Crazy idea for battle bot. Can it work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edgecase
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Flywheel
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a proposed battle bot design that utilizes coaxial movement and torque for control, featuring a flywheel weapon. Key operating principles include the movement of large wheels on an axle, with counter-torque discs spinning in opposite directions to facilitate forward and backward motion. Concerns are raised about the feasibility of the drive system, particularly the need for a clutch to manage differential rotation and the potential vulnerability of the large wheels to damage. Additionally, the design's high angular moment of inertia may lead to weight issues and control loss under certain conditions. Overall, while the concept presents interesting ideas, significant engineering challenges and risks are acknowledged.
edgecase
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello all. This is my first post here. I have an idea for a battle bot design and I'd like a reality check on it's theoretical operating principles. Forget the design/engineering aspect for now. I'm aware there will be some major hurdles there! But does the physics check out?

See the attached sketch. The concept is to manipulate coaxial movement and torque to control movement of the robot. The weapon is essentially a fly wheel, and part of the coaxial system.

1. The large wheels move freely on the axle.
2. The weapon spins CW
3. Total mass of the two counter-torque discs equals mass of the weapon
4. CT discs spin CCW
5. Forward/reverse movement is controlled by speeding up or slowing down the CW discs relative to the weapon. WOULD THIS WORK? I feel like it would cause the robot to "drift" forward or backwards.
6. Turning movement is controlled by slowing down either of the CT discs. The this would result in a (gyroscope?) force rotating the system on it's vertical axis (kind of like a coaxial helicopter).

As I write this out, I'm more doubtful it will work :) But tell me what you think. If it doesn't work as I hope it will, I also have some ideas for using physical slip-clutches to transmit motion (activated by a servo or something).
Screenshot 2025-02-27 at 10.54.32 PM.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
I don’t think your proposed drive system will work. You will need some sort of clutch/freewheel system to transfer the differential rotation from the core systems to the main wheels.

Second, those enormous wheels are going to be damage magnets. My concern is that they would not withstand much damage before failing and immobilizing your bot and its weapon.
 
Thanks. I agree about the clutch. In terms of how effective this would be as a robot, I haven't completely thought through all the pros and cons, other than it would be un-flippable and it's sensitive bits would be up high and protected by the wheels from two sides and the weapon from the other two sides. Also the weapon could be designed to hammer down or flip up the opponent, depending on how you approachthem.

The wheels could be pretty beefy depending on the weight class and what kind of power to weight ratio I could come up with to drive them.

It could be all around a terrible idea, but an interesting thought experiment. :)
 
You would need a high angular moment of inertia in your CT disks which is going to cause weight issues. The disks would also be subject to reaction wheel "saturation" if you tried to move while blocked resulting in a loss of control. The tall wheels are also very vulnerable to bending/breakage.
 
Thread 'What type of toilet do I have?'
I was enrolled in an online plumbing course at Stratford University. My plumbing textbook lists four types of residential toilets: 1# upflush toilets 2# pressure assisted toilets 3# gravity-fed, rim jet toilets and 4# gravity-fed, siphon-jet toilets. I know my toilet is not an upflush toilet because my toilet is not below the sewage line, and my toilet does not have a grinder and a pump next to it to propel waste upwards. I am about 99% sure that my toilet is not a pressure assisted...
After over 25 years of engineering, designing and analyzing bolted joints, I just learned this little fact. According to ASME B1.2, Gages and Gaging for Unified Inch Screw Threads: "The no-go gage should not pass over more than three complete turns when inserted into the internal thread of the product. " 3 turns seems like way to much. I have some really critical nuts that are of standard geometry (5/8"-11 UNC 3B) and have about 4.5 threads when you account for the chamfers on either...
Thread 'Physics of Stretch: What pressure does a band apply on a cylinder?'
Scenario 1 (figure 1) A continuous loop of elastic material is stretched around two metal bars. The top bar is attached to a load cell that reads force. The lower bar can be moved downwards to stretch the elastic material. The lower bar is moved downwards until the two bars are 1190mm apart, stretching the elastic material. The bars are 5mm thick, so the total internal loop length is 1200mm (1190mm + 5mm + 5mm). At this level of stretch, the load cell reads 45N tensile force. Key numbers...
Back
Top