IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Seems to me
that this type of motion would prevent you from reaching the inertia you are looking to obtain with this plan. You will be constantly speeding and slowing the drive on each wheel for "forward motion", and the jarring effect when the wheels are perpendicular to your line of motion would slow it further. The best way seems to be like they did with Ziggo with two separate motive units (spinning and locomotion). It's just a matter of weighting the spinning part to get the momentum you're looking for. Besides too much complexity just increases the potential for critical failure.
~~~)-Steven----

"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..."

General George S. Patton
New But *mechanical* complexity would be lower
Ziggo has a frame that includes locomotion, and a spinning turret for a weapon. My design would have basically two moving parts: the drive motors[1].

How fast could it actually move? Let's suppose it spins 600 rpm. If, on each revolution, you could slow one wheel just enough, in a narrowly controlled portion of its rotation, to give a differential of about 1/4-inch in the distance the two wheels travel, that would give you about 1/8-inch worth of lateral motion, or 1 1/4 inches per second. Not fast, but certainly enough to pursue an opponent who didn't want to attack while you are at speed.

I still don't have any idea if there are electric motors that can do this kind of speed, and still have fine enough or fast enough control to do the pulsed braking.

[1] The simplist construction would be to have the wheels attached directly to the shafts, but the potential for un-fixable damage would be unacceptable. So the motor shafts would obviously use gears to drive the axles. A few more moving parts, but then there would be something to fix if an axle gets bent.
===
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
     RFC on battlebot idea - (drewk) - (18)
         No clue. - (Silverlock) - (1)
             Problem with jumping - (drewk)
         I put an image up - (drewk)
         Re: RFC on battlebot idea - (pwhysall) - (4)
             Different goal - (drewk)
             Designing to win isn't everything, though. - (tseliot) - (2)
                 If we're going for cool ... - (drewk) - (1)
                     Man, that thing was heavy - (tseliot)
         It seems to me... - (marlowe) - (9)
             "Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder - (drewk) - (8)
                 change the tires to globes - (boxley)
                 Just so long as you move faster than... - (marlowe) - (4)
                     Not with how it's scored - (drewk) - (3)
                         Could this work? - (Silverlock) - (2)
                             Basically what I'm thinking - (drewk) - (1)
                                 And the LRPD sayeth "Slices, dices, chops..". :) -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                 Seems to me - (Steven A S) - (1)
                     But *mechanical* complexity would be lower - (drewk)

Powered by genetically engineered cyber-goats!
41 ms