3y agoyou would also need a gyro in each train car, so that doesn't help
- navane 3y agoAs a sibling of yours pointed out above, the train worked with CMGs, their energy usage seems not too much: "CMGs are also far more power efficient. For a few hundred watts and about 100 kg of mass, large CMGs have produced thousands of newton meters of torque. A reaction wheel of similar capability would require megawatts of power."
- progval 3y agoDetails for the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyro_monorail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyro_monorail https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUYzuAJeg3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUYzuAJeg3M
- nealabq 3y agoNote that reaction wheels do not make use of gyroscopic torque (which balances these monorails). They are different control mechanisms. Altho both use spinning wheels. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope
- dtgriscom 3y agoThe gyroscopic action of the cube's momentum wheels must make the control algorithms quite entertaining.