Spherical Wheels

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Say what you will about the movie I Robot(I liked it), but you have to admit it had some neat vehicle ideas. My favorite is the spherical wheels that most cars, buses and "semi-trucks" of the future have. My question is this. Could that actually work well? How could the wheels have shock absorbers? Could off road high clearance versions be made? How would the "wheels" be steered and spun up to speed?

[MRC_Hans]

And what would be their purpose?

Hans

[neutrino_cannon]

You could... but it wouldn't be particularly useful. Granted, the mass to moment of interia would be a little more efficient, so your car would roll down hills better, but I can't think of any other advantage.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
You could... but it wouldn't be particularly useful. Granted, the mass to moment of interia would be a little more efficient, so your car would roll down hills better, but I can't think of any other advantage.

They might handle rough terrain better - consider a normal (flat) wheel hitting a kerb at an oblique angle, and a spherical wheel doing the same - the flat wheel is more likely to suffer damage.

Also, there would probably be fewer steering linkage limitations, so you may be able to parallel park by sliding sideways into a gap only millimetres bigger than the car.

I'd assume the wheels could be steered and spun up to speed by having a powerful permanent magnet inside, and some control electromagnet coils around it. Alternatively you could have a small driven rubber wheel in contact with the spherical wheel inside (like in a computer mouse), which could rotate to provide steering.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Matabiri
They might handle rough terrain better - consider a normal (flat) wheel hitting a kerb at an oblique angle, and a spherical wheel doing the same - the flat wheel is more likely to suffer damage.


This was the principle behind Dyson's BallBarrow, which was a wheelbarrow with a ball for the front wheel. It worked very well on soggy ground too.

I haven't seen I, Robot so I dunno exactly how similar that is...

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by richardm
This was the principle behind Dyson's BallBarrow, which was a wheelbarrow with a ball for the front wheel. It worked very well on soggy ground too.

I haven't seen I, Robot so I dunno exactly how similar that is...

The future can't have been designed by Dyson. Everyone knows the future is white and gleaming chrome/dark, rainy and neon-lit*, not made of brightly-coloured plastic.

*Delete as appropriate.

[Rolfe]

Are these things set up as castors?

Rolfe.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Are these things set up as castors?


Could be very handy for parallel parking.

[HarryKeogh]

I always found cars of the future to look pretty dorky

http://www.sorenz.dk/I%20robot%20pic.jpg

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
And what would be their purpose?

Hans

What!? You've never had to spin your car around really fast to fling androids off your car? It would be oh so fun to drive down the road sideways. But really the reason to do it would be faster parallel parking and turning your car around in tight spaces.

[scribble]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
I always found cars of the future to look pretty dorky


Funny, I find them to look like the of <a href=http://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/MediaGallery/0,,38045,00.html> today, (http://www.audiworld.com/model/tt.html>)but with plastic wheel covers.

There's only one <a href=http://www.bttfmovie.com/> future car</a> for me.

As for spherical wheels -- you'd get much worse acceleration and be horribly prone to slipping all over the road -- no traction, see. Much less surface area in contact with the road.

[BillC]

If the wheels are spehrical and capable of spinning in any direction, kind of like a mouse ball, I can't see how you would steer the vehicle. Wouldn't turning the wheel housing leave the wheel trying to continue to spin in its original plane due to gyroscopic forces?


ETA: My personal choice of future car (http://www.crc.paragould.ar.us/~adam/fab/CS/spv_specifications.htm) whips anyone else's. The 200mph speed makes motorway cruising a breeze, even if the backward-facing driving position does make parallel parking a little difficult in town.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by scribble
As for spherical wheels -- you'd get much worse acceleration and be horribly prone to slipping all over the road -- no traction, see. Much less surface area in contact with the road.

Tires really don't have that much surface touching the road at any given time; only a few square inches(sorry metric people).
What I wonder though is what would the tread pattern look like? Round rubber numbs all over? Maybe hexagons whose edges are raised more than the center. Or something.

[H3LL]

The spherical wheel sums up the whole movie for me...balls.

Although a fun action movie, it was just another Frankenstein Complex movie that presented the exact opposite of what Asimov was trying to illustrate in his stories.

