Monday, 10 February 2014

Because I can't stop watching this ....


Because I can't stop watching this ....

mathani creation

21 comments:

  1. So, what comes below triangles? A star polygon, ..?

    ReplyDelete
  2. So the number of sides correlates with the curve steepness?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well...smooth straight-line ride not possible on triangular wheels. Wedges would cut into ground. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Square wheels can work after all..

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think also the wheels can spin in counter direction from one another and object treads in place.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hehe...very much so Eszter Mariczáné Nagy ! Some roads in E Europe are horrible =)

    ReplyDelete
  7. With a tire, one gets something on the order of Avogadro's number of angles.

    ReplyDelete
  8. But do note: never does a circle, cylinder, or sphere actually exist -- in reality, all contours are discretely determined and finite, while being dynamic rather than rigid. Straight and smooth and solid and fixed are each approximate abstractions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You can still roll  a polygonal shape on flat ground ! Here we have the case where the mobile remains at the same height wrt to the road ! no need for suspension springs !

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here is a real world implementation.
    Square-Wheeled Tricycle

    You can also get a smooth ride on flat surface using solids of constant width and some clever suspension work :)
    triangle bicycle

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's interesting how time and motion can relate polygons to curves. It's also interesting, that as the number of sides increase the basic shape of the curve produced doesn't change,  it just scales.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sean Walker It does change. With more sides you get a smaller slice of the sine wave. The angle at which edges of the valleys meet becomes larger the more sides you have and as the number of sides approach infinity the angle approaches 180 deg or a straight line.
    But I guess you could look at it as being stretched/squashed at some ratio involving pi in the different dimensions. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anders Öhlund Yes, my point was that although it changes, it appears to do so as a linear transformation of the basic sine curve shape. I'm not sure, but it does look as though the vertical compression is somewhat greater than the horizontal. It would be interesting to work out the variance between the vertical and horizontal compression as a function of the number of sides of polygon.
    I mean to help my son through his high school and university math so I should try working this out myself...  I have been considering purchasing Mathematica - perhaps this could be my first application of it. :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Corina Marinescu -- you can roll smoothly on flat ground using pointy/non-round wheels, if they're Reuleaux triangles.  You just can't have them revolving around standard axles.  http://exploreideasdaily.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/impossible-objects-1-how-round-is-your-wheel/

    ReplyDelete
  15. John Bump those are not "really" triangles in my opinion..same like the fake "doctors" - doctors in literature, anthropologie..etc :D

    ReplyDelete
  16. True, but they're definitely pointy!

    ReplyDelete
  17. btw it's interesting to see a graph of rotational speed vs displacement for the triangles in the gif -- or, for that matter, rotational speed vs. angular displacement for non-round gearsets.  There's some beautiful work being done with non-round surfaces.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I know what you're saying...but I refuse to call that fatty figure a triangle =)

    ReplyDelete
  19. A Rubenesque triangle?  A zaftig triangle?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hurol Aslan it would follow wouldn't it! lol

    ReplyDelete