Is the The Self Balancing Monorail Safe?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มี.ค. 2024
- Is the The Self Balancing Monorail Safe?
In this video we discuss some of the key questions about the Brennan's Monorail issues. Would it be a safe ride or an accident waiting to happen? - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I'd ride it as a novelty, but it seems like another solution looking for a problem. yes you are reducing weight and infrastructure, but you're also adding another complex and critical system to the mix and reducing braking surfaces
Given the time it was still far safer and practical than its competitors of the time. The same competitors that were adding tons of bodies through manufacturing and operating them. I imagine The brennan tech updated would still be better than traditional.
Every train car would need one of these. You would need same number of wheels or more wheels due to added weight. Maintainance.
yes, maintenance.
would there not be far greater loads /stress upon the track, the sleepers...
in fact the rolling stock as a whole. ?
Stress per rail would be at least 2x... well, obviously
It's a great day when we get another Subject Zero video!!! Thank you for all your hard work and if you keep making them I'll keep watching, stay safe brother!!!!
Awesome animations, content, language use and abstraction capabilities from this channel. Thanks a lot for the effort!
High quality visuals as always!
I don't know if I will ride a monorail or not, but I'm sure I'll be here for every video you make.
You didn't answer the most obvious question: Why? What problem is this solving?
Less friction, tighter turns, and smaller track
Quicker rail building over long distances as you only need one track
Excellent question. There has to be justification to sink tons of money to develop a new technology. Improved stability, efficiency, and maneuverability are stated as the justification or problems solved, at the start of the video. A mono rail can make tighter turns, less friction from tracks, and the gyroscopes at to make it stable on many level including from tipping over. I am sure there are other reasons but I haven't researched mono rails to any real extent. I am sure there are certain advantages that traditional railways have over monorails and it would be a judgement call of what advantages and disadvantages when (win*) out based on your priorities and what uses you plan for it like passenger vs freight or difficult terrain vs flat plains.
The problem of lack of monorails.
There's also the notion of the solution preceding the problem. There are instances of people coming across a problem and being stumped by it, before stumbling upon a technology that had already been invented which solves their issues. Especially when the technology or solution has faded into obscurity and therefore wouldn't be widely known until someone goes looking for it.
great animations!
Is there any efficiency benefit in running a monorail? Keep in mind that weight carrying capacity per wheel has an upper limit. If not, what is the advantages of a monorail - just less tracks?
pretty much
Heck ya, that's a wicked fun concept.
1:36 - Safe flight, lil' dude! 😆
Maybe outrigger wheels or drag skis could be fitted such that they deploy in the event that the flywheel drops below a certain angular velocity? A centripetal clutch or some such... Cleverly considered i think it could be done.
That's what I thought. Seems so practical.
But I'd still prefer maglev. :)
Giant flywheels are terrifying. I say that in general, not for this specific application since as mentioned you can mitigate it.
Wouldn't the monorail train be pretty speed limited when it came to turns though? I'm not about to educate myself on how to figure out the righting force of a flywheel, but the fact it has a righting force makes ANY changes in acceleration take more work, not just "not rolling off the track", right? I wonder how it would compare to the turning radius needed for various trains since they obviously need long distances to turn as well.
awesome!😃
Would it matter how long the flywheel takes to stop if the flywheel itself breaks? Not the motor powering it, but the frame holding it.
Edit: I guess he somewhat adressed it, but even with modern materials it's still one single point that would destroy a lot of broken
How will it manage to stay on the track while on turns?
Wihich side should be wheel lip be?
What will the wheel contact angle be ??
Will be concave and the track convex?
If a motorcycle uses rubber tyre and leaning to stay on the road to hold its line during turns, how will the monorail achieve this?
When banking in corners, do the gyroscopes go against the change and force derailment?
Your animations are just sooooo freakin' good, man. 😊🔥
What if to reduce the amount of wear and tear on the gyroscopes shell you use a tough metal like tungsten?
I think you failed to mention the advantages of using a monorail.
