He invented the ELECTRIC UNICYCLE

[Mono]

8 hours ago, rcgldr said:

Self-stability is similar to a bicycle, but due to different physics.

Right, a bicycle without rider is, surprisingly, to some extend self-stable (and we don't quite completely know the reasons for this, see https://youtu.be/oZAc5t2lkvo?si=4c1AY40tWB5_Bmzs). We have seen similar behavior from run-away EUCs. However, as most of us know from personal experience, a bicycle with a rider is not self-stable, neither with the hands on the handlebar nor with the hands off. Similarly, as show in the video, adding some weight at the wrong place makes a bicycle unstable too. So if we take this analogy to the EUC...

8 hours ago, rcgldr said:

As speed increases beyond the minimal stable speed, the self-balancing left|right occurs at a faster pace with smaller corrections (steering responses).  Angular momentum dampens these responses, reducing the tendency to over-correct and wobble, but wobbles can still occur. 

Here is the counter argument/example: a stable system must get back to its stable point when pushed somewhat away from it. At higher speeds, I am almost certain that this is not the case with an EUC: if we tilt wheel and rider by, say, 5º to the left at high speed, the camber effect will steer and turn the EUC to the left. When the EUC is back under the riders CoG, the speed vectors of wheel (that is, of the lower end of the rigid wheel-rider body) and the rider (that is, the upper end of the rigide wheel-rider body) will not align anymore. The wheel will keep on moving to the left, the riders head much less so. If the speed is "too" high, the opposite camber effect setting in won't be strong and quick enough to prevent the rider falling to the right (if the speed is not too high we may get a few oscillation of this process). For this reason (and to keep turning) riders upright the wheel side-tilt (compared to the rider side-tilt) when riding fast turns. Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't possibly see how angular momentum dampening could prevent the misalignment between the top and bottom the momentum vectors.

8 hours ago, rcgldr said:

As an example of self-stability, the girl in this video swings a backpack around, puts her cell phone into the pack, swings the pack back on, not having to focus on balance since her EUC maintains left-right stability. 

This can't tell us much about self stability. Many less experienced riders will probably fail doing the very same maneuver. A telling example would be a person who has no experience in riding an EUC and gets on it without even trying to balance. We can't make an experienced rider freeze all their balancing reflexes.

[Mono]

1 hour ago, atdlzpae said:

That's not any kind of "self" stability, it's the brain doing all the calculations and corrections to keep the EUC riding straight.

I would not be too certain that there are zero self-stabilizing effects in play (we know that the camber effect has a self-stabilizing tendency in that it turns the wheel towards the tilt direction). I agree that self-stabilizing effects are most likely not the only reason why we see what we see and the low rider to wheel weight ratio helps too.

[rcgldr]

4 hours ago, atdlzpae said:

That's not any kind of "self" stability, it's the brain doing all the calculations and corrections to keep the EUC riding straight.

'

3 hours ago, Mono said:

A telling example would be a person who has no experience in riding an EUC and gets on it without even trying to balance. We can't make an experienced rider freeze all their balancing reflexes.

Like this dog riding an EUC, that leans side to side, but then straightens up?

 

Edited January 5 by rcgldr

[rcgldr]

4 hours ago, Mono said:

Right, a bicycle without rider is, surprisingly, to some extend self-stable (and we don't quite completely know the reasons for this

The researchers know the reasons. The Wikipedia article has a brief explanation. You can scroll down to the eigenvalues section to see a mathematical model of an idealized bike with infinitely thin tires:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamics

The companies that make high speed sport and racing motorcycles have determined how to design motorcycles (with riders on board) that are self-stable and will recover from wobbles on their own. In the case of some racing motorcycles, a compromise is made between steering effort versus wobble prevention and they use steering dampers (shocks between frame and handlebars) to recover from wobbles.

4 hours ago, Mono said:

At higher speeds ... angular momentum

During a correction, EUC lean angle and corresponding steering response decrease as the EUC steers back under the rider, which reduces the tendency to over-correct and wobble. At higher speeds, the correction response is quicker and smaller. At higher speeds, due to angular momentum, it takes more effort to turn on both a motorcycle and an EUC. In the case of a motorcycle, it takes more steering torque on the handlebars, in the case of an EUC, it takes more tilting torque, requiring an inwards force on the outside upper pad, and an outwards force at the pedals (one of the reasons for using spiked pedals). Dawn Champion doing this on a V13 at about 35 mph:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyRxroEKHas&t=2635s

4 hours ago, Mono said:

angular momentum dampening

Angular momentum resists any change in any angle other than about the axis of rotation. This includes resisting the corrective steering response due to camber, acting as a damper to the corrective response, slowing down the rate of response and reducing or eliminating over-correction and wobbles. As speed increases, the damping increases, which counters the tendency to over-correct and wobble, but the tire profile could overcome this. I'm thinking that a Z10 with its low profile 4 inch wide street tire would have wobble issues if it could go 35 mph.

