Yeah, the "smart people" guessed without planning and screwed up. They "solved" it by trying other things until one worked. They didn't demonstrate any forethought or planning. That proves to me that they didn't consider any unconventional brakes that would have worked much better for their application.
The wheel has much larger diameter than the brake disc, so any braking wear on its circumference would require wheel rebalancing.
The wheel has a solid rubber (looking) band around for traction. It's funny (to me at least) that they made rubber tread that can go 1000mph (well, actually 2000 mph relative to the ground at the top of the wheel) but their brakes fell apart. Proves to me that they thought about some things in great detail, and ignored others. But once you've slowed the wheel down to 150 mph, what's wrong with a brake that is a rollerblade wheel extended above the ground wheel, that contacts it and uses friction on the brake wheel's axle to slow the car. The complexity would be higher, but the massive sprung weight would be avoided.
But they proved they didn't consider anything "interesting" when they grabbed a carbon disc, expecting "carbon is better" and it failed. They didn't pre-think about the problem, but tried to grab the closest automotive solution. Smart people aren't very smart when they don't think about the problem.
I've looked at it. I've actually done it (not for a car, but other purposes). The constraints you claim are self-imposed, not imposed by it being inductive.
So the Half-Blood Prince potion book was a copyright violation by Harry and Snape. Altering a copyrighted work with notes (cheats) creates a derivative work, and use of that by someone else turns Snape into a criminal, as well as Harry.
It doesn't make sense when applied to other copyrighted works, so why does it work for computer games?
blizzard have always been fucks about this and you can go to slashdot archives going back way more than a decade to find shit about them suing people for making software other devs would praise for having been created...(bnet sue days. but those were also sued because they were already positioning battle.net as an antipiracy device to take away value from paid customers)
That and I *hate* their legal argument. If someone makes an app they don't like, they claim it breaks ToS (or change ToS to make it break ToS) and then sue them for breaking the ToS of a 3rd party. It's just an evil argument. If someone "helps" me break my ToS, then I and only I should be responsible. Claiming that my ToS breach is a copyright violation, and that they are therefore inducing, causing, and otherwise breaking copyright.
This is all looking very complicated and heavy compared to the simple solution of metal discs and callipers.
Embedding magnets in the hub and a coil near. The weight is much less than discs and callipers. Yes, when you do it poorly, it will be a poor solution.
The projects homepage appears to have quite a bit of information on the tech. I have not had time to read it yet.
A lot of statistics and specifications, but not too much on why, or other more interesting questions.
I've seen more than one set of brakes break at a cross-drilled hole. Though it's possible to cast them with the holes, and lose the weak points induced by drilling. And slotting was selected because it gives most of the benefits of drilling, with no reduction in strength because the metal is carved, but not pierced. And the pads. Even racing car pads will start outgassing at those temperatures, and then without holes, your performance willl drop a lot. Though they are aiming for 0.3g of deceleration, about 1/10th the max for a race car, so aside from them falling apart at top speed, standard race-car (F1) brake systems should work fine. I also found it interesting that they put the caliper on the frame, not the suspension. But again, no reasoning for that unusual choice was given.
I would have considered something in the axle, though no idea what they used for it. To better spread the stresses, longer than minimum axles are generally used, and putting small magnets embedded into them with copper wire around would have minimal effect on rotating mass and be able to provide non-contact stopping power. The other option I though of was putting the same thing in the wheel, but even the smallest weight in the wheel could have large knock-on effects.
Or what about going with friction braking. Have a roller come down on the top of the wheel, and generate resistance. Use the wheel itself as the braking surface. There are 100 ways I can think of for stopping a car without having brake disks. Drum brakes started out by having the calipers work from the outside in, before it was reversed to make the "drum" appearance style widely called drum brakes. Putting them in a drum increased performance, but increased cost and complexity. Going back to the basics and re-inventing automotive brakes could give them something better than adapting current brakes to a special situation. The precursers to drum brakes were lighter and cheaper than their replacement, but were bad for wear and wet weather performance, but something tells me they won't be taking their runs in the rain (but may need to consider the large amount of cast-off of the ground surface that could pollute the braking surface in them.
This article is devoid of scientific and engineering details. It's "ooh look, this car is so fast that it breaks fighter-jet brake rotors before even trying to use them." Yeah, cool. So if it's so hard, why didn't you try other ways? What are the pads, as regular pads will no work at the temperatures given. Also, I noted the rotors were vented, but not slotted or drilled. Is this because survivability is more important than effectiveness?
