h a l f b a k e r ySugar and spice and unfettered insensibility.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Weights on radial poles are distributed around the wheel's driveshaft (or on the wheel, whatever). When the braking system is engaged, the weights are pushed outwards, absorbing the rotational energy and slowing the wheel. When they reach the endpoint it's disengaged from the wheel and continues to
spin freely while the regular brakes finish the braking. Accelerate and when the wheel matches the weights' speed, the clutch is re-engaged and the weights are pulled back to the center, causing the wheel to spin faster.
bicycle with speed governor
bicycle_20with_20speed_20governor
kind of similar [xaviergisz, Oct 28 2008]
flywheel between 2 CVTs
flywheel_20between_202_20CVTs
sorry, another self promotion link. see in particular my first illustration. [xaviergisz, Oct 28 2008]
[link]
|
| |
Lech Walesa was a radial Pole.
Or was that "radical"? |
|
| |
This is interesting, probably scary in practice, but interesting. The idea of altering the moment of intertia and thus limiting or eliminting the need for a CVT on a flywheel regeneration system is very cool (+) and I think very novel (++). |
|
| |
Does pulling the weights back to the center take energy? I think so. |
|
| |
Yes, but you could bleed some of the energy from the rotation to do it. |
|
| |
As long as energy is conserved, there's no reason why it won't work. |
|
| |
[x] i'm not sure why the second link is relevant... ? The first, certainly: the bike looks interesting, though the application I had in mind is a big-wheeled trolley on tracks: (relatively) large diameter hollow wheels with the contraption inside (hmm, that sounds sorta bikeable though you still have to deal with unsprung weight a bit). |
|
| |
with the edits it's actually a neat idea. by reducing the moment of inertia of the null state it eliminates the need for a complicated charging clutch/drive. Sadly that is the same clutch/drive that you would use to reverse the process and smoothly return the energy to the vehicle. You need a very progressive (speed/moment of inertia) system of regulation and a system to smoothly return the energy. The mass needs to be very large to do this so placing it sprung is a no go and the system needs a drive of some sort (viscous, cvt), but the need will be less as the increasing speed of the flywheel would increase the energy exponentially. I redact my former naysaying and now extend my bun. |
|
| |
//Not a very well thought out idea //
Obligatory bun then. [+] |
|
| |
//i'm not sure why the second link is relevant// |
|
| |
OK, it's only tangentially related, but based on the same principle - storing energy by increasing the moment of inertia. My idea 'taps' the stored energy with a CVT whereas your idea stores the energy by actively controlling the weight radius and taps the energy using a clutch. |
|
| |
//taps the energy using a clutch//
it doesn't: as far as I'm concerned it's just an on/off: no need for synchros, even. Post edited a bit for clarity. |
|
| |
[x] it's the opposite of your first link, ie: yours uses a centrifuge to maintain a constant speed, whereas mine's using it to assist in changing speed... still don't see the relevance of the second link, though, lol, sry. |
|
| |
now far more clear RE: freewheeling. |
|
| |
(using a car as an example...) |
|
| |
For braking I think displacement of the brake pedal would be a linear ratio to extension amount of the weights, ie: 0.5" of braking would equal 6" of radial extension, 1":12", that sort of thing.
|
|
| |
Gas'd be more complicated: I think displacement of the pedal would govern the *rate* of weights retraction, ie: 1" of gas pedal displacement would equal say 1" per second of weights retraction. |
|
| |
Like any regenerative system, yes, there'd have to be attention paid to making sure the system is smooth as possible for comfort and safety's sake. |
|
| |
[WcW] somewhere in here there's a variable-geometry centrifugal flywheel/counterweight idea. |
|
| |
Your weights could be on lengths of bicycle chain that are captive inside the pole and operated very simply by running a small drive motor forward or backward, depending upon where you want the weights to be in their running guides. A small sprocket at the point where the chains enter the hollow pole and one at the other end of the pole and mounted to the drive motor, gives you smooth control of your flywheel radius, in effect. Also ensures all flyweights advance and retard at the same rate. Five or six should be enough to overcome any potential eccentricity in their motion, which will happen at lower rotational speeds, unless they are very even in mass. |
|
| |
Such a design would limit the necessary size of the flywheel chamber to a little more than the maximum radius needed and about 7-10cm thick. Much more compact than having them swing up and out. It also removes the need for a clutch to control the flywheel takeup and release, as I see it, until you get to the point where it feeds back into the drivetrain. |
|
| |