Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Technology

Robots With Square Wheels? 203

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the being-a-square-not-such-a-bad-thing dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "About eighteen months ago, I told you about a tricycle with square wheels which needed a specially designed road. But now, Distributed Robotics, a company from Troy, N.Y., is developing robots with square wheels which don't need specific roads. These new 'cars' propel themselves on flat surfaces by taking advantage of gravity. This might sound crazy, but the inventors think it could lead to new robots and toys, and more generally to new micro-machines or MEMS applications."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Robots With Square Wheels? More

Robots With Square Wheels?

Comments Filter:

  • question (Score:5, Funny)

    by baldass_newbie ( 136609 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:39AM (#14192314) Homepage Journal
    So, instead of a donut for a flat, do you get a danish?

  • ROTATING TURRET OF DOOM! (Score:5, Funny)

    by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:40AM (#14192320) Homepage Journal
    OMG

    "The shifting weight sequentially drives each wheel that is under the weight to sit flat on the ground, thus moving the other wheels in a rotational manner, and the car in a linear direction; reversing the direction of the rotating weight, reverses the direction of the car. There are also several methods for steering the car that are under development" says Steven Winckler, President of Global Composites.

    This thing has a rotating hammer around its roof and just moves around based on the shifting weight.

    Thats should be fun on the motorway in a morning

    Why are folks so obsessed with literally reinventing the wheel?

    • Re:ROTATING TURRET OF DOOM! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:55AM (#14192366) Homepage
      Why are folks so obsessed with literally reinventing the wheel?
      Because if, against all odds, you managed to do it, you'd be rich and famous beyond your wildest dreams.
      Besides, what's the challenge of trying to invent something when people believe it _can_ be done?

    • Why comprehending TFA is important too (Score:5, Funny)

      by Legion303 ( 97901 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:59AM (#14192378) Homepage
      "Thats should be fun on the motorway in a morning"

      True. Running over "robots, micro machines, novelty toys, and others" on your way to work might give you a flat.

    • Re:ROTATING TURRET OF DOOM! (Score:4, Funny)

      by chris_eineke ( 634570 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @06:02AM (#14192383) Homepage Journal
      Why are folks so obsessed with literally reinventing the wheel?
      Because it makes you go in circles?

    • Re:ROTATING TURRET OF DOOM! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kinnell ( 607819 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @08:06AM (#14192696)
      Why are folks so obsessed with literally reinventing the wheel?

      Because when you're making machines at microscopic scales, you get a whole new set of problems. Lubricating bearings is difficult, because conventional lubricants are too viscous. Assembling complex devices is difficult, because you need complex devices to do it. And reliably creating smooth round surfaces is difficult because irregularities in the material cause rough surfaces. Flat surfaces are easy to make - just shear a crystaline material.

      • How exactly can you make a motorized rotating turret without doing all of the things you just suggested were difficult.
        Read my other posts on this subject to see that I am already aware of these kinds of problems.
        • As article and other poster suggested you can get rid of the turrent and use electro magnets on the ground that shift position, but then again I can use electromagnets that shirt position to pull the dang thing around anyways :)

          I think the really hard part on a microscopic scale would be linking the wheels together.
    • Why are folks so obsessed with literally reinventing the wheel?

      The contact information at the bottom of the page gives it away if you know the guy, which I do: Steve Derby was my advisor and one of my professors at RPI just this past spring. He's the type of person who loves to tinker with new ideas and who will probably come up with a revolutionary solution to some problem. Our projects for that class involved coming up with an idea that interested us and running with it for a few weeks (using the met
    • Why are folks so obsessed with literally reinventing the wheel?

      So they can patent it.
    • From the article it seems like an interesting solution to a specific problem. Imagine the way running works in bipeds, you create imbalance so you're always falling forward and catching yourself. It's a good way of maintaining momentum over rough terrain.