In the case of a motorcycle at around 100 mph, the damping factor reduces the tendency to return to vertical to near zero, resulting in the bike tending to hold the current lean angle, requiring the rider to forcefully steer inwards to return the bike to vertical. For riders that counter-steer (steer inwards more to lean less, steer inwards less to lean more), this isn't an issue (it would be an issue for a rider that doesn't counter-steer).

Angular inertia (mass of the non-rotating parts) also dampens twist or tilt movements of an EUC.

Edited January 5 by rcgldr

[Mono]

3 hours ago, rcgldr said:

The researchers know the reasons. The Wikipedia article has a brief explanation. You can scroll down to the eigenvalues section to see a mathematical model of an idealized bike with infinitely thin tires:

We have some reasonable models of it, which does not imply that we know all reasons or understand all defining mechanisms or parameters and can predict their boundary values. I don't think the latter is the case, but I could be wrong.

4 hours ago, rcgldr said:

Like this dog riding an EUC, that leans side to side, but then straightens up?

I know this clip, and the dog still has a brain  But yes, I'd agree that this and the runaway events strongly suggest that many EUCs without or with small payloads have some self-stabilizing speed range. Yet, stable with 10kg payload does not imply stable with 20kg payload does not imply stable with 30kg... just as stable at 15km/h does not imply stable at 25km/h does not imply stable at 35km/h...

You didn't address my counter argument/example, at least not in a way that was comprehensible to me. The question would be: where does this description specifically fail to agree with reality (and why)?

The specific problem that leads to instability: while the camber effect vanishes with vanishing tilt angle, the change of direction it has already produced does not vanish and the displacement effect of this change is proportional to the speed, that is, it will only be compatible with certain speeds: too slow will lead to an undercorrection (which we can observe when slow wheels or wheels with rider tipple over) and too fast will lead to an overcorrection.

Edited January 5 by Mono

[rcgldr]

1 hour ago, Mono said:

stable with 10kg payload does not imply stable with 20kg payload does not imply stable with 30kg... just as stable at 15km/h does not imply stable at 25km/h does not imply stable at 35km/h...

The specific problem that leads to instability: while the camber effect vanishes with vanishing tilt angle, the change of direction it has already produced does not vanish and the displacement effect of this change is proportional to the speed, that is, it will only be compatible with certain speeds: too slow will lead to an under-correction (which we can observe when slow wheels or wheels with rider tipple over) and too fast will lead to an over-correction.

Keep in mind that the rider experiences a change in the same direction (but not the same magnitude) as the EUC as it self-corrects. It's just like the bicycle video you linked to, a disturbance on a self-correcting bike returns the bike to vertical, but in a new direction. Once at a self-stable speed, the imbalances and corrections and changes in direction are small. As speed increases, the response time is faster, and imbalances, corrections, and changes in directions become smaller.

As for my own learning experience, after 15 minutes or so of beginner drills, I ventured away from a screened fence into open space at 3 to 5 mph, using arm flailing to twist my V8F (flail arms left to twist EUC right and vice versa) for balance and direction at 3 to 5 mph, similar to riding a bicycle at very slow speed, which I was already able to do. I was able to do a lap and then laps on my first attempt, but it required constant balance corrections. My wife took a video of this on day 2 (I corrected my hunched over posture after seeing the video):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPyy84EThmM

I had spent about 30 minutes on day 1, and 15 minutes on day 2 before moving to a long outdoor parking lot (image but no video):

https://rcgldr.net/euc/euc_pklt.jpg

where I felt comfortable going faster. At around 8 mph, I no longer had to make any balance corrections, lowered my arms and I could essentially stand still while riding in a straight line at 8 mph or a bit faster, and this was before I made any attempt to tilt steer. I was aware that I didn't just suddenly learn to ride, but similar to bike, I was just riding fast enough for my V8F to become self-stable. It was only then that I tried tilt steering, small tilts to see how it would respond, then weaving side to side and then large radius turns. This all took less than an hour over the 2 days. Learning to turn well by coordinating how much to tilt the EUC to steer and how much to lean for balance over a range of turning radius and speeds took a lot longer, about 6 hours to get the basics, and it continued to improve. My wife took a video on day 10 (about 6 hours riding time), and from the headlight beam, you can see how stable my V8F becomes at around 8 mph:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keDvRMScO1g

I wouldn't recommend learning to ride at 3 to 5 mph though. Most beginners get up to 5 mph or faster where the EUC becomes more stable and almost self-stable. Learning to ride slow should be done after learning to ride at normal speeds. 

