Author Topic: Balancers  (Read 4848 times)

LRC

  • Thanks: 0
Balancers
« on: July 05, 2008, 05:37:55 PM »
I've got an idea. The physical principles of centrifugal and gyroscopic forces of mercury based balancers are well known.
I know that that motorcycles use these type of balancer filled with Mercury. As do planes. I think that one could make balancers for diabolos using the same principal.
What do you guys think? ;D

fzzyrn

  • Thanks: 4
Re: Balancers
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2008, 05:48:24 PM »
well you could but it'd be alot easier (and cheaper) (and less dangerous) to invest in some solid quality control

Aaron Z

  • Thanks: 5
Re: Balancers
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2008, 06:06:53 PM »
Yeah, I don't think mercury is something that should be given out in the large amount required in a balancer, especially if it would be treated as roughly as the diabolo it's on.

If the mercury leaks out, that stuff is a PAIN to clean up, coming from someone that dropped two handfuls of thermometers in science.

Anyways, the idea seems really unconventional - keeping a diabolo untilted comes naturally with any technique, it would really only be a hassle when you're trying to do vertax.

Actually, maybe, for vertax, it would be pretty cool? You wouldn't have to spin around as much or end combos as early to account for tilt...

Arjan

  • Moderator
  • Thanks: 70
Re: Balancers
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2008, 10:31:17 PM »
I don't really get the technique behind this, you could maybe explain it? But I do think looking for something that balances the diabolo naturally is worth investigating.

garner

  • VotW Contributor
  • Thanks: 21
Re: Balancers
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2008, 09:02:45 AM »
Anyways, the idea seems really unconventional - keeping a diabolo untilted comes naturally with any technique, it would really only be a hassle when you're trying to do vertax.

Actually, maybe, for vertax, it would be pretty cool? You wouldn't have to spin around as much or end combos as early to account for tilt...
you do know that tilting in vertax, if unintentional, IS lack of techique.

as for the whole balancing idea, surely the fact that a diabolo is a gyroscope should be enough to satisfy...

Aaron Z

  • Thanks: 5
Re: Balancers
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2008, 04:35:29 PM »
By all means, a simple gyroscopic enhancement could be found by adding ANY evenly distributed weight across the rim of either cup, Eg. smooshing some play-dough on a large circle inside either rim of the diabolo.

I think a really neat invention would be:

Have a little ring-shaped device, perfectly circular and rather thin. Have it so that the ring can be outwardly expanded whilst maintaining it's circular shape.

These tools could be inserted into a diabolo cup, near the edge- and then expanded to grip onto the cup and not fall out. And so if these tools weighed about, say 10g each, the diabolo that they're attached to would have greater gyroscopic stability.

--

Also, about that whole "lack of technique" thing, I completely disagree.
People need to stop seeing improved gear as crutches for sloppy technique, but legitimate performance enhancers. Lets say that your technique for vertax is already firmly established, having a gyroscopic diabolo would not demonstrate lack of technique, but allow you to display a better performance, without the constant swiveling and correcting.

Same goes for bearing diabolos, if you already have the technique, a more capable diabolo would only let you further it.

It's pretty late where I am, so it's hard for me to get my point across. To try and put it another way, let's say you have two identical cars- one manual, one automatic. If you already know how to drive manual, driving the automatic car wouldn't make you any less of a driver: you already know how to drive either way, but with the automatic car you have fewer hindrances and have less to worry about.

garner

  • VotW Contributor
  • Thanks: 21
Re: Balancers
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2008, 07:06:49 PM »
By all means, a simple gyroscopic enhancement could be found by adding ANY evenly distributed weight across the rim of either cup, Eg. smooshing some play-dough on a large circle inside either rim of the diabolo.

a heavier diabolo is maybe in order?

I think a really neat invention would be:

Have a little ring-shaped device, perfectly circular and rather thin. Have it so that the ring can be outwardly expanded whilst maintaining it's circular shape.

These tools could be inserted into a diabolo cup, near the edge- and then expanded to grip onto the cup and not fall out. And so if these tools weighed about, say 10g each, the diabolo that they're attached to would have greater gyroscopic stability.

http://www.firetoys.co.uk/juggling/mr_babache_evolution_kit_3_weight_kit_10g.html#aBF_2fEVO3_2f10

close enough, right?

and well. bearings may make some things easier, but (as i hear) they make things harder too, so maybe that would balance it by being great in some areas and not so good in others (without more work). as for your view on technique surely if "your technique for vertax is already firmly established" the need to correct is minimal anyway? genocides will stay on one plane, as will slacks, suicides, body stuff. vertax acceleration can be done without turning. genius.

as for your cars. why drive an automatic if you've already got a manual. spending money on two cars that can't be used together, only separately. also, what about 'having more control' is a hindrance?

back to the anti-tilt thingy. i think it could only be used to fix vertical tilt.
i think i might work a bit differently to you guys as i like to opt for the cheap way out. so...
problem: spinning object is tilting
possible reason: unequal mass distribution, friction differs on each side
solutions: don't do diabolo in a windy place, don't let the string continuously rub on one side, if the mass is that much of a problem then buy a new one, hit offending side with something at 90 degrees to the tilt.