You just described regular brakes, not regenerative ones. You are so busy proving me wrong that you forgot you should be right first before you correct someone.
This article is about non-friction materials as well. There's no question about whether either rotor can stop the vehicle. That's trivial. The question is about whether it can survive the stresses of spinning at top speed.
Sometimes the failure mode doesn't matter. I had a friend that hit a pothole on a bicycle. His bike shattered (mutliple failure points, top tube and down tube failures at multiple points). Another friend did the same on a steel bike. It didn't fare any better, but was in one piece. One mangled and useless piece. The material didn't matter, both failed spectacularly.
The issue isn't how it works under load. The issue is that the wheels turn so fast that the wheels at top speed is a materials problem. Slowing is easy. Surviving top speed is harder.
Putting magnets into the wheels and slowing the wheels through inductive forces would solve the rotor issue (though introduce its own). I think that was the core of the suggestion.
Why not a non-contact inductive system? Use a regenerative braking system. But the techs working on this are automotive techs, so they think of the standard answers. It looks like braking performance isn't the hard part, but having the materials survive the top speed. So change the braking system to not use rotors at all.
First, you claim melting point depression due to pressure will cause glaciers to melt. Nonsense.
Where did I claim that?
Then you claim that warmer air temperatures cause problems because of faster flow, but the effect is quite small.
Where did I claim that?
Now you point to something yet different, namely how warming may cause a particular ice sheet to destabilize. Yeah, it destabilizes alright, and then takes leisurely millennia to actually make it into the sea. And it's out of our control anyway, hence irrelevant to climate change discussions.
Where did I say that?
Rather than lying when summarizing my words, just quote them directly.
You keep getting the science wrong, and whenever people point it out to you, you invent another bogus story.
Complaining that they don't like what I'm saying isn't pointing out errors in science.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the "smart people" guessed without planning and screwed up. They "solved" it by trying other things until one worked. They didn't demonstrate any forethought or planning. That proves to me that they didn't consider any unconventional brakes that would have worked much better for their application.
The wheel has much larger diameter than the brake disc, so any braking wear on its circumference would require wheel rebalancing.
The wheel has a solid rubber (looking) band around for traction. It's funny (to me at least) that they made rubber tread that can go 1000mph (well, actually 2000 mph relative to the ground at the top of the wheel) but their brakes fell apart. Proves to me that they thought about some things in great detail, and ignored others. But once you've slowed the wheel down to 150 mph, what's wrong with a brake that is a rollerblade wheel extended above the ground wheel, that contacts it and uses friction on the brake wheel's axle to slow the car. The complexity would be higher, but the massive sprung weight would be avoided.
But they proved they didn't consider anything "interesting" when they grabbed a carbon disc, expecting "carbon is better" and it failed. They didn't pre-think about the problem, but tried to grab the closest automotive solution. Smart people aren't very smart when they don't think about the problem.
I've looked at it. I've actually done it (not for a car, but other purposes). The constraints you claim are self-imposed, not imposed by it being inductive.
So the Half-Blood Prince potion book was a copyright violation by Harry and Snape. Altering a copyrighted work with notes (cheats) creates a derivative work, and use of that by someone else turns Snape into a criminal, as well as Harry.
It doesn't make sense when applied to other copyrighted works, so why does it work for computer games?
Blizzard already won the same thing against Glider, but it may have been settled, not decided in court.
blizzard have always been fucks about this and you can go to slashdot archives going back way more than a decade to find shit about them suing people for making software other devs would praise for having been created...(bnet sue days. but those were also sued because they were already positioning battle.net as an antipiracy device to take away value from paid customers)
That and I *hate* their legal argument. If someone makes an app they don't like, they claim it breaks ToS (or change ToS to make it break ToS) and then sue them for breaking the ToS of a 3rd party. It's just an evil argument. If someone "helps" me break my ToS, then I and only I should be responsible. Claiming that my ToS breach is a copyright violation, and that they are therefore inducing, causing, and otherwise breaking copyright.
This is all looking very complicated and heavy compared to the simple solution of metal discs and callipers.
Embedding magnets in the hub and a coil near. The weight is much less than discs and callipers. Yes, when you do it poorly, it will be a poor solution.
How do you have a wheel without an axle? The wheel must mount to something.
So, nobody can ever be right if they weren't asked to work on the project? Your logic doesn't work.
The projects homepage appears to have quite a bit of information on the tech. I have not had time to read it yet.
A lot of statistics and specifications, but not too much on why, or other more interesting questions.