As a better example of an EUC becoming self-stable, you can see it in this video of a beginner essentially standing still on a Z10 at around 5 mph (lower stable speed due to low profile 4 inch wide tire), and you can see the small balance corrections being made by the EUC. At 6:15 into the video, he's holding a selfie stick and riding without issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-dDOxvmzvQ&t=250s

Essentially the same thing of a girl riding on an S18, it's constantly making small self-corrections as she goes up the hill:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OavUJGKOwRU&t=50s

Dawn Champion reaching 52 mph (gps) on a V13. Still stable, and the self-corrections are much quicker and smaller. She's riding the beeps near the end of the video clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqbevoSPKFQ&t=15s

 

Edited January 5 by rcgldr

[rcgldr]

On 1/4/2024 at 11:41 AM, rcgldr said:

closest example of a manual hoverboard (dicycle with 10 inch tires) I had back in the 1960's. 

I've since found something closer to the manual hoverboard I had in the 1960s. Differences: Instead of four wheels, it had just two wheels, small bicycle type pedals, the wheels were larger, and the bent axle ends were at the center of the two wheels, not offset like the four wheel version:

like the inner part of this one, just the two inner wheels, and only a small offset between the pedals:

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23 by rcgldr

[Esash]

On 1/2/2024 at 11:29 AM, Scubadragonsan said:

I think the credit definitely goes to Shane Chen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Chen who really has put it altogether and commercialized it compared to Trevor Blackwell who "In 2003, Bombardier announced a conceptual design for such a device used as a sport vehicle, the Embrio.^[9] In September 2004 Trevor Blackwell demonstrated a functional self-balancing unicycle, using a control-mechanism similar to that used by the Segway PT and published the designs as the Eunicycle, but it was never "finalized" for public use passing the necessary requirements.

Boooo.

'The guy who invented it didn't really invent it. The guy who commercialized it and modified it slightly, he's the guy who invented it.'

Invention means creation, origination, not slight modification and monetization. 

Nobody care who sold the first telephone, but everybody knows who Alexander Graham Bell is.

[Esash]

On 1/2/2024 at 10:14 AM, rcgldr said:

He invented the seatless electric unicycle. Trevor Blackwell made an electric unicycle with a seat back in 2004.

link to wiki image

And that makes all the difference in the world. That Chen guy I wonder if he even gives credit where it's due, or if he pretends he invented something. Plenty of poseurs patent something first.

 

[rcgldr]

In case anyone missed my post about Focus Designs's SBU series, which were commercialized. Post includes links to videos of SBU's being ridden, I'll post a link to it here:

https://forum.electricunicycle.org/topic/35075-he-invented-the-electric-unicycle/?do=findComment&comment=495461

 

Edited April 23 by rcgldr

[Esash]

On 1/5/2024 at 8:12 AM, woke rider said:

It's common for several people to invent the same device. The concept of being able to patent a device as basic as the electric unicycle is problematic, it's more like a discovery as far as I'm concerned. Same thing with radio, bicycles, and automobiles. These are devices that would have been invented anyway. It's not fair for somebody to try to claim rights to these types of devices. Monsanto really got out of control by patenting their corn seeds. It's not fair to patent a plant, which pharmaceutical companies try to do.

It's a fair statement to say that all drama plots can be attributed to to Shakespeare and all inventions can be attributed to Davinvci, so the proliferation of all these patents is moot.

"Same thing with radio, bicycles, and automobiles. These are devices that would have been invented anyway."

You sound bitter, and I bet I can guess why. It's a totally BS argument, and you sound deeply envious of genuine creative inventors. Not to be confused with patent lawyer hiring copycats and other con artists.

[The Brahan Seer]

its always the way, this guy invented the one wheel, well before Future Motion...

 

[atdlzpae]

1 hour ago, Esash said:

You sound bitter, and I bet I can guess why. It's a totally BS argument, and you sound deeply envious of genuine creative inventors.

I fail to see bitterness or envy in @woke rider's post. He seems to simply state his beliefs. Beliefs I largely agree with, coming from open-source.

The original intent of the patent system was to encourage invention by making sure inventors are well compensated for their ideas.
Patent system hasn't served this role for decades now. Now it's main role is to gatekeep.

3D printers and OneWheels are prime examples. Work on 3D printers (and thus a price drop from $100k to $1k) had to wait until the patents from Stratasys expired in 2009.
OneWheel patent expires around 2035, so until then FutureMotion is able to treat it's customers like crap and to keep their prices absurdly high.

I'd love for the patent system to be revamped. For example to lower 20 years to like 10 or 8 years.
20 years in our current fast-paced digital world is way, way longer than 20 years a century ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

 

But obviously that's not gonna happen. Can't do anything against a trillion $ industries.

Edited April 23 by atdlzpae