Reminds me of the 737 Max. Even laymen can intuitively understand why it's a bad idea, yet someone decided to try to fix the flawed design with more technology.
Or just planes in general, where the engines also have to keep constantly running or the entire system will fall out of the sky
Ask North Haverbrook. Ogdenville, or Brockway.
An autonomous cargo version could be viable in some circumstances and could use existing tracks
If there is a power failure the vehicle would fall before the wheel stops spinning, maybe much sooner right?
It was a genius concept at tht time . But people were not ready for tht at tht time.
cool
👍💪✌
No I disagree, it was a failure. Gyroscopic balance has always been a rather flawed system mainly due to the reliance of it keeping the thing upright in a failure, the size of gyroscopes big enough to balance a rail car, and the fact every extra rail car would need their own gyro system rather than just a head end having a motor. Plus gyroscopes perform terribly around turns converting the inertia 45° off angle, to counter this the gyros need incredibly complicated systems.
And again, any gyro is also a bomb. They're not well suited to being banged around or jolted and they energy they have is literally strong enough to hold the thing upright.
yup, the wheels should've been laid flat to keep the effects in-line with vertical too, this current setup would behave badly around turns
And yeah you need an additional corrective mechanism to support a gyro or reaction wheel or the momentum will just keep building until the wheel can no longer account for it.
The concept of a monorail was not entirely flawed, but it would need new approaches
There are other methods of achieving the same without gyros nowadays (such as weight shifting or aerodynamic lift), and fault recovery could be also done via some sort of landing gear or inflatable device. There are many advantages caused by one less track for lighter loads such as easier turning, less friction, less costly tracks including less maintanenance, narrower passageways, ...
@vitordelima not really. The tracks still take about the same area as they still take the area of the platform or cabin plus the area on the side for maintenance crews. And the benefits of having one less rail for costs are pretty low, rail construction is already a fraction the cost per mile of roads and the rail itself is only a small portion of that. Plus the rails out live the ballist and ties.
And while it may be more efficient around a turn to have one set of wheels, the thing does also just in general use extra power full time to maintain balance; even when not moving. Plus there's the fact that it's not really reducing the number of wheels. The number of wheels used is more determined by the weight of the car or engine. In the images it's basically an open platform yet still has 4 wheels for example. And the natural wobble it has from gyroscopic balance will inherently make it less efficient as well as the fact the wheels have flanges on both sides. Having flang drag on a train is one of the main causes of reduced efficiency and its why the flanges are only there to prevent falling off the rails, in general use they will not thought the rails.
@@Skylancer727You don't know anything about what you are talking.
@vitordelima I mean you're not really going into specifics here. I work on the railroad so I'm just saying it really doesn't change the main principles or really improve much to my knowledge.
Like I said efficiency is kinda an illusion as each car needs its own gyro, the cars are still just as wide so while the tracks are only one rail thin, they still take the same area to clear for the tracks and to form a foundation. The main costs for rail to the company isn't even maintaining the rails, its the property tax. The reason the area near me is only 1 track where it used to be 3 is because the company pays less in taxes. Traffic would still be far faster the cost to have all those rails isn't actually that high, but the taxes are.
So far you've kinda just said "we have better technology" and "it's more efficient without really concrete proof of that. Yes tech tends to get better, but gyros haven't really been "revolutionized" as much as the bearings are a lot better today. It really doesn't solve the problems. And we've seen modern concept gyro bikes and cars and are just as flawed as they were back then.
I view it a lot like the pneumatic train, in theory a train that would function near identical on hills as on a flat, but the infrastructure is worse, efficiency is lower, and it adds more risk and failure points. Sometimes a cool idea just doesn't work in the real world. I mean we've all dreamed of flying cars, but physics shows that making something float will always use more energy than using wheels.
Am sure this Technology could find it's perfect fit somewhere else, if really not for Rail Transport.
What if the gyro stops working as you're flying around a corner?
wheeeee
Where'd you get the angular deceleration from? You just assumed that because he thought it was safe, that 0.1 was a reasonable amount?
Check out EUC-s / Electric unicycles
THIS, I can get behind.
Bicycles and motorcycles don't need gyroscopes to stay upright when moving forward (the wheels don't act as gyroscopes, btw), why did this?
...doent matter if it still spins, its the change in rotation that stabilizes the system. not V but deltaV. that takes power, or a manual break.
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine, bona fide
Electrified, six-car monorail
What'd I say?
What benefits does it have that would make it better than "simpler" designs?
Except for enormous savings towards track construction, cheaper to maintain and being safer when derailing since it wouldn’t roll, not much.
In science the question is always why but never why not :)
My concern wouldn't be with the flywheels losing power, it'd be with the flywheels getting jammed and not being able to rotate.
I would not have problems if we apply the age old simple rule 2/3 redundancy. If we have 3 pairs and can operate normally with the loss of one with the other 2, and degraded with only one. I am happily taking my chances. Having said that, what is the problem the monorail is solving?.... :P
Brennan Monorail is safe for small number of passengers but you can properly scale it up because heavier the train is bigger the gyroscopes it requires. So its impractical
But you have not considered the possibility of one or both gyroscopes falling off the mount
The real issue isn't safety, it's practicality. A 2 rail train pulls cars that are just slabs with wheels. The monorail needs to have a running gyroscope on EVERY car. Any better efficiency from the 1 rail is totally ruined by all the extra machinery being pulled and powered.
I’d have a go on it, it’s a solid concept and I’d imagine with modern technology it would be even more reliable.
I think the reason it didn’t take off is because I don’t see how it saves money, the cost is just shifting from the rail to the maintenance and development of the trains themselves. The gyroscopes are going to need maintenance and have service lives, having one set of suspension rather than two and really loading it through the types of turns this train could achieve versus a conventional train will require more frequent maintenance, I think it’s top speed would be limited for safety concerns so it wouldn’t necessarily be any quicker over a long run, it would naturally be smaller, you’d have to fit gyroscopes on all carriages, and there was already a huge rail infrastructure, to make this the new form would mean tearing up thousands of miles of rail.
I think it could have had its place in some urban areas or maybe through some mountainous areas if it’s ok taking hills but it wasn’t really cost effective anywhere else.
❤❤
ah... ha. haha.. HAHAHA!!! *HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH 😅😂😅🤣😂🤣 HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH **_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH_** AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!*
Oh my god, thank you! this video made my day! aaaaaaaaaahhhh....🥲
I still dont understand how this train actually does curves, it seems like the whole thing prevents it from leaning and turning... but I guess Brennan was a genius?
Perhaps on other planets/moons for mining operations.
The train has a little moustache...
Ride? ===>>> Why not!?
If one flywheel left the vehicle unexpectedly would the other one rotate the whole thing into a giant blender ?....cheers.
Taking meteors, floods, earth quakes, falling trees, snow storms, aliens, etc. into account - I'd say the answer is NO
- but then again, it would be really hard to find something that is truly safe ;ø)
It doesn't look safe but progressing technology may overcome dangers.
Diesel? I hear those things are awfully loud…
Tu meke
He couldn't get much traction with the business people as he couldn't solve the problem of multiple cars. So the ticket prices would be prohibitively expensive.
A trainlike monorail is a deranged idea.
His efforts remind me of what Porsche did with the 911. Take a stupid idea and perfect the shit out of it. I dont see what you gain with this but I can sure see what you traded for it
Why not ride a monorail? It's no more dangerous than any other form of transport we use that completely depends on forced control systems. Ask Toyota drivers about their throttle controls.
rails are cheap enough now that it doesn't matter.
No way. I fail to see why this is supposed to be better than a train.
I'd rather take a conventional train... Or I'll just walk. Either way is better.
It would be safe if you designed one today: redundant power systems would be fairly cheap now.
It's biggest problem is that it would need a gyro in EVERY car, negating any fuel savings by the reduction in friction by having only one track.
"negating any fuel savings" : Source ?
@@LeChat084 Source: physics.
Less friction = less fuel.
@@ReadTheShrill Sure. But how much ? You do not compare. "negating" is not proved.
cool