I've seen more than one set of brakes break at a cross-drilled hole. Though it's possible to cast them with the holes, and lose the weak points induced by drilling. And slotting was selected because it gives most of the benefits of drilling, with no reduction in strength because the metal is carved, but not pierced. And the pads. Even racing car pads will start outgassing at those temperatures, and then without holes, your performance willl drop a lot. Though they are aiming for 0.3g of deceleration, about 1/10th the max for a race car, so aside from them falling apart at top speed, standard race-car (F1) brake systems should work fine. I also found it interesting that they put the caliper on the frame, not the suspension. But again, no reasoning for that unusual choice was given.
I would have considered something in the axle, though no idea what they used for it. To better spread the stresses, longer than minimum axles are generally used, and putting small magnets embedded into them with copper wire around would have minimal effect on rotating mass and be able to provide non-contact stopping power. The other option I though of was putting the same thing in the wheel, but even the smallest weight in the wheel could have large knock-on effects.
Or what about going with friction braking. Have a roller come down on the top of the wheel, and generate resistance. Use the wheel itself as the braking surface. There are 100 ways I can think of for stopping a car without having brake disks. Drum brakes started out by having the calipers work from the outside in, before it was reversed to make the "drum" appearance style widely called drum brakes. Putting them in a drum increased performance, but increased cost and complexity. Going back to the basics and re-inventing automotive brakes could give them something better than adapting current brakes to a special situation. The precursers to drum brakes were lighter and cheaper than their replacement, but were bad for wear and wet weather performance, but something tells me they won't be taking their runs in the rain (but may need to consider the large amount of cast-off of the ground surface that could pollute the braking surface in them.
This article is devoid of scientific and engineering details. It's "ooh look, this car is so fast that it breaks fighter-jet brake rotors before even trying to use them." Yeah, cool. So if it's so hard, why didn't you try other ways? What are the pads, as regular pads will no work at the temperatures given. Also, I noted the rotors were vented, but not slotted or drilled. Is this because survivability is more important than effectiveness?
You just described regular brakes, not regenerative ones. You are so busy proving me wrong that you forgot you should be right first before you correct someone.
Which article discusses it? None? Thought so.
Inductive brakes have calipers. Why do you assume they are necessary for all inductive braking systems?
Oh, last pack I grabbed, they were made in China. http://www.cheap-batteries.com...
Looks like they make in both places now, and I just get Chinese ones.
You are incorrectly applying the technical term to a generic usage. Your ignorance doesn't demonstrate my error.
I didn't say they should have done it, but the question was why didn't they? That's not arm-chairing, but trying to learn. Why do you hate learning?
Anchors, or a really really compliant tailhook system.
This article is about non-friction materials as well. There's no question about whether either rotor can stop the vehicle. That's trivial. The question is about whether it can survive the stresses of spinning at top speed.
Sometimes the failure mode doesn't matter. I had a friend that hit a pothole on a bicycle. His bike shattered (mutliple failure points, top tube and down tube failures at multiple points). Another friend did the same on a steel bike. It didn't fare any better, but was in one piece. One mangled and useless piece. The material didn't matter, both failed spectacularly.
The issue isn't how it works under load. The issue is that the wheels turn so fast that the wheels at top speed is a materials problem. Slowing is easy. Surviving top speed is harder.
Putting magnets into the wheels and slowing the wheels through inductive forces would solve the rotor issue (though introduce its own). I think that was the core of the suggestion.
regenerate into a resistor. A regenerative system doesn't need to use contact or rotors.
Why not a non-contact inductive system? Use a regenerative braking system. But the techs working on this are automotive techs, so they think of the standard answers. It looks like braking performance isn't the hard part, but having the materials survive the top speed. So change the braking system to not use rotors at all.
I was thinking AAA/AA/C/D/CR2032, but yes, there are batteries made in the USA.
First, you claim melting point depression due to pressure will cause glaciers to melt. Nonsense.
Where did I claim that?
Then you claim that warmer air temperatures cause problems because of faster flow, but the effect is quite small.
Where did I claim that?
Now you point to something yet different, namely how warming may cause a particular ice sheet to destabilize. Yeah, it destabilizes alright, and then takes leisurely millennia to actually make it into the sea. And it's out of our control anyway, hence irrelevant to climate change discussions.
Where did I say that?
Rather than lying when summarizing my words, just quote them directly.
You keep getting the science wrong, and whenever people point it out to you, you invent another bogus story.
Complaining that they don't like what I'm saying isn't pointing out errors in science.