Spherical wheels

[JaymzVsTheWorld]

Hey guys, really interesting stuff. I also thought the same when I watched I Robot.

After reading some Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin books, I believe the wheel and the road go hand in hand in nature. Humans being the only being to create and use the wheel for many funtions, but also the road, which made the wheel the success it is.

So maybe we need to think about the road or surface.

Also if you look at small changes in the wheel and the comapritive changes that brings, like the wheels used on a train.

[riff_raff]

JaymzVsTheWorld,

If you've studied Darwin, and believe the wheel is a natural course of evolution, please explain to me why there are no known natural life forms that employ wheels for motion.

There are flagellates, bipeds and quadrapeds, gliders, gastropeds, winged fliers, swimmers, drifters, etc. But there are no wheeled critters in nature.

As for natural selection and propulsive efficiency, the best mankind has done to-date is the ocean-going cargo container ship. It moves more tonnage, over a longer distance, using less fuel, than any other type of vehicle.

Humans have wheels and internal combustion engines not because of nature or Darwin, but because God wants us humans to go F1 racing!

riff_raff

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, I agree with you Riff_raff. An overwhelming majority of animals haven't invented the wheel.

Of course, there is an exception that must be familiar to many members of this forum: spermatozoa.

Sperms have rotating flagella. They rotate about the centriole and have a bearing that allows the thing to turn.


Why there are no examples of wheels in cells? I'd say (warning! original research!) that this happens because the relationship between gravitational forces and viscous forces is very small (the bugs weigh too little compared with the drag they get in liquids or even in air, so wheels are not useful).

For small things, gravitational forces are ridiculously low, as I've explained several times, because when you get smaller, mass diminish to the cube, but area diminish to the square of dimensions. So, in F1 terms, down force goes to hell.

In large animals, well, there is a constraint of evolution: you cannot develop radical new designs, you have to improve on what you get from your ancestors. So, legs it is.

Robots, on the other hand, are not constrained in this way. Thus, many machines use wheels. However, I believe other members could come up with other bearings in the animal kingdom.

[PlatinumZealot]

No axle though.

[Ciro Pabón]

Nice example, n_smikle.

P.S. After all, it wasn't original research. Richard Dawkins says the same, essentially.

Why don't animals have wheels?

He mentions the same example and gives you the same explanation (evolution doesn't happen from zero).

[McG]

Hey guys, really interesting stuff. I also thought the same when I watched I Robot.

After reading some Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin books, I believe the wheel and the road go hand in hand in nature. Humans being the only being to create and use the wheel for many funtions, but also the road, which made the wheel the success it is.

So maybe we need to think about the road or surface.

Also if you look at small changes in the wheel and the comapritive changes that brings, like the wheels used on a train.

JaymzVsTheWorld,

If you've studied Darwin, and believe the wheel is a natural course of evolution, please explain to me why there are no known natural life forms that employ wheels for motion.

There are flagellates, bipeds and quadrapeds, gliders, gastropeds, winged fliers, swimmers, drifters, etc. But there are no wheeled critters in nature.

As for natural selection and propulsive efficiency, the best mankind has done to-date is the ocean-going cargo container ship. It moves more tonnage, over a longer distance, using less fuel, than any other type of vehicle.

Humans have wheels and internal combustion engines not because of nature or Darwin, but because God wants us humans to go F1 racing!

riff_raff

I don't think Jaymz said he had studied Darwinism, only that he read his books. Is this correct Jaymz?

I also see that you disagreed with something that was said to be inaccurate, only to post the same point yourself, but differently worded. I'm referring to the fact that humans have been the exclusive inventor of the wheel, which Jaymz said.

It is correct to include the road with the particular version of wheel in discussion, as it only takes a small divergence from any wheel to become a different sort of wheel. The spherical wheel will not work on our roads for many reasons. Just as the train wheel will not, just as a cog wheel will not.

And of course the wheel is a natural course of evolution, we invented it didn't we. As our cousins evolved to be inventive and creative, that was the point in evolution, up until now, that the wheel has evolved, while we have. And it has contributed to what we have become today. Without the wheel we wouldn't be where we are today (as evolved). Like all beings, they have evolved a particular tool, often not part of their particular body.


Sincerely,


McG


P.S

Your boat has wheels to keep it's engine moving. It's loaded by vehicles with wheels, on many levels. Wheels were used in the construction of it.

Maybe there is a boat forum somewhere?

[Ciro Pabón]

... The spherical wheel will not work on our roads for many reasons.

Could you enlighten us?

[Caito]

If I may:

I'd go for a magnetic levitating tire. It would be an electric vehicle. why? Because the wheels(i.e. spheres) would be part of an electric motor, the rotor. It could have permanent magnets(although lots of trash would stick to it) and the car would have coils necessary to induce so as to generate levitation and propulsion.

If by the time, you get supercondcuctors(diamagnetic, reject magnetic fields) this would be cool.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hksy_4Zmh80[/youtube]

The problem is that wheels would be really heavy. You wouldn't need suspension, as the levitating fields would handle that part.

[Caito]

Not in physics they aren't.

OT:
There are no 100% valid laws in physics.

In physics(and all science) you say:

The apple falls --->F=m*a

So you(wrongly, but accepted) use the reciprocal(F=m*a--> The apple falls). This until someones comes with something better( Quantum, as F=m*a doesn't count with small stuff)

Valid would be the counter-reciprocal(or however it's said)

If F != m*a --> The apple does not falls.

But it's(I believe) to prove something by "negation". Like saying a chair is not a table, is not a pc, not a mobile phone etc..

F=m*a is broken.

[PlatinumZealot]

You are using semantics! F=ma is 100% valid under the conditions that we live in.

[Caito]

Without Quantum you can't explain the conduction of a wire.


You can't even explain why when you touch two pieces of metal you get conduction all across, if there's an oxide(i.e.insulating) layer.

And we're talking through the internet, from my pc to yours there must be thousands of connections which you can't explain without advanced physics.


Though, I'll have to admit, f=ma is valid and don't need more for vehicle dynamics(at least for the moment).

F=ma was enough to send a man to the moon..


EDIT: sorry for the ot, we can go on with the topic.


I like the idea of spherical wheels.


Poeple said it's not necessary or that there's nothing to be won because regular tires do their job. When the phone,tv, etc. was invented they said the same things.


If I could, I'd give it a try. The thing is(as happens with wankel vs reciprocating piston) regular tires have 100yrs(or so) of development, whereas spherical has almost none..

[marekk]

With our revolutionary spherical thing, we don't need four wheels anymore:



Engine/wheel failure will be a issue, though.
But racing should be funny to watch.

[siskue2005]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4bmGDnt ... re=related[/youtube]
The Audi car and the robot truck has spherical tyres
it defenitly allowed the truck and car to change direction so dramatically

[PlatinumZealot]

With our revolutionary spherical thing, we don't need four wheels anymore:



Engine/wheel failure will be a issue, though.
But racing should be funny to watch.

High center of gravity..pushrod suspension maybe?

[dheeps4580]

I think i understand the wheels are not mounted... But i dont understand how is power transmitted to the spherical tyres? Or are they driven by the thrusters