  • Do you have stairs in your house? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Big Nothing ( 229456 ) <tord.stromdal@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:44AM (#14192336)
    With square wheels, these new and improved robots are especially well adapted to climbing stairs. Do you have stairs in your house?

  • Next up (Score:3, Funny)

    by NorwBlue ( 711956 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:48AM (#14192346)
    Rev.2 will have triangelshaped wheels. The benefit You might ask? Well, 1 less hump pr. rotation.
    • Pentagonal shaped wheels will perform better since the humps and bumps will be smaller, also the energy needed to get over the dead point will be smaller.

      Next version: Hexagonal shaped wheels?

      Maybe the invention of the round wheel was a step back in the technical evolution. Maybe this explains how the "fill in a race which moved unbelievable large objects without wheels" build their "object".
      • With more sides though, the difference in radial distance is reduced and the moving of the weight would do less. The limiting case would be the circle where shifting the weight does nothing.
    • the rest of us would look for ways to increase the humping...

  • Reinventing the Wheel (Score:5, Funny)

    by AthenianGadfly ( 798721 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:50AM (#14192351)

    I think this is a really good idea for moving any sort of vehicle forward. However, I have an idea that might make it even more efficient... perhaps they could cut off the corners of the wheels to create an octagonal wheel, which would mean less force would be required to turn the wheel. Maybe, somewhere down the line, it could be expanded even further to have more sides and even fewer sharp angles. Now that I think of it, perhaps the edge of the wheel could be configured in some sort of smooth "curve" to eliminate corners altogether... hmmm... imagine what it could evolve into someday.

    It looks like these improvements of mine could really take off and go somewhere. I'd better patent it.

  • Lasers? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:51AM (#14192354)
    This might sound crazy, but the inventors think it could lead to new robots

    Will these be killer robots with lasers? If so, put me down for about 50 of them, and deliver them to Roland's place.

  • An intriguing challenge for mathematicians. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Strolls ( 641018 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:53AM (#14192360)
    The tricycle article says:
    So far, no one has found a road-and wheel combination in which the road has the same shape as the wheel. That's an intriguing challenge for mathematicians.
    but this seems to me to be most obviously untrue. A conventional road has the same cross-section as the planet it's built on... so a hypothetical flat road encircling the globe is as near as damnit circular. Now what shape are wheels? An intriguing challenge for mathematicians and bloggers, perhaps.
    • A conventional road has the same cross-section as the planet it's built on... so a hypothetical flat road encircling the globe is as near as damnit circular. Now what shape are wheels?

      You are correct that a conventional road is circular (or at least much closer to being circular than the straight line that we perceive it to be). However, the constraints of the problem (from the article) included "keeping the axle moving in a straight line and at a constant velocity". Clearly a conventional road fails

      • Re:An intriguing challenge for mathematicians. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Eivind ( 15695 ) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @06:23AM (#14192438) Homepage
        But equally clear, the challenge as stated, is unsolvable. Any reasonable definition of "wheel" requires it to be able to turn multiple rounds, in effect a wheel must be a closed loop.

        If the road is the same shape, then the road must also be a closed loop.

        There's no way a vehicle can move straigth along a road that is a closed loop. At best it could move straigth for a short while, but eventually the road has to curve to be able to close back on itself.

        • Isn't there even a possibility for a solution in a non-euclidian geometry?
          • Isn't there even a possibility for a solution in a non-euclidian geometry?

            Only in LSDian geometry. Wait, that's showing my age... It's in Extacian geometry. But then again, you forget about it by morning.

          • Yes, but IMO the non-Euclidian solution is rather trivial: you have a wheel rotating around and following a straight cirumferential (great or small circle [wolfram.com]) path on a sphere. Being on a sphere, the wheel's path can be "straight" and also a closed loop. You could also have a solution on the curved surface of a cylinder

            Whether or not that's an acceptable solution to you depends on how you define "straight" in the problem originally. If you take it to be something like 'a path whose coordinates remain constant
            • you have a wheel rotating around and following a straight cirumferential (great or small circle) path on a sphere.
              Already proposed, already shot down: moving in a circle involves a change in velocity.

              My solution is to make the wheel any darn shape you like, and have the road fit exactly to it, all around. Then the velocity will be constant - constantly zero.

        • There's no way a vehicle can move straigth along a road that is a closed loop. At best it could move straigth for a short while, but eventually the road has to curve to be able to close back on itself.

          It could if the loop was infinite.

          SteveM

          • Not really. A infinite circle is still only *locally* straigth, not globally straigth.

            • But the loop will always appear local to the vehicle.

              At best it could move straigth for a short while, but eventually the road has to curve to be able to close back on itself.

              In the case of an infinite loop, the "short while" also becomes infinite.

              SteveM

        • Didn't you just define a tank tread? Seriously, ;) isn't a tank tread a closed loop road way that the wheels of the tank drive on?

  • Obligatory (Score:2, Funny)

    by connah0047 ( 850585 )
    I think they are trying to reinvent the wheel here...

  • Why? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Big Nothing ( 229456 )
    I have to ask: why? What is the advantage of this means of propulsion? What are the special applications for this system?

    It's not a perpetum mobile; it needs energy to work, just like any other propulsion system. It seems to me that this type of propulsion would have a significantly lower efficiency than an ordinary, circular wheel system.

    Neither the article, nor the homepage [globalcomposites.net] (which just went on it's knees, so don't bother clicking the link anytime today. They have a counter that will only go as high as 999

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sarmis ( 861964 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:59AM (#14192377)
      Sometimes reading the article reads to fascinating statements, which answer the question you apparently pose after reading only the blurb. Such as this tidbit: ""For use in micro-machines or MEMS applications, one of the key benefits is that the motor and gearing moving the shifting weight is all in a plane parallel to the motion surface. No right angle gearboxes are required. The connection between the two axels can be accomplished by simple linkages""

      • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by KlaymenDK ( 713149 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @06:23AM (#14192440) Journal
        I RTA, and I I think this is very neat (if not elsewhere, this could at least be very useful in wheel-and-circle-deficient Lego builds! ;o) ).

        Still, I don't see it. Surely, if you keep the axle linkages, sand the wheels down, and merely rotate the motor 90 degrees so its drive shaft is parallel to the axles, that would also yield propulsion without right-angle gearing, no? Granted, you would need a chain drive or a (non-angled) set of gears to connect motor and axle, unless the axle IS the drive shaft.
        • Rotating the motor might make it harder to build the motor. If you are producing the motor and weight assembly using lithography it would probably be easier to build the motor so that the output shaft is vertical with a weight that it can swing around in a circle.

          I wish the article had gone into some more detail about the construction techniques so we could more easily see the problems that this solves.

          I think its a clever bit of technology, although I'm curious about the linkage between the front and rear

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Grimster ( 127581 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @06:14AM (#14192416) Homepage
      Because it's a new way to do an old task. Is it practical? I don't know, how many "impractical" or "silly" things later were found to be extremely useful?

      Looking at the article I was just struck with a sense of "whoa neat" at the simplicity of the idea yet the fact (as far as I know) it's never been done before (using a "helicopter" of shifting weight to propel a car forward by it's properly aligned square wheels). Sometimes it's not so much "why?" but "why hasn't anyone ever thought of this before?".
      • I belief is that the problem is getting enough normal force to make the thing work. Micromachines (machines in the 1 to 1000 micrometer range - not the trademark) tend to be very light and at such size scales, gravity becomes less and less significant.

        Anoher probable problem (unless you happen to be the patent holder) is that this is apparently patented, which means it's unlikely to be seriously researched until said patents expire.

      • Re:Why? (Score:2)

        by Cyn ( 50070 )
        because you have to have a large enough counter-weight above to remove enough of the vehicle weight from the opposing wheels to allow them to rotate. At car sizes, you're basically talking about swinging another car above you - trying not to tip over - and all the while slowly stumbling along with a rough ride - and twice the weight you need to be pulling along.

        As far as I can see, this would only be practical at smaller sizes, because of the simplicity of the design. Think small robots/vehicles.

        I'd love

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Potor ( 658520 ) <farker1@gmai l . com> on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @07:18AM (#14192565) Journal
      The beauty of a university (even in this age of patents, industrial parks, and spin-offs) is that in theory any problem can be investigated without having to be justified. Who knows if this experiment will go anywhere (pun really not intended), but the ultimate (perhaps, commercial) form of any pure research is quite hard to imagine ab inititio.

      I know that you are just asking a question, and indeed a good question. I am simply trying to forestall the opinion that because the advantages are not immediately to be seen, this must be a waste.

      • The beauty of a university (even in this age of patents, industrial parks, and spin-offs) is that in theory any problem can be investigated without having to be justified.

        That may well be the theory. The practice is very different. Research (even "basic" research) requires funding to pay for time, equipment, and grad students. That means you need to be able to sell a funding agency on what you are doing. Which in turn means that you need to be able to justify your research somehow. Now, granted, you don't

        • I am well aware of the hijacking of the university, and the supression of free research. Curiously, this has gone hand in hand with the increasing ownership of knowledge (don't tell me patents are only for designs and implementations), and the rampant commercialisation of our faculties. Actually, it is not the curious at all. It's called greed, or at least short-sightedness.

          And this 'theory' you talk about - well, that's the very basis of the university, and it also contributes to the idea of tenure. Theor

    • There's 2 reasons this is useful.

      1. At small scales rolling resistance is much higher. -- because surface smoothness is relatively much choppier. -- benefit of round wheels and gliding potenitial is much less.

      It moves by wobbling from side to side with a weight moving like a helicopter rotor to sequentially push down on each wheel. so,

      2. This simplifies small scale motion, because you dont need gears, axels or chains to transfer motor rotation into differen axes.

  • Explanation for the mechanically challenged. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sparr0 ( 451780 ) <sparr0@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @05:57AM (#14192371) Homepage Journal
    The vehicle described here, and built as a prototype, has 4 square wheels each with different orientations (evenly spaced). When the front left wheel sits flat the rear left wheel is 1/16th of a turn from being flat. Shifting the center of gravity of the car towards that rear left wheel causes it to 'fall' forward to sit flat, which rotates all 4 wheels 1/16th of a turn. The front left wheel is now 1/16th past flat (and 3/16ths from the lying flat on its next side) and the rear right wheel is 1/16th from being flat. Shift the weight to the rear right and it rolls forward another 1/16th of a turn. This produces moderately wobbly and slightly jerky motion, but could prove to be a simpler method of locomotion at very small scales, especially if magnetism instead of gravity is used to pull the wheels down/forward.

  • Toys? Seriously? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sockatume ( 732728 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @06:27AM (#14192448)
    I don't know how parents will take to a toy with four spinning pointy wheels and a rotating hammer on top.

  • Where's Rudolph when you need him? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Woldry ( 928749 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @06:41AM (#14192479) Journal
    ::sings:: Weeee're on the islannnd of miiiisfit tooooyyyys....

    Okay, I'll go sit in my [square] corner now.

  • Subscribers (Score:5, Funny)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @06:46AM (#14192496)
    The next blog entry on a page hit whore's site is ready now, but subscribers can see it early.

