Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics
#2Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics
#3Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics
#4Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics
#5Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics
#6It is hard to believe it is really efficient seeing the description. I have driven cars with CVT and not been impressed.
Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics
#7It is hard to believe it is really efficient seeing the description. I have driven cars with CVT and not been impressed.
Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics
#8For those saying it has too many moving parts, consider the number of parts found in an 11-speed internally geared hub on a bicycle [1]
I would be really curious to see if this inception drive could be an alternative to internally geared bike hubs.
Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics
#9The inner pulley wobbles inside the flexible V-belt and is induced into rotating by precession.
Separation of the inner pulleys controls the effective precession cylinder's inner diameter, the variation of which is accomodated by flexing of the belt: how far it is "squeezed off" and displaced from its outer mount.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_(mechanical)
Note in the precession animation here how the fast spinning green arrow can be regarded as an input (the wiggle), and the slow spinning of the square-centered blue wheel as an output: there is a many-to-one reduction here, effectively forming a transmission.
Not to be confused with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession
Re: Inception Drive: A Compact, Infinitely Variable Transmission for Robotics
#10It's clever. But so many moving parts, and doesn't look very sturdy, nor efficient.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080104094149/http://www.solomon...
This design is inherently more compact than that arrangement, and the parts are simpler. (I think)