search results matching tag: rpm

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (48)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (5)     Comments (104)   

ant (Member Profile)

Rope Start a Car With a Dead Battery

Payback says...

I know he says that neither option is available to you, but I figure this particular method, performed apparently by yourself, pulling the car towards you, supported by the cheap shit jack your car came with, would be a recipe for disaster.

You trip, the jack flops over, the car drives over you. The parking brake is designed to stop your car from rolling, not stop it from moving in the gear with the most torque at low RPMs.

In this day and age, there is almost nowhere you couldn't call AAA (CAA in Canada). This is silly and dangerous.

ChaosEngine said:

or just getting someone to help you push start the damn thing?

Rope Start a Car With a Dead Battery

newtboy says...

Yes, one wheel.
Because he has a car with a differential and the other wheel is stationary, all the rotational energy goes to the transmission, clutch, then flywheel, then crankshaft. By putting it in low gear, he gains enough mechanical advantage to spin the motor past top dead center on a cylinder and has enough battery power left to get a spark (i think he doesn't spin it fast enough to generate one), and once one cylinder fires, it spins itself up to proper rpms.
This only works on open diffs, manual transmissions, and smaller, low compression motors. You could never pull hard enough to start a big v8 like this unless your name is Magnus.

toferyu said:

Interesting.
Did he lift only one front wheel ?
If so how could that work, if not how does he lift both front wheels at the same time ?

The Problem With Renewable Energy (and how we're fixing it)

eric3579 (Member Profile)

Futurama - It's BIGGER

Payback says...

It's kinda funny how 4K has basically made TVs smaller again. Like how shifting gears affects RPM.

Computer Nightmares, China USB hub kills PC by design

chaos4u says...

All you mac people are so snowed or blind or just desperately trying to justify your money being wasted on a inferior product.

any thing can be done faster on a proper pc (proper meaning it uses the latest processor memory ssd and graphics card)

but the trouble comes from people when they get on pc they get cheap and expect to do their video editing in virtual dub (not knocking vdub by the way)

or try and find some other video tool they can use for free . they wont buy a proper video editing software package nor will they buy proper software tools for their jobs . they try and use free alternatives or try and pirate the software.

but when they use mac they by the video editing software and the tools they need .

it is such bs, macs are weaker hardware weaker operating system and a weaker overall tool . but since people have invested so much money into them they unjustly justify there purchases by derailing the pc as a lesser platform.

when it is not true.

pcs, can have dedicated storage that outperforms and also stores more than any mac can dream of .

pcs can be all self contained no need for plethora of external drives hanging form 4 may be 3 or is it 2? soon to become one port hanging off your mac in a needless chain of wires.

pcs can have higher resolution and better monitors better user input, better configuration options, and backwards and forward compatibility with previous and next gen software.

but no, mac users over shadow this with the base argument that their $1500 mac is some how better than the $300 desktop they love comparing to .

but when it becomes price point vs hardware mac users have no ground to stand on as they are using , even in their newest machines 3+ year old hard ware and even on a refresh they are already 1 year behind in technology.

mac is nothing more than a placebo for those who failed at using windows computers .

they constantly compare a custom 1500 dollar computer with a locked in user experience to a 300 dollar walmart special with a completely open user experience and lament the windows based product as inferior.

when in actuality it is the mac that is the inferior product.

did you know that your $2000++ mac has a 5400 rpm hardrive in it configured to work with 128gb ssd in such a way that if either of the two fail your entire data set is trashed?

yeah ... thats a well built product .

Starting WW2 Era Russischer Sternmotor Radial Engine

artician says...

Does anyone know what the mechanism is behind that high-pitched, start-up whine? I love that sound but realized I don't actually know what causes it. It didn't look like it had enough RPM to be friction.

supreme skills - tops

newtboy says...

?
If it's balanced, with the center of gravity below the balance point, why would it become unstable at any rpm? The lower the CG, the more stable it would be...even when stationary.

What I'm describing would 'hang' from the contact point, like the difference between a gyroscope on the table and one hanging by a string, the one hanging would never 'fall over' because gravity works to keep it upright.

Built the same as they built them here, but with the outer ring much lower, there should be no contact until it wobbles, which in my mind it never should.

Yes, I didn't think it would spin more, or faster, just be more stable, because lowering the CG ALWAYS makes things more stable, no? My design should self right if it gets off balance, gravity should pull it back into balance, rather than off balance like a normal top.

I just wondered if, somehow, centrifugal force coupled with some other forces might make it try to flip over....or maybe if the CG isn't above the contact point, it's not a 'top'?

rbar said:

Good question. I think that the entire device is unstable no matter what, its impossible to keep it straight no matter where the point of gravity as long as it needs to balance on a single tip. So zero speed would mean tip over in all cases unless you make a more stable tip (square) which would mean it cant spin very well which means you havent made a spinning top.

You can find more about the physics of the spinning top here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/top.html
and here:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/271/why-dont-spinning-tops-fall-over

So what is the optimal distance of the center of gravity to the tip?

There are several things working at the same time. Most importantly is the energy. You need to store as much energy as possible so that the top can spin for as long as possible. When the top slows spinning the friction at the tip becomes larger (the precession becomes bigger) so it starts to lose more energy and slows the spinning even more. You store energy by adding weight with a center of mass that is further away from the tip. When the top then "falls" the center of gravity moves down and reduces potential energy. Due to energy conservation kinetic energy goes up meaning speed of precession or of spinning goes up and creates a force pushing the top back up.

Off course, more mass means more friction at the tip, so there is for sure an optimal here, most likely depending on mass, size and shape of spinning top, etc.