  • Misfit train.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @07:01AM (#14192523) Homepage
    Looks like Rudolph's [imdb.com] misfit train [groundspeak.com] will finally have a purpose.
  • I'd like to see this square-wheel-robot in action, but the link to the video on the site has obviously been slashdotted, or else they're running the whole site off a dial-up modem. Anyway, according to Firefox, it's going to be another 12 hours before I can see the video. Any chance anybody saved it before it got slashdotted and can post a mirror somewhere? Here was the original link: http://www.globalcomposites.net/Reinventing%20the % 20Wheel%201.mpg [globalcomposites.net]

  • 'Tis the season! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Equis ( 723653 )

    I just saw this great report on television the other day. It turns out no one wants a Charlie in the Box, a squirtgun that squirts jelly, or a robot with square wheels. They're all just Misfits.

    Oh, and Bumbles bounce.

  • Perfect for the Scion Xb or the Honda Element (Score:5, Funny)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @07:50AM (#14192650)
    Now you can have square wheels to go with your box car

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Quixadhal ( 45024 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @08:28AM (#14192768) Homepage Journal
    Scientists make use of extensive surplus budget to create the new threadless screw.

    "We think this new screw will help the industry by providing a less complex fastening device for the end users, and it should be more economical for manufacturers as well."

    The new threadless screw serves the same function as a traditional screw, but doesn't require a complex torque-riddled installaton process. Simple repeated impacts will drive the new screw home with far less effort.

    "The average consumer is often frustrated with traditional screw technology. Do you need flat heads, phillips, star-point? Will sheet metal screw threads work, or do you need the heftier wood threads? Self-threading points, or rounded? It's mind-boggling! These new screws are great. They only have one head type, and you just pick the length and heft you need. That's all!"

    Scientists expect the threadless screw to be a big hit in 2006, and look forward to tackling the next problem at hand.

    "We're thinking of developing a shorter lever next year... One that doesn't require so much space to operate. It will have less leverage, but most people don't really use the leverage their current levers provide."

  • Reversing is Simple (Score:5, Funny)

    by giafly ( 926567 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @08:30AM (#14192774)
    Just replace the offset weight by a helium balloon.

  • square wheel to circle to square again (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It seems that we have come full square...

  • Mindstorms (Score:3, Informative)

    by Siener ( 139990 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @09:24AM (#14193050) Homepage
    Looking at the photo in the article, this seems like a perfect project to implement in Lego Mindstorms. Anyone up for it?

  • Next up: Bread (Score:2, Redundant)

    by Nerdposeur ( 910128 )
    In other news, baking researchers have found a new way to create bread segments that requires fewer steps than traditional slicing.
  • Turning would mean that the outside wheels would cover more distance, which would throw off the synchronized movement of the 4 wheels.

  • "Honey, I need to take the car to the tire shop and get the corners sharpened."

    Even on a small scale, concentrating the weight on even a rounded edge like that would seem an invitation to excessive wear, both on the wheels and on the surface it runs on.

    About as practical as high heels.
  • extremely slowly and carefully?

    From what I see, this whole design is only practical at small scale, where the simplicity is needed. I've been wrong before though.

  • no one has made a road and a wheel in which the two are the same? obviously this person has never used a gear and rail... duh...
  • It looks like it could set off in the wrong direction, or just rock back and forth. What decides which direction it moves in?
  • Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)
  • What a neat idea!

    Heck, walking is a kind of controlled falling using weight management and multiple levers; Lean forward and flip out your leg thingies to stop yourself from crashing. Repeat.

    Rah rah for useless research! Science for the heck of it!


    -FL

  • They're bringing back Micro-machines now too? Great! I loved those things...will the fast talking guy be back also?
  • ... was the paragraph:

    The main driving force for the table top prototype is produced by gravity pulling downward. Other forces that could hold the car against a surface, and provide the moving force necessary to increment the car along, include aerodynamic, hydrodynamic, magnetic, electromagnetic, and electrostatic. Such forces could be independent of the car mass, and could thus propel the vehicle with much greater force and velocity. In some instances, these forces could provide their own means to move fr
  • The main driving force for the table top prototype is produced by gravity pulling downward.
    So as long as the earth continues to exist, we have a perpetual motion machine?

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close