I Does the classical theory of angular momentum explain this video of a unicycle robot?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of gyroscope theory and classical angular momentum in understanding the behavior of a unicycle robot in a video. Participants debate whether the robot's ability to remain upright can be explained by traditional mechanics, noting that the support mechanism differs from a point pivot, which complicates the expected precession effects. It is suggested that the robot's design limits its motion, allowing it to stay balanced despite gravitational forces. The conversation emphasizes that the observed stability is more about inertial acceleration rather than gyroscopic effects. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards a simpler mechanical explanation rather than a complex gyroscopic one.
Ricardo507
Messages
1
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
Does the classical theory of angular momentum explain the following video?
Hi. I'm an enthusiast of physics applied to robotics (you know, modeling and stuff), I've been studying a bit of unicycle robot and how the gyroscope theory helps us in these cases. However, I'm totally drawing a blank about how to explain in the video below:



Gyroscope theory tells me that that angular momentum vector should rotate and "Try" to align with the torque produced by the weight, however, the mechanism in the video can't do that (and isn't doing it at all). The torque produced by the weight is pointing in/out of the screen and the angular momentum of the wheel is parallel to it (I think). I don't understand why it doesn't fall.

Thank you everybody
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
Physics news on Phys.org
If I understand what's going on correctly, then what's happening is that if the whole thing were balancing on a point, it would either fall over or rotate in a circle but as it actually is, the device has limited freedom of motion due to the fact that the base is spread over a line and the rotation isn't enough to shift that support base so it just stays upright.
 
Ricardo507 said:
Does the classical theory of angular momentum explain the following video?
Do you mean the first example with balancing on one edge?
Ricardo507 said:
Gyroscope theory ...
Not sure what you mean by "gyroscope theory", but precession is not possible here, because the support is a horizontal line (hinge joint) not a point (ball joint). You seem to be overthinking what is effectively simple 2D mechanics, in the plane perpendicular to the support line and flywheel axis of rotation.
 
Last edited:
Ricardo507 said:
Gyroscope theory tells me that that angular momentum vector should rotate and "Try" to align with the torque produced by the weight, however, the mechanism in the video can't do that (and isn't doing it at all).
I believe that we should discuss that a little more.
A precession moment only happens when the plane of rotation of the wheel if forced to change orientation.

Each accelerating wheel induces a moment at its axis, which counteracts the falling moment that gravity induces about the support line or spherical pivot.

It seems to me that the off-verticality corrections are so quick that any precession moment induced by the counter-part wheel is barely noticeable or so weak that the friction at the spherical pivot is able to prevent it from developing.

In the following video, please note how big perturbations, induce certain rotation about the vertical axis.

 
There is nothing gyroscopic about this video. It is purely inertial acceleration or deceleration about an axis in order to manage that axis. The other wheel is not even needed. The device will react opposite to the wheel acceleration or deceleration (reverse acceleration).
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top