Last but not least, more rotation speed I assume also means more friction, so its a trade-off.

If you move the center of mass down below the tip, well, if you move it as far off as you would above, the energy you can save is about the same, but the entire thing would be harder to build and you would need to make sure the sides fit around the ground plateau. Also, when the precessions become bigger the sides will hit the plateau, meaning game over.

In the end you are better of keeping the center of gravity above the tip point.

supreme skills - tops

newtboy says...

Hmmm. I wonder why neither team decided to lower the center of gravity below the contact point, since they would be spinning on the tiny raised cylinders? It seems it would be easy to make the outer ring hang below the point, so it would stay upright at 0 rpm. Does that somehow make it unstable when you spin it?
*quality craftsmanship and design

David Bowie ~ Ashes to Ashes

ulysses1904 says...

I bought this 45 rpm in 1980, back when they still sold 45's. First 45 I ever bought was "In the Year 2525" in 1969, last one I bought was the Stones "Undercover of the Night" in 1984. Since you asked.

This was Bowie's last great album. They went rapidly downhill after this one. I saw him on the Serious Moonlight tour, it was a great show but then I read this lame BS where he said he was "surprised" by the commercial success of "Let's Dance" and when he looked out into the vast stadiums of ticket buyers he wondered how many of them had actually heard a Velvet Underground song. Ya can't have it both ways, putting out a dance record for the MTV crowd and then wishing you were at a backstreet club.

Mythbusters- exploding CD

lv_hunter (Member Profile)

Tesla P85D Has An "Insane" Mode Setting - Reactions Video

Nixie: Wearable Camera That Can Fly

My_design says...

Yeah there are slap bands out there, but they don't work like this is presented to work. The arms would have to bend in multiple dimensions, and then straighten out and be able to provide a stable flying platform. The closest thing I think of for doing something like that is the "bendy" character toys where the metal wire is co-molded inside the body. That is a very heavy solution.
I misspoke on the 2" square, it is 2" x 2", so 4" square. I'm not sure that I agree that theirs is 6" x 3", but even if it is that would mean that the prop size would have to be about 1.25" and that doesn't work for a 6" x 3" vehicle. There isn't enough thrust and the motors at that size don't provide enough RPM's for that kind of weight.
On the electronic side, they show it connecting to a smart phone with video feedback. That means you have to have bluetooth at least, or a 5.4ghz video system if you want more than 30' range. or it has to have a Wifi TX on it. All of those thing require power. Sure it could analyze the video signal to determine subject matter, and provide guidance but you have some very serious issues there. If you do it on board it requires some processor power (More drain), if you do it on the smart phone app it will create lag.
Your phone has over 1,000 mAh in it (1440 in Iphone 5), that is a TON (4-10x) more than what this thing would have. Battery technology may be a big research project right now, but there isn't anything on the horizon that will get them to where they need to be. Most of the tech research is in sub 1C rated batteries for things like full size cars. Something like this needs a 10C rating minimum if not a 20C rating. Unfortunately most of the upcoming technology can not handle drains that fast. Things tend to go "Boom!". When you do something small, and even 6" x 3" is small, you have very serious power vs weight issues. It all comes down to issues of power density, and nothing exists today that will give it to them as they would need..

So right now these guys need to figure out:
1) A new light weight material that can lock rigid but also bend as needed in multiple directions.
2) A new battery technology that allows them to get the power they need, for a 6 axis gyro, 4 motors, control board,a RX, a HD camera and some sort of VTX while reducing weight. How long it powers all of that would be open, but if it is under 10 minutes I think people would be a little disgruntled. Right now people are wanting the video quads to get about 30-45 minutes of flight time on the 5200+mAh batteries.
3) Write code that allows them to analyze video in real time so as to provide object tracking and avoidance without lag while capable of running on a smartphone. It would also need to return to home when the battery runs low. That would be a little tricky on a cliff face, or if you are riding a bike through a forest. Another issue is that they tilt the camera down, they don't say if this is actuated, or done by hand, but it could lead to serious issues with programming object avoidance if you can't see anything above you.
4) Since they show the image as HD on the phone screen, they would also need to come up with a new way to broadcast HD video wirelessly. Right now that system costs $40K and is rather large.

All in all it is a dream product that people are going to get suckered into funding it. Some tech may come out of it that could be monetized, but I don't see the item coming out in this format, at least not in the next 3-5 years. You'd be better off going with AirDog.

newtboy said:

Well, perhaps with currently available public domain parts, it's not possible. That doesn't mean it's completely impossible.
The flexible frame might be hard, but there ARE already wristbands that un-bend to make a flat device, they've been around for decades, I recall seeing one in the 90's. Making it support flight might be hard, but not impossible, especially with the small forces this thing provides.
You say there are already 2" square quads out there, this was closer to 18"square(6"X3"), so the 'it's just too small' argument falls flat.
Battery time might be a factor, but a 5 min video is pretty good for now, plenty to prove the concept. Also, battery life is increasing fast.
The camera and GPS in a phone hardly uses any battery power too. These tiny devices are really not hungry enough to make them a power drain problem, at worst they might limit flight time slightly. Also, there's no GPS needed really, it could operate by keeping the subject in frame at approximately the same distance...then it could just follow you through the trees, using the image to avoid obstacles. It would take some computing power, but not an outrageous amount. Perhaps it's paired with a cell phone to do the computing? That part wouldn't be hard.
Again, because the tech isn't available on the market today (and I'm not at all sure that's correct) doesn't mean the tech isn't available to some, or creatable by intelligent people. I just don't see this as that far away.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon