Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Robots With Square Wheels?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on 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."

7 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Explanation for the mechanically challenged. by Sparr0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  2. Re:Why? by Sarmis · · Score: 5, Informative

    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""

  3. Re:An intriguing challenge for mathematicians. by Eivind · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.

  4. Tip it's center of gravity and all bets are off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    With a drive system that relies on gravity and a horizontal swinging weight, these Rube Golberg contraptions would be especially ill-adapted to climbing any inclined surface.

    Put it at a stair-climbing angle and when the hammer swings to the back it'll just tumble backwards.

  5. Re:Why comprehending TFA is important too by TERdON · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because less parts = cheaper...

    --
    I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
  6. Re:Do you have stairs in your house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    I am protected.

  7. Mindstorms by Siener · · Score: 2, Informative

    Looking at the photo in the article, this seems like a perfect project to implement in Lego Mindstorms. Anyone up for it?

    --
    siener's youtube channel