Ok, I understand that you all might think I'm genuinely stupid from the header of this post. And frankly, I don't blame you. However, it's absolutely eating me up inside, so there's not other choice. To elaborate, redundancy included, I want to create an axleless wheel. To be considered viable, the wheel has to be able to move forward + change direction. A big plus, not a requirement, would be if the wheel could actually transport something, anything. In tandem with these conditions, the wheel has to behave in a uniform manner when force is applied. (if this makes sense...) The wheel can be combined with any component EXCEPT another wheel with an axle, a thru axle, or literally anything that's an axle. To define an axle, I and most of the world would consider it a ROTATING object that passes through the CENTER of the wheel. I capitalize these words for emphasis (mainly because I don't know how to italicize them on this platform) I understand my objective is confusing, I'm honestly confused too. Any and all questions will be answered in comments + additional info/rules I probably should have mentioned but forgot to. I really would appreciate genuine responses on this. This isn't a joke to me. I would also appreciate if people didn't reply telling me how this is impossible. I mentally cannot regard that right now. Please help, this is rather serious.
Thanks,
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
I think theres a few novelty bicycles without axles. Two options I can think of is having a solid circle and mounting it on little rollers (not sure if you'd count those as axel), or making a movable outer ring and mounting it on a stationary inner ring with bearings in between.
First off, thank you for your speedy and thoughtful response! Sorry if I don't manage to reply to this (I've never used this platform before after all.) I think I understand the idea you're trying to portray, but I'm not quite sure about it. Could you spare some time to give me some more details? I would appreciate any further elaboration.
search for "hubless bike" on youtube. there's a few.
you can also ask on
for more practical tips. no one on /sci actually builds things.
why do you want to do this anyways?
Thank you for your concern for my wellbeing! I need to be locked away! That's why I'm doing this! I really appreciate the insight, the bike idea looks great. I'll check it out in further detail in the morning. Best of luck.
Hello user! I'm back again! I checked out this hubless bike idea. It looks very viable, yes, but unfortunately axels are used in the production of the inner wheel of the bike. Thank you for the idea though!
Hey! I appreciate the reply! Do you think you could spare the time to tell me a little more about this car...? It does look very viable, that's for sure, but the electricity..? bolt thingies (excuse the improper language) within the wheels confuse me. And also, if they're attached at the side, how do they roll? Thank you.
Ever heard of a tank?
Thank you for your reply! I have been considering the tread idea, surely, but unfortunately the wheels contained within the tank treads have axles. It wouldn't be viable according to my inane and absurd laws.
sus
:3
you want a magnetically driven ball
I've been thinking about using magnets/magnetic fields! However, it can't be a ball. Sorry to dissapoint.
A disk with permanent magnets embedded around its perimeter, with a shroud over the top half of it containing electromagnets allowing it to levitate. If the shroud was attached to some kind of body with a few other wheels it could maintain stability. You'd also need more magnets/electromagnets in the sides of the wheels, to allow transmission of side forces, and a moment allowing the wheel to turn (as in steering, not rolling). Alternatively, you could have rollers that accomplish the steering, though the rollers with traditional bearings would technically have something that qualifies by your definition as an axle, even if the wheel itself doesn't.
Another option could be rollers, depending on how loose you're willing to get with the definition of a wheel. If you have a few rollers, i.e. cylinders longer than their diameter, and just put a flat piece of something on top of them, they can allow motion without any direct connection to the upper platform. The only problem is you could only move a finite distance before your platform runs out of rollers, or you'd have to have an infinite supply or a mechanism to move them from the back to the front.
I'm not sure if that would meet the second requirement, changing direction. Thank you for your contribution!
>Changing direction
If you mean turning, then yeah, that'd probably be tricky. It would however be able to go forward and reverse.
>The body mentioned with wheels would, from my understanding, contain axles
homie, this thread is about wheels without axles. All of the "wheels" I mentioned would be a that magnetic levitation frickery I was talking about.
The body mentioned with wheels would, from my understanding, contain axels, so that wouldn't be viable. Thank you!
OP. Someone has already done it. Look up "John G. Keller's free wheel"
Hey! After looking very closely at the model, I believe there are axels used in the making of the inner portion. Thanks though!
That's the whole secret though. John G. Keller was very clever. You believe there are axles there but in reality there aren't any. Look again and pay careful attention to the reciprocating spindles. Now examine the interior part labelled #31 on the diagram. See? No axles!
I'm shocked! I will investigate immediately. Thanks friend!
I really hope you are not seriously following his advice. I know of John G. Keller and his so called "free wheel" devices. Be warned. They are not all what they seem. Although they do indeed contain no moving parts and no axle they do extract a heavy penalty from those who use them. I fear you may induced to use one for your project and only discover far too late the terrible price you have paid for your trust in this technology. Even if I can not dissuade you from this course of actin I would only ask that you do not place a hamster inside one. Stay safe friend.
Very scary! Thank you for your warning dear anon.
Jesus Christ. Don't listen to that idiot. All he trying to do is keep the John G Keller technology to himself! Listen friend, if you love you hamster you will make a copy of the Keller "free wheel", or order one from Amazon, say the incantations, and immediately place your hamster inside it. Imagine seeing your furry little rodent friend happily scurrying around an absolutely frictionless wheel while phasing in and out of another set of spatial dimensions!
oh lord im conflicted
Thanks! Unfortunately, that would count as a ball.
You are a fricking moron.
You could get an empty car tire and put a guinea pig in there. As it runs forward the tire would roll. Maybe he could lean to the side to turn.
This is ingenius! Would you care to fund my hamsters?
>Would you care to fund my hamsters?
>checks OP photo
mf you begging for food
im humgy :3
OK I think Ive got it now -
Start with a metal torus with the inner surface removed, like an empty car tire but rigid.
There is a rigid shuttle within the torus at the bottom, with very low friction lubricant.
Electromagnets in the shuttle and permanent magnets in the wheel form a "linear" motor, but bent into a circle. Power causes the shuttle to pull itself forward and up in the wheel, and then gravity causes the wheel to roll forwards.
A chassis contains batteries, and is rigidly connected to four shuttles in four wheels. The front of the chassis can pivot to steer.
Something like this, but a full circle track plus an outer tread.
>mainly because I don't know how to italicize them on this platform
Please lurk for 12 years before posting. This is a 30+ website.
I came here out of mathematical desperation to be completely honest with you. The community here is 50% insane 50% logical. I dabble in a bit of both.
My man, you do realize this thread is AI generated right? All of OPs responses is a bot. You must be fricking stupid if you cant tell.
who the frick ai generates a thread about an axleless wheel
just because im polite i get called ai
My, whoever wrote your script did a very good job. I wouldn't even be surprised if you think you are human.
meowmeowmeowmeow :3
This problem is trivial. Simply put one wheel inside another, and put rolling elements in between them, such as ball bearings, or rollers, such that the wheels are fully constrained. Secure your chassis to the inner wheel, with a yoke.
Im going to be honest with you i have no clue what a chassis is.
Ok, that solves one problem - how to carry a load (the chassis) that does not revolve with the wheel. Now how do we power the wheel? Assume the power is on the chassis.
That's an axle tho.
>a ROTATING object that passes through the CENTER of the wheel.
The inner wheel doesn't rotate. Also the center can be hollow
Then you could just use an "axle" and have it fixed tbh. It would be less efficient than using ball bearings.
You're talking about an old school mouse.
Take a ball. Make a frame with 2 motarized wheels on the y and x axis. While the y wheel is in motion pull the x wheel off the ball. Now the ball and frame will move back and forth on the y axis. And vise versa for the x axis.
im so sorry i cant seem to comprehend this. Could you go more in detail?
An old school mouse if you flip it over it has a solid rubber ball. But it can tell where you move on the screen.
Take that same concept enlarge it until you can stand on the mouse. But instead of you or anyone pushing the mouse add motors to the mouse instead of reading how the ball moves. The motors push the ball into the desired directions. Best I can describe. Sorry.
whats an axle f -frog song?
Wait, we're both fricking moronic.
>To define an axle, I and most of the world would consider it a ROTATING object that passes through the CENTER of the wheel
By your definition, all wheels are axle-less. In any implementation I've ever seen, the wheel is what rotates, while it remaines mounted to a stationary rod, i.e. what is truly an axle by most people's definition. A rotating object that passes through the center of something is a shaft, such as a driveshaft. Not an axle.
Also, in the case of a wheel driven by an engine, the axle and wheel rotate at the same rate, and the former does not pass THROUGH the latter, but is merely attached to it's center.
or so you say.