A ring of blue LEDs is modulated to simulate light patterns made by
Jellyfish
________________________
Found while Googling for connections for the radio-cassette in my
Toyota!
Search terms (which had been refined over several searches) were:
car radio connections toyota cassette -cd white black round
This was second on the list!
:-)
RM
_____________________
sample EM newsletter AP HEADLINE: Toyota poised to become top car
seller in US [relate to] ... 'The artificial jellyfish lure is a round
disc about six inches across with a ring ...
listserv.repp.org/pipermail/ bioenergy/2003-September/000076.html -
34k -
I REALLY love this thing. I want to make one, or at least draw out the
designs for one. How difficult do you guys think this would be? At the bare
minimum, I would like to have designed the propulsion and maneuvering
system
> http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/11/more_robot_jellyfish.html
>
> I REALLY love this thing. I want to make one, or at least draw out the
> designs for one. How difficult do you guys think this would be? At the bare
> minimum, I would like to have designed the propulsion and maneuvering
> system.
>
The whole thing that impresses me is the motion of the tentacles. I wonder
how they do it. I mean, I can see part of the mechanics from the video, but
I really want to come up with something like that
Fascinating, and I'd love to have my high-schoolers ( http://www.veisystems.com/nose/ ) get involved in designing/building this for/with you, but we're scrambling to finish up two projects right now. Perhaps after?
The design seems fairly simple but very ingenious. AFAICT, each tentacle is made up of two slats, joined by some "ribs" between them (or more like rungs on a ladder). By pushing/pulling the center of each tentacle, with the top part hinged to the main body, the tentacles curve. The rungs are probably set to define exactly how they curve. Then the body has the up/down mechanism with pivoting arms to push all tentacles at once.
I know Festo from robotics (they make pneumatic actuators/cylinders), so perhaps the up-down movement is controlled by some pneumatic slide. It would probably be better for waterproofing, rather than some electrical-motor type system.
> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 11:08 PM, V G <x.solarwind.xKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/11/more_robot_jellyfish.html
>>
>> I REALLY love this thing. I want to make one, or at least draw out the
>> designs for one. How difficult do you guys think this would be? At the bare
>> minimum, I would like to have designed the propulsion and maneuvering
>> system.
>>
>
> The whole thing that impresses me is the motion of the tentacles. I wonder
> how they do it. I mean, I can see part of the mechanics from the video, but
> I really want to come up with something like that.
> Fascinating, and I'd love to have my high-schoolers (
> http://www.veisystems.com/nose/ ) get involved in designing/building
> this for/with you, but we're scrambling to finish up two projects
> right now. Perhaps after?
>
> The design seems fairly simple but very ingenious. AFAICT, each
> tentacle is made up of two slats, joined by some "ribs" between them
> (or more like rungs on a ladder). By pushing/pulling the center of
> each tentacle, with the top part hinged to the main body, the
> tentacles curve. The rungs are probably set to define exactly how
> they curve. Then the body has the up/down mechanism with pivoting
> arms to push all tentacles at once.
>
> I know Festo from robotics (they make pneumatic actuators/cylinders),
> so perhaps the up-down movement is controlled by some pneumatic slide.
> It would probably be better for waterproofing, rather than some
> electrical-motor type system.
>
> Cheers,
> -Neil.
Yeah, I forgot to mention, it's called Aquajelly by Festo.
> Fascinating, and I'd love to have my high-schoolers (
> http://www.veisystems.com/nose/ ) get involved in designing/building
> this for/with you, but we're scrambling to finish up two projects
> right now. Perhaps after?
>
> The design seems fairly simple but very ingenious. AFAICT, each
> tentacle is made up of two slats, joined by some "ribs" between them
> (or more like rungs on a ladder). By pushing/pulling the center of
> each tentacle, with the top part hinged to the main body, the
> tentacles curve. The rungs are probably set to define exactly how
> they curve. Then the body has the up/down mechanism with pivoting
> arms to push all tentacles at once.