BUT before all of this. try using a perfect cube as a diabolo then switch back to an actual diabolo and complain about the balance.


Niclas

  • Thanks: 11
Re: Balancers
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2008, 07:45:45 PM »
Your like diabolo news reporter Niclas, always bringing out the updates fast. Nice work.
http://wwww.youtube.com/DiaboloNiclas

Aaron Z

  • Thanks: 5
Re: Balancers
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2008, 10:01:58 AM »
The weight kits would provide better gyroscopic effect if they were further out near the rims of the cups, because the more weight there is to the outer extents of a rotating object, the greater the effect.

Anywyas, bearing/fixed, you either take some or lose some pros and cons- it all boils down to preference and no-one should be regarded as a lesser diaboloist because of their opinion of a better diabolo.

garner

  • VotW Contributor
  • Thanks: 21
Re: Balancers
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2008, 01:23:02 PM »
i like how we've completely gone off track with this thread

JimmyCords.

  • Thanks: 1
Re: Balancers
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2008, 01:34:17 PM »
I agree with Aaron. Technoligical advances in diaboloing should be celebrated. Its like comparing a Porsche 356 (older porsche from around 50's) to a Porsche 911 Carerra GT (recently released porsche). A 356 maybe be harder to drive in the sense that it doesn't handle, break as well as the Carrera GT. Does that make the driver from the 50's driving a porsche 356 better? No. Just like a diaboloist who uses a fixed diabolo isn't any better than a diaboloist who uses a bearing diabolo and vice-versa.

Anyways, back to the point. The main issue with a balancer would be the weight. Im sure a mecury based balancer would be fairly heavy.
Say Whaaaat?

Aaron Z

  • Thanks: 5
Re: Balancers
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2008, 01:37:14 PM »
Well the balancers pretty much would be weights. The more weight you add, the more stable the diabolo is- but you sacrifice agility and acceleration times.

Eric Moffett

  • VotW Contributor
  • Thanks: 10
Re: Balancers
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2008, 06:06:03 PM »
i think, MB should down size the massive bolt/axle and take the weight lost and add that to the rims probably another 2.5g each side. Less weight in the center more weight on the rims sure it wouldn't be an amazing advancement in performance but it would definitely be like that extra second of spin you need before you get get that diabolo out of the trick to accelerate.
Diabolo Acquired - Thurday, 2/08/07
Vertax Skill Acquired - Thursday, 4/12/07
2 Diabolo Skill Acquired - Tuesday, 5/29/07
3 Diabolo Skill Acquired - Eh, No?

thetemple94

  • Thanks: 2
Re: Balancers
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2008, 06:13:24 PM »
And whats wrong with diabolos as they are, extra weight isn't exactly a revolutionary addition, as Aaron Z said you might as stick play-dough in the rims.

Temps

P.S. This thread is stupid.
Why Bother When You Can Diabolo?

LRC

  • Thanks: 0
Re: Balancers
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2008, 12:20:03 PM »
Quote
Yeah, I don't think mercury is something that should be given out in the large amount required in a balancer, especially if it would be treated as roughly as the diabolo it's on.
I agree that mercury isn't the best health and safety wise. But one would not need that much. And as it is used in drive axles in cars and plane engines, it could take more beating than we could give it on a diabolo. Actually i guess the diabolo would break before the balancer did.
Quote
By all means, a simple gyroscopic enhancement could be found by adding ANY evenly distributed weight across the rim of either cup, Eg. smooshing some play-dough on a large circle inside either rim of the diabolo.
The advantage of mercury is that the weight would dynamically distribute itself were needed, it would adapt to changes in the diabolo structure and would not require prebalancing.
But who would make them to fit a diabolo.

 

fzzyrn

  • Thanks: 4
Re: Balancers
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2008, 03:30:43 PM »
Diabolos don't really change structure though. Sure, they bend, but they bend back too.

If you just threw enough money at the right people, they'd make it, but arguing that mercury'll allow for structure adaptation is somewhat of a moot point.

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2022, SimplePortal