Daniel Chandler:

Isaac Asimov, a prolific American writer of science fiction whose background was as a professor of biochemistry, saw technophobia - a fear of technology - as an understandable but regrettable suspicion of whatever was new. He himself harboured an optimistic faith in technological progress, and admitted that he was a technophile. He variously defined one kind of technophobia as 'The Frankenstein Complex', by which he referred to 'the unreasoning human fear of robots' and - since robots are computer-controlled - of computers (Asimov, Warrick & Greenberg 1985, pp. 1, 6). Asimov did not have this fear and disapproved of those who did.

Back to the wheels, what movie/show was it where each axle hub consisted of three, almost spherical, tyres set in an equilateral triangle configuration with a centre pivot? As it hit a bump/rock the triangle of wheels would rotate. Hard to describe but difficult to find a picture without remembering the movie/show.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by scribble
As for spherical wheels -- you'd get much worse acceleration and be horribly prone to slipping all over the road -- no traction, see. Much less surface area in contact with the road.
Actually, solid spherical wheels have a slightly lower moment of inertia (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MomentofInertia.html) than a wheel of the same mass, resulting in a faster acceleration (at least since the last time I did an experiment with spheres and cylinders). And friction doesnt rely on surface area (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae140.cfm).

But the problem I have is trying to figure out how to steer spherical wheels.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Yahweh
But the problem I have is trying to figure out how to steer spherical wheels.

You could also have a flywheel in the car to offset the gyroscopic effect.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Yahweh
But the problem I have is trying to figure out how to steer spherical wheels.I think it's probably something that won't work without electromagnets, and a computer controller to steer it (turning the wheels is possible, but would render the purpose of your wheels being ball-shaped void. So course changes would have to be made by slightly rotating the balls sideways, sort of spiraling). Perhaps steering could be done by means of a stick, just like a plane, only with the ability to allow control over the sideways motion of the car, perhaps by rotating the stick. Spinning out is no longer that big a problem either.

One good thing though is that your tires will last longer as the entire surface of the ball should theoretically wear evenly, not just the flat surface as with normal tires. How to get air into them is another matter though. That will probably have to be replaced by some kind of foam or something that can't leak out ...

[Bruce]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but with a tire, you have a rectangular strip of surface area from each tire touching the road. With spherical wheels, you would have a spherical surface area touching the road.

Centering your weight on a single point would not only cause more wear and tear on the wheel, but as mentioned earlier, you would have considerably more trouble with steering and slipping.

The best "wheels" are tank treads. Maximum surface area, and you still have the ability to steer. Those military guys are way ahead of us. I wander why there aren't any vehicles with tank tread available to the public?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Bruce
The best "wheels" are tank treads. Maximum surface area, and you still have the ability to steer. Those military guys are way ahead of us. I wander why there aren't any vehicles with tank tread available to the public?

Bad ride, and they're really bad for the roads.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Bruce
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but with a tire, you have a rectangular strip of surface area from each tire touching the road. With spherical wheels, you would have a spherical surface area touching the road.A circular area actually, but I don't see how this would be a problem. In fact, a circular area would provide equal friction in all directions, while a rectangular area gives far less friction in the direction the wheel is rolling compared to the sideways friction, which is why emergency breaking can make your wheels start sliding.

Centering your weight on a single point would not only cause more wear and tear on the wheel, but as mentioned earlier, you would have considerably more trouble with steering and slipping.On a single point, yes, but tires are slightly elastic, which would make the point expand to a circular area, with probably about the same surface area as a normal tire. In effect, a cylinder centers the weight on a line, and touches that line every full revolution of the wheel. Also, it only touches the running surface, while a cyllindrical wheel would touch the same point on the tire less frequently, but the 'side' of the wheel is also a running surface. I'm sure wear on the tires would be spread out over a larger area of tire than on a conventional cyllindrical wheel that only wears the running surface.

The best "wheels" are tank treads. Maximum surface area, and you still have the ability to steer. Those military guys are way ahead of us. I wander why there aren't any vehicles with tank tread available to the public?Tank threads produce far too much sideways friction when turning. Even ordinary car wheels already create quite a lot of friction when being turned. And threads have way too much surface area for what a normal car really needs for normal road use. Look what happens when you only increase the tire width without increasing the weight: less traction because the vehicle has less weight per surface area than a thinner tire, which is deadly on a wet and slippery road. Also, more effort is needed when turning the wheel while standing still (i.e. during parking and other manouvers).

The reasons tanks have threads is because they mostly run on unpaved surfaces, where ordinary wheels are of no use (like mud and rough terrain). Tanks are also really heavy, which is why a tank thread is ideal for spreading all that weight out over a larger area.
By the way, tank threads roll on a set of wheels ;)

[Savagemutt]

Originally posted by H3LL

Back to the wheels, what movie/show was it where each axle hub consisted of three, almost spherical, tyres set in an equilateral triangle configuration with a centre pivot? As it hit a bump/rock the triangle of wheels would rotate. Hard to describe but difficult to find a picture without remembering the movie/show.

Are you thinking of Damnation Alley (http://www.bugeyedmonster.com/desktops/movies/damnationalley.jpg)?

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by H3LL

Back to the wheels, what movie/show was it where each axle hub consisted of three, almost spherical, tyres set in an equilateral triangle configuration with a centre pivot? As it hit a bump/rock the triangle of wheels would rotate. Hard to describe but difficult to find a picture without remembering the movie/show.

The vehicle was also used in the Saturday morning live-action "future" show Ark II.

[exarch]

Originally posted by SavagemuttOriginally posted by H3LL
Back to the wheels, what movie/show was it where each axle hub consisted of three, almost spherical, tyres set in an equilateral triangle configuration with a centre pivot? As it hit a bump/rock the triangle of wheels would rotate. Hard to describe but difficult to find a picture without remembering the movie/show.Are you thinking of Damnation Alley (http://www.bugeyedmonster.com/desktops/movies/damnationalley.jpg)?It seems like a bumpy ride though (although you wouldn't know it from the interior scenes that were of course shot in a studio).

[richardm]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Bad ride, and they're really bad for the roads.

Can't imagine that they'd do much for fuel economy either.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by exarch
A circular area actually, but I don't see how this would be a problem. In fact, a circular area would provide equal friction in all directions, while a rectangular area gives far less friction in the direction the wheel is rolling compared to the sideways friction, which is why emergency breaking can make your wheels start sliding.

On a single point, yes, but tires are slightly elastic, which would make the point expand to a circular area, with probably about the same surface area as a normal tire. In effect, a cylinder centers the weight on a line, and touches that line every full revolution of the wheel. Also, it only touches the running surface, while a cyllindrical wheel would touch the same point on the tire less frequently, but the 'side' of the wheel is also a running surface. I'm sure wear on the tires would be spread out over a larger area of tire than on a conventional cyllindrical wheel that only wears the running surface.

Tank threads produce far too much sideways friction when turning. Even ordinary car wheels already create quite a lot of friction when being turned. And threads have way too much surface area for what a normal car really needs for normal road use. Look what happens when you only increase the tire width without increasing the weight: less traction because the vehicle has less weight per surface area than a thinner tire, which is deadly on a wet and slippery road. Also, more effort is needed when turning the wheel while standing still (i.e. during parking and other manouvers).

The reasons tanks have threads is because they mostly run on unpaved surfaces, where ordinary wheels are of no use (like mud and rough terrain). Tanks are also really heavy, which is why a tank thread is ideal for spreading all that weight out over a larger area.
By the way, tank threads roll on a set of wheels ;)

I can't explain why, but I just love being totally shot down and debunked. Thank you sir, may I have another. :) :D ;)

[shecky]

The only advantage of a spherical wheel/tire is that it would be less likely to get bogged down in sand, having such a wide contact patch with the surface. Think back of those old Honda ATC 90s, with very wide, low pressure balloon-like tires. Such wide tires have a snowshoe-like effect on such soft surfaces.

On hard ground, the contact patch would be roughly round, as opposed to rectangular. Assuming a reasonable amount of flexibility, I suspect they could offer as much traction as any conventional tire. I guess they'd wear disproportionately along the centerline, so the anticipated contact area would have to be much thicker than the "sidewalls" to counter such wear.

I'd think there would be more steering linkage difficulties, since a spherical wheel would be significantly wider than a comparably sized conventional wheel. The wheel would arc over a much wider area since the sterring pivot is further from the centerline of the wheel. Unless the steering was engineered significantly different than typical. Perhaps if the wheels were mounted on a fork and the steering pivot was above the wheel, rather than next to the axle.

Wider wheels would also mean either a wider car or less room inside to accomodate the extra width.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wait a minute! The purpose of spherical wheels would be so that you can drive in any direction without turning the car, right? Otherwise, why bother?

~~ Paul

[exarch]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Wait a minute! The purpose of spherical wheels would be so that you can drive in any direction without turning the car, right? Otherwise, why bother?Indeed.

Shecky, the idea of spherical wheels is that they have NO axle, they can rotate freely in all directions. That's also why SkepticJ was asking how those would be steered and spun up to speed.

As I said before, using magnets seems like the most obvious choice, since anything physically touching the 'ball' would probably create more friction and wear the tire faster than just having a conventional wheel with a rotational freedom of 360 degrees around a vertical axis (which by the way has been tried I think).

Bruce, it wasn't my intention to shoot you down like that, I was just brainstorming a bit. Sorry :o
Feel free to shoot me down in return if you find something wrong with what I said :)

[H3LL]

Thank you Savagemutt.

It just shows how memory deceives. I thought the wheels were much more spherical.

Enough de-rail...back to the thread.

http://sinotran.com/images/damnationalley.gif

Image from bugeyedmonster.com (http://www.bugeyedmonster.com/desktops/movies/damnationalley.jpg)

[H3LL]

This site is interesting. Although not spherical, they address the issue of omni-directional traction.

Inovative Wheels (http://www.h33.dk/opfhjul_index.en.html)

[shecky]

Originally posted by exarch
Indeed.

Shecky, the idea of spherical wheels is that they have NO axle, they can rotate freely in all directions. That's also why SkepticJ was asking how those would be steered and spun up to speed.

As I said before, using magnets seems like the most obvious choice, since anything physically touching the 'ball' would probably create more friction and wear the tire faster than just having a conventional wheel with a rotational freedom of 360 degrees around a vertical axis (which by the way has been tried I think).


Ahh, I see. (I haven't seen that movie)

What a odd idea. Seems like magnets, while possible, wouldn't be the ideal way to go about this. Wouldn't the wheel itself need to be significantly magnetized? Which would mean picking up all kinds of debris from the road. Braking and steering would demand some extremely strong magnetic fields. I think even if you somehow managed to come up with a non-magnetized sphere inside a magnetized wheelwell, debris from the road would end up getting wedged between the wheel and wheelwell.

Such a wheel would need to have a compliant, probably rubber, rolling surface if it's to grip the road surface at all. And even if you can magically get a appropriately durable wheel to essentially float in a wheelwell without significant magnetics, and still be able exert enough lateral and reverse rolling forces on it to be able to steer and brake effectively, why not just get rid of the wheel altogether and use the magical forces to make the whole vehicle float, like Luke Skywalker's land speeder?

Maybe something more like a upside-down trackball assembly could actually be doable now. Of course, friction would be much higher. Might work well enough for something like a mobile la-z-boy chair. But seems untenable for a relatively large vehicle needing to move at high speed.

http://sinotran.com/images/damnationalley.gif

Now, this thing I DO remember. In fact, I seem to recall it was parked in a lot for years off the Cahuenga Pass near Hollywood. No kidding!

[Bruce]

Originally posted by exarch
Bruce, it wasn't my intention to shoot you down like that, I was just brainstorming a bit. Sorry :o
Feel free to shoot me down in return if you find something wrong with what I said :) [/B]

No, don't apologize, please. I was being fecitious. I don't know if you're any more of an expert in physics than I am, but if you aren't, you've fooled me. I wish I could have some intellectual debates like that with the people I work with. Most of the people I know right now just accept whatever I say without question, or try to counter with ignorant rambling. Reading a plausible counter to my half-assed scientific analysis is very refreshing indeed!

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by shecky
Maybe something more like a upside-down trackball assembly could actually be doable now.

You mean like a... a... a mouse!?

[H3LL]

Now I'm just airing a thought here...so be kind :D

I was thinking that a linear-motor system may work.

This would mean the core of the wheel could be aluminium. I remember Professor Braithwaite demonstrating a sheet of aluminium floating on a track many years ago during one of his xmas lectures on TV (do they still have them).

Magnets may be better as with mag-lev (http://travel.howstuffworks.com/maglev-train1.htm) but presents the debris collecting problem mentioned earlier.

The coils could be arranged to enclose most of the wheel, at least some way past the 'equator', and either mechanically rotated (maybe smoother steering) from the 'pole', or there is perhaps a solid state method to change direction within the coils.

The vehicle would not so much be 'on' the road as 'on' the wheels. There would be no friction problem (like the inverted track-ball) as the mag-lev/linear-motor would maintain a gap between the coil and the wheel arches and perhaps also give some level of suspension.

Brakes might be a problem. Reversing field direction might work with a clamp system as a failsafe. Parking brake would be just the friction between the tyre and the arches again with a clamp as a failsafe. No power, no levitation. Engine/Power failure would automatically stop the vehicle due to friction between wheel and arches.

Inflating the wheel would not be a problem, as we do it OK with footballs and basketballs and the valve could be located below the tread level.

Connecting the tyre to the core should be interesting in an inflatable version. Perhaps thin walls along the longitudes and latitudes but I think this will cause uneven wear and present a hard spot at the poles but there are other configurations of concentric rings that should work. A solid option seems the best way.

Designing a workable tread pattern may be difficult too, as the direction of rotation is (infinitely?) variable. Smooth racing rubber is an option but it has a short life and leaves the road sticky and has problems in the wet. I would really like to see an omni-directional tread pattern for a sphere.

I have no idea how you would change a tyre, but maybe not required with a solid one and where the heck do you keep the spare. A lot of wasted space.

Finally. Would the interior need to be shielded from the field? It would upset the woos..Then again, they may think it will cure any disease. Perfect for ambulances :D

©H3LL - Nov 25th 2004 (Just in case) .

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by H3LL
Designing a workable tread pattern may be difficult too, as the direction of rotation is (infinitely?) variable. Smooth racing rubber is an option but it has a short life and leaves the road sticky and has problems in the wet. I would really like to see an omni-directional tread pattern for a sphere.

Applying the hairy ball theorem (http://www.free-definition.com/Hairy-ball-theorem.html) says you'd have points where the tread "merges", forming spots of different grip and wear. Unless you go for a hexagonal fullerene-style tesselation, I suppose. No idea what the water-shedding characteristics of such a tyre would be though.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Applying the hairy ball theorem (http://www.free-definition.com/Hairy-ball-theorem.html) says you'd have points where the tread "merges", forming spots of different grip and wear. Unless you go for a hexagonal fullerene-style tesselation, I suppose. No idea what the water-shedding characteristics of such a tyre would be though.

I'll pretend that I understand all the maths about the hairy ball theorem and say thank you. That must be one of the wierdest names for a theorem around. :)

It was the water shedding characteristics that I was think of..Thanks for pointing that out.

[exarch]

Originally posted by H3LL
I'll pretend that I understand all the maths about the hairy ball theorem and say thank you. That must be one of the wierdest names for a theorem around. :)

It was the water shedding characteristics that I was think of..Thanks for pointing that out.I don't know how tire-threads are designed today, but the idea is indeed to have little "gulleys" that the water can escape through, while the raised area's provide the grip 'through' the water on the surface.

On a sphere, I reckon tiny triangles might work really well ...

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by exarch
I don't know how tire-threads are designed today, but the idea is indeed to have little "gulleys" that the water can escape through, while the raised area's provide the grip 'through' the water on the surface.

On a sphere, I reckon tiny triangles might work really well ...

Hexagons is what the tread was in the movie.
Does anyone know if Audi built the car with normal hidden wheels or spent a lot of money to build real working ball wheels? I'm gonna guess they went for the non working prop route.:)

What about the shocks? How could they attach to the socket that the ball is in? Or would the magetic fields that keep the ballwheel from rubbing the inside of the socket be used as the shocks?

[exarch]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Hexagons is what the tread was in the movie.
Does anyone know if Audi built the car with normal hidden wheels or spent a lot of money to build real working ball wheels? I'm gonna guess they went for the non working prop route.:)

What about the shocks? How could they attach to the socket that the ball is in? Or would the magetic fields that keep the ballwheel from rubbing the inside of the socket be used as the shocks?Well, for starters most of the "roads" in the movie are some kind of underground tunnels coated with something that's probably supposed to be next generation asphalt. Not much need for shock absorbtion there. Other than that, I'd suppose you could use ordinary regular shock absorbers, i.e. they are fixed on one end to whatever holds the wheel, and the other end is attached about two feet higher near the top of the car body. The spring inbetween, in combination with a hydrolic piston create the shock absorbtion. In other words, the whole magnetic wheel-enclosure moves up and down with the wheel. You could use additional magnets for the shock absorbtion while you're at it. But I reckon using the same magnets that control steering and drive for shock absorbtion will reduce the amount of control you have over the wheels.

[Globert]

Originally posted by H3LL
The spherical wheel sums up the whole movie for me...balls.

Although a fun action movie, it was just another Frankenstein Complex movie that presented the exact opposite of what Asimov was trying to illustrate in his stories.



Back to the wheels, what movie/show was it where each axle hub consisted of three, almost spherical, tyres set in an equilateral triangle configuration with a centre pivot? As it hit a bump/rock the triangle of wheels would rotate. Hard to describe but difficult to find a picture without remembering the movie/show.


It was the Landmaster from Damnation Alley



http://www.bugeyedmonster.com/desktops/movies/damnationalley.jpg

my favorite car of the future.(who said fallout was bad?)

-Globe

[Globert]

jeez I should finish the thread before i post.:o

still cool as h*ll though:D


Globe

[Globert]

if one wants omnidrectional steering, (assumed to be the onus for spherical wheels) i would think that four distributed electric motors/axles inside horizontal ring mounts would be able to turn 360 and motivate fore and aft, drive by wire. and regular rubber tires would meet the road.

(now if they' perfect their electric cars we'd be halfway there)

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by shecky
Ahh, I see. (I haven't seen that movie)

What a odd idea. Seems like magnets, while possible, wouldn't be the ideal way to go about this. Wouldn't the wheel itself need to be significantly magnetized? Which would mean picking up all kinds of debris from the road. Braking and steering would demand some extremely strong magnetic fields. I think even if you somehow managed to come up with a non-magnetized sphere inside a magnetized wheelwell, debris from the road would end up getting wedged between the wheel and wheelwell.



Not to mention that magnets that powerful might make it difficult to drive near fire-hydrants, other hunks of iron, and other cars which would be generating their own magnetic fields.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Not to mention that magnets that powerful might make it difficult to drive near fire-hydrants, other hunks of iron, and other cars which would be generating their own magnetic fields.

that is easy enough to fix. all the vehicle needs is a high powered laser to destroy the offending objects before the car gets too close. that would make for pretty high taxes, though, what with having to install new fire hydrants, dumpsters, and phone booths 112 times every second. high insurance rates, too. the car companies would love it though. think about it, having to buy a new car every time someone drives buy! assuming you live through the laser blast, of course. man, i think i've created utopia! or dystopia. i always get those two mixed up.

[exarch]

Next you'll tell me you're magnetizing the blood in your body as well, and then it's truly gone all 'X-men bad' :rolleyes:

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by exarch
Next you'll tell me you're magnetizing the blood in your body as well, and then it's truly gone all 'X-men bad' :rolleyes:

you can actually do that, with a powerful enough magnet. the mineral form of iron that is in the blood isn't magnetically active the way that metallic iron is, but it is as susceptible to large magnetic fields as anything else.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by exarch
Next you'll tell me you're magnetizing the blood in your body as well, and then it's truly gone all 'X-men bad' :rolleyes:

You must not have been paying attention. The bad guard had metal fillings or whatever injected into him earlier in the movie.
What isn't plausible is any lifeform of reasonable size being able to
generate magnetic fields that strong.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
You must not have been paying attention. The bad guard had metal fillings or whatever injected into him earlier in the movie.
What isn't plausible is any lifeform of reasonable size being able to
generate magnetic fields that strong.

was nighcrawler or cyclops more realistic for you? ;) in the comics, magneto was able to manipulate people through the iron content in their blood. this wasn't because they made magneto to be able to produce super high strength magnetic fields, but because the writers didn't realize that the properties of mineral and magnetic iron are quite different.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
was nighcrawler or cyclops more realistic for you? ;)

Nightcrawl's wall running is completely possible as are the acrobatics. Banfing from room to room isn't plausible in our current understanding of the universe. Psionic beams from the eyes? Nope. High powered miniature lasers in a visor? Why not?
Wolverine regrowing parts? Salamanders grow new arms and tails. Metal bones? Some people already have metal leg bones. Super sharp blades that slice through anything. Hmmmm, they'd need to be really thin. Maybe even 1-10 micrometers thick.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by scribble
As for spherical wheels -- you'd get much worse acceleration and be horribly prone to slipping all over the road -- no traction, see. Much less surface area in contact with the road.

Well others have already said the wheel would flatten out a bit on the bottom from the car's weight. But the tire could also have some kind of adhesive that would bond with the road and peal off again as the ball turns like those sticky toy walls that roll down walls. If only there was something like that. (http://www.lclark.edu/~autumn/dept/) Safely driving on ice would be quite nice to.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Well others have already said the wheel would flatten out a bit on the bottom from the car's weight. But the tire could also have some kind of adhesive that would bond with the road and peal off again as the ball turns like those sticky toy walls that roll down walls. If only there was something like that. (http://www.lclark.edu/~autumn/dept/) Safely driving on ice would be quite nice to.

I guess that would work fine until there was dust or dirt or debris in the road. So that would be, oh, from the garage to the end of the driveway?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I guess that would work fine until there was dust or dirt or debris in the road. So that would be, oh, from the garage to the end of the driveway?

Did you even click the link? Somehow setae self clean. Otherwise geckos wouldn't be able to climb around since they live in dirty jungles.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Ok, what about Stweels for the car? Here's the link (http://www.michelinman.com/difference/releases/pressrelease01102005a.html)
A ball inside with round shafts coming off in all directions to support the outside rubber shell that has the hexagonal or triangle tread pattern? Maybe the inner ball could be inflated with air or filled with dense foam.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Ok, what about Stweels for the car? Here's the link (http://www.michelinman.com/difference/releases/pressrelease01102005a.html)
A ball inside with round shafts coming off in all directions to support the outside rubber shell that has the hexagonal or triangle tread pattern? Maybe the inner ball could be inflated with air or filled with dense foam.

You'd have a devil of a time connecting it to the car, and I don't know if it would still deform around the obsticles like a regular tweel does if it was spherical.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
You'd have a devil of a time connecting it to the car, and I don't know if it would still deform around the obsticles like a regular tweel does if it was spherical.

You're not getting the idea are you? No matter, others on the thread haven't also. Turn your computer mouse upside down. See the ball? (I'm assuming you don't have an optical mouse or one of those large balls that you spin with your hand to move the mouse) That's how the tire would be, in an omnidirectional socket with a little less than half of the tire poking through the hole in the bottom of the car.

[Ashles]

Wouldn't he get hit in the head by his own rockets?

(Edited to add: I'm looking at the Damnation Alley vehicle)

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
You're not getting the idea are you? No matter, others on the thread haven't also. Turn your computer mouse upside down. See the ball? (I'm assuming you don't have an optical mouse or one of those large balls that you spin with your hand to move the mouse) That's how the tire would be, in an omnidirectional socket with a little less than half of the tire poking through the hole in the bottom of the car.

I get that much, and have, problem is, with a tweel it's going to deform, yes? That's part of the deal. If it deforms, you're going to have a devil of a time containing the thing without loads of friction.

[c4ts]

I just have this picture of these magnetically suspended ball wheels that fall off when the car is lifted on a jack or something.