>
> I know Festo from robotics (they make pneumatic actuators/cylinders),
> so perhaps the up-down movement is controlled by some pneumatic slide.
> It would probably be better for waterproofing, rather than some
> electrical-motor type system.
Imagine having a transparent one beside your front door on Halloween, and have it start up and lit with LEDs when the door bell rings ...
The air one seems to have some form of rotary motion converted to push pull by a crank to move the 'floaty' arms. I think the drive is a drive shaft down the arm that holds the crank assembly, as it also appears to do a right angle change in the rotary motion at that point.
I couldn't really work out what the pump motion in the centre of the body of the water ones was pumping from where to where. It seemed it was jetting out the bottom to provide upwards motion, but I couldn't be sure of that as it also seemed to pump out the top. But then I couldn't work out where the inlet to the pump was.
-- Scanned by iCritical.
Wow, I'm now significantly confused. I found Camozzi, but not clear on why they would be better than Festo (in general). What is it specifically about Camozzi that prompted you to bring them up? Something they do better? Connections? Or...???
> V G wrote:
>>> Yeah, I would too, with Camozzi, if they didn't mind it of course :-)
>>
>> Why do you say that?
>
> Why did I say what? Why could they mind it? None of the specific
> reasons on my side, just in case they have some :-)
>
> Seriously, perhaps I am not getting your humor, I took your post as a
> joke, sorry.
>
PICdude wrote:
> Wow, I'm now significantly confused. I found Camozzi, but not clear
> on why they would be better than Festo (in general). What is it
> specifically about Camozzi that prompted you to bring them up?
> Something they do better? Connections? Or...???
Some personal preferences (location and maybe connections).
>From the video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSTJVnf5nyA, it seems that
the motion (velocity) of the linear actuator is sinusoidal in nature (think
piston, (like that within an internal combustion engine), being driven by a
crankshaft).
So, the drivetrain could be composed of a motor attached to a crankshaft
which drives the two "pistons" (on the top and bottom) up and down.
V G wrote:
> So, the drivetrain could be composed of a motor attached to a crankshaft
> which drives the two "pistons" (on the top and bottom) up and down.
>
> This is sort of what I mean: http://www.animatedengines.com/stirling.shtml
>
> The "pistons" are then attached to the tentacles by rigid rods.
>
> How does this sound?
Sounds like you need quite a garage to keep that kind of a car.
Sorry for the off-topic, just could not resist it. :-
> The "pistons" are then attached to the tentacles by rigid rods.
> How does this sound?
Floo-fa-floo-fa-floo-fa- ... ?
Seriously though, forget the Jellyfish, become entranced with the
Stirling Engine instead.
It's a lifelong obsession just waiting to happen.
Believe me ... :-).
Nice animation.
User-variable frame rate is an excellent idea.
Become instroduced to its stable mates.
One of these will run on the heat from a cup of coffee.
Or an ice cube.
Or both.
I gave up waiting for the animation to load, so didn't look at it. However,
there are other reasons for not using a crankshaft. One clever idea is the
Sanderson engine. The nature of the mechanism allows a truly continuously
variable displacement piston engine.
This can be used as a long distance continuously variable transmission if
pumping some reasonably incompressible fluid. This is actually being looked
at currently to get the power from a horizontal axis wind turbine to a
stationary spot on the ground below where the generator is placed. Not only
does this have obvious advantages for maintainence, but allows for keeping
the generator spinning at a fixed frequency while keeping the blades at the
optimum speed to extract the most power from the wind. In the end the only
variable is the power output of the generator.
I don't know whether this is a better tradeoff than what is currently being
done, but it does solve some problems in a elegant way, while of course
adding others. I do know it is seriously being looked into by people who
specialize in such things.
Yes. The animation on that page doesn't show the variable displacement
capability, but this basic design can do that. It is done by varying how
far off center the the rocker assembly gets rotated. The bigger the radius,
the greater the rocker motion, and the greater the displacement.
>> http://www.sandersonengine.com/
>
> Yes. The animation on that page doesn't show the variable displacement
> capability, but this basic design can do that. It is done by varying how
> far off center the the rocker assembly gets rotated. The bigger the radius,
> the greater the rocker motion, and the greater the displacement.
It seems to me that this design, compared to conventional crankshaft,
requires much more sophisticated joints, because all movements are
kind of "3D", not like in crankshaft. Most probably it's possible to
make spherical joints up to high standards with today's technology,
but it will be much more difficult and expensive anyway. I am not sure
those will have same life expectancy too.
>
> >> http://www.sandersonengine.com/
> >
> > Yes. Â The animation on that page doesn't show the variable displacement
> > capability, but this basic design can do that. Â It is done by varying how
> > far off center the the rocker assembly gets rotated. Â The bigger the radius,
> > the greater the rocker motion, and the greater the displacement.
>
> It seems to me that this design, compared to conventional crankshaft,
> requires much more sophisticated joints, because all movements are
> kind of "3D", not like in crankshaft. Most probably it's possible to
> make spherical joints up to high standards with today's technology,
> but it will be much more difficult and expensive anyway. I am not sure
> those will have same life expectancy too.
This is a 'sonicity' based motor, cca. 1919 by Henry Coanda (Romania). It
converts a single pulsating pressure source (at the left) into rotary motion in
the case of the pictured functional exhibit which can be seen in a museum in
Bucharest today. The coils are ... coils, they delay the power pulses to create
3 phase drive. The tubing uses low pressure hydraulic fluid filling. Other
versions exist where the amplitude of the stroke can be adjusted dynamically.
Technically it has about 4 moving parts (the 4 pistons, one in the pulsating
source).
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 13:05 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> RussellMc wrote:
> > Somebody else patented the crankshaft, leading to things like this
> > (seriously)
> >
> > http://www.animatedengines.com/crankless.shtml
>
> I gave up waiting for the animation to load, so didn't look at it.
Then you need either a faster computer, a faster browser, a faster
internet connection, or more patience. It took about 2 seconds to load
on my machine.
> On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 13:05 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> > RussellMc wrote:
> > > Somebody else patented the crankshaft, leading to things like this
> > > (seriously)
> > >
> > > http://www.animatedengines.com/crankless.shtml
> >
> > I gave up waiting for the animation to load, so didn't look at it.
>
> Then you need either a faster computer, a faster browser, a faster
> internet connection, or more patience. It took about 2 seconds to load
> on my machine.
>
> Pretty neat looking IMHO.
>
Less than a second here, but we're all seriously off topic.
I'm interested in ideas on how to get the pulsing motion in the jellyfish
> I gave up waiting for the animation to load, so didn't look at it.
Summat aglae in your system and/or the path thereto.
Loading time from NZ using ADSL at under 5 Mbps download was perhaps 1 second.
(Maybe it had just been slashdotted :-) ).
> However, there are other reasons for not using a crankshaft. One clever idea is the
> Sanderson engine. The nature of the mechanism allows a truly continuously
> variable displacement piston engine.
> ... This is actually being looked
> at currently to get the power from a horizontal axis wind turbine to a
> stationary spot on the ground below where the generator is placed.
> ... I don't know whether this is a better tradeoff than what is currently being
> done, but it does solve some problems in a elegant way, while of course
> adding others. I do know it is seriously being looked into by people who
> specialize in such things.
Sounds good.
The current (pun noticed in passing) area being looked at is direct
alternator drive with suitable electronics to provide the voltage and
frequency conversion. Until now gearboxes have been almost universally
used but it sees likely that direct drive will increasingly replace
them. AIR this produces a heavier head so is easier for smaller
systems and places a current upper limit on where DD is liable to be
practical BUT I'd doubt vthere will be many gearbox based systems in
say 20 years time.
gmail.com> wrote:
