Hey. The schwebebahn solves a problem. Wuppertal is build in a valley with both sides allready heavily occupied. The river was literally the only space to build transportation without tearing down low income poc neighborhoods, like the us would have done. We also don't have enough of them to free any significant space. That gyro train solves nothing. Germans would never build something stupid just to show of (don't look at our maus-tank and albatross-plane ;))
I remember this train came up in one of my engineering classes. The main reason it failed was the corrective swaying of this train also induced motion sickness. The same reason the high-speed tilt trains in the UK had their tilting mechanism switched off. There were also many safety issues related to the failure of the gyroscopes. All in all the train swaying even with the gyroscopes functioning and the train at moderate speed meant it was not pleasant to ride in. The swaying increased dramatically with normal train speeds, which was one of the main factors in why it was eventually scrapped and we don't hear of it.
Pd: Other option it's learn to do modeling and start offering that options but hand made. I that case good luck nowadays artesanal works isn't appreciate as much as it was 20 years ago.
@@moisesmartinrijo4024 I wouldn't say that. I look at Etsy where people are able to make a good amount of money with hand made handbaskets that look like a bird nest that was run over by a truck. So something of good quality should be able to make actual money.
Gyroscope balanced cars and trains existed before this one but with just one gyroscope, they would either have different forces depending on which way they were turning or different forces depending on if they were pitching up or down. Two pivoting counter rotating flywheels canceled the forces on two axis leaving the gyroscope effect on just one axis for the balancing.
@@manuel0578 "Acktually🤓" ... in all seriousness tho, in engineering design, 'elegant' means perfectly suited, i.e complex enough to work whilst simple enough to be viable (which this design is not). Unless you're attracted to trains and think its elegant in that way... then you do you broski
The speeds of trains at the time were limited by how parallel they could keep the tracks as any changes jostled the train increasingly with speed so the gyrotrain was to allow higher speeds without as much track maintenance and for that it worked well. The problem is that the common person does not understand inertia and hence investors like you had little faith in the physics. The only lack of practicality is that you needed gyros in every car and you had to compensate for the loss of spin due to friction so you needed an alternate support when not in use. The concept is far more practical than your so called "common sense" is telling you, just as bicycles and motorcycles are practical which actually uses the same forces to balance when at speed.
@@johnwang9914 The only input I have are malfunctions. A normal train carriage is often just that. A box with wheels, sometimes not even with breaks and most of them without propulsion. The train does not depend on functionality of each carriage, therefore the carriage does not need specific systems to keep it from crashing. The monorail on the other hand might need redundancies akin to how a plane needs redundancies. If a gyro fails at high speed, you not only need a set of gyros to take over the job, you most likely need it to also counter the malfunction if the failing one still gives an output. You also need to detect such an output as malicious and double redundancy systems to compare which one is correct and which one isn’t. At a power outtage, you need backup power for every single carriage to keep it balanced until it comes to a halt and can apply some stationary balance support that works unpowered. Every single carriage needs to be smarter, better equipped and some degree of authority in contrast to our dummy carriage. You also have a certain degree of redundancy in rails. I can imagine that it takes less to derail a monorail than our trains today. While is an ingenious idea and having some advantages, considering our modern safety standards (at least in Europe), it is over-engineered and likely introduces more dead weight per carriage as the whole system can offer savings.
@@chrisglen-smith7662 But how do you stop? If you stop and the gyroscope is off, you're still going sideways. And besides power off, there was also the danger of gyroscope malfunction or breakage. A single wagon going down would bring everything else down, introducing multiple points of failure. Etc.
@@Homiloko2 um... you stop using the brakes! But yes you still have a problem that once the gyros run down too much it will fall over. I'm just being pedantic, not saying this thing is a good idea, but it would be pretty cool, maybe in a theme park
@@chrisglen-smith7662 Yeah it's a bit of a shame, the idea is amazing but there are so many downsides. One of those physics things that works really well in 'ideal conditions' but the real world is full of wear and tear
to tip it over, make it stay upright so much it tips over and spins faster than the speed of sound, Tip: add magnets to the train and copper in a circle that is bigger than the train and tip the train over to make a generator!
@@Blox117 And so are gyrotrains, it's just that aside from a children's top, gyroscopic balance isn't easily recognized as such by most people as it's not a common experience in their daily life, so to a lot of people, this seems to be an impossible feat when it's just a matter of physics and to defend their cognitive bias and ego, they immediately jump to the conclusion that it must be unsafe and would fail immediately without power which simply isn't true. Common sense really isn't very common nor does it make much sense. Even in the era where this prototype was made, there were gyro stabilized steam ships. The unique feature of this prototype was using two counter rotating flywheels geared to rotate in opposite directions in one plane hence the gyroscopic effect was counter balanced in two axis of rotations so it would only balance on one axis of rotation, that is side to side. There were other gyrotrains and gyrocars proposed before this version but they all had different behaviours when turning and when climbing and descending hills. Of course, the balance of a unicycle is also due to the shifting of the operators own center of weight to balance the unicycle, the gyroscopic effect would make it easier when traveling but was much less of a contributor to the balance with an unicycle.
>defies the laws of physics >looks inside >using the laws of physics Yes, I am finally responding: Guys, this is supposed to be a joke. I just misheard "defies the laws of physics" so I remembered that ">wireless mouse >looks inside >wires" meme and made this JOKE comment. This isn't that serious.
he said "seemed to", my guy next time, learn to rewatch a video and not let your short attention span get the better of you for your little "funny" comment
The thing with this design is that it is one bearing failure away from a cathastrophic accident at any time. And boy, those bearings work harder than you will in your whole life.
And that failure would come quickly because they hadn’t invented ball or roller bearings yet so they were using what is called a “lead babbit” which is a lead bushing that is poured in place and relies on the harder iron/steel shaft to self clearance & then they just filled the little oil cup on top of the assembly and let gravity oil the babbits until they were worn out & then the mechanic would take his little hammer and knock the old babbit out and throw it into the smelter with the rest of the lead & then he would attach a special babbit mold, pour a new babbit and start the process over again. Had this monorail been invented after the invention of ball bearings, they would have never had any reliability issues and gyroscopes in each car wouldn’t have been as big of a deal because of the time saved re-pouring babbits and refilling oilers & the gyros could have been incorporated into the wheel trunions instead of needing to be enclosed in a compartment at the ends of the cars.
Although it is a feat of engineering it is in practice completely useless 1. It doesn't solve any problem from normal trains 2. It is less efficient because it needs to carry a VERY HEAVY gyroscope 3. And most importantly a single rock or branch could send it to the 4th dimension😅
@@CHMichaelat first glance you might think this but it actually wouldn’t save a whole lot. Still have to clear the same amount of land, the foundation for the tracks and are essentially the same because they need to support the same loads, the amount of bridges and other infrastructure are the same, the singular rail would also most likely use the same amount of steel as two because it has withstand the same load without deflection.
@@ModMokkaMattibro these investor invested in some of the word most important item gosh you stupid don't say it's a joke plus one carriage lose and boom it's gg
At first glance you might think this would cut the cost of the tracks in half, but it actually wouldn’t save a whole lot. Still have to clear the same amount of land, the foundation for the tracks and are essentially the same because they need to support the same loads, the amount of bridges and other infrastructure are the same, the singular rail would also most likely use the same amount of steel as two because it has withstand the same load without deflection
also, the carriages appear to be just as wide, and with most normal rails already being narrower than trains anyway (not by much, but still) it genuinely does nothing for the trains themselves other than actually _reducing_ the available space onboard.
I mean it just seem overall a very body idea to have to rely upon a gyroscope to keep the train upright. What happens if the Tarain has to stop somewhere and power down where there isn't a landing pad to keep the train upright?
But it could still be useful as a tilting mechanism for tilting trains. Balancing the car internally looks easier than pushing it by hydraulic pistons.
Mind you this was before the invention of safety. with this design you can build an elevated railway let’s say in a city and only have small poles which connect only one continuous rail. They could be heavy duty light poles. You could save quite a bit and also barely impact the street.
None. This is a prototype. In production you add redundancy. A train has a ton of moving parts already. Look at *any* steam locomotive. This design reduces the running gear by at least 33%. Adding in gyroscope is not the intense maintenance burden you think it is.
Mind you, the gyroscopes were really for slow speeds and standing still, at higher speeds, the normal wheels provided some of this effect as they do on bicycles and motorcycles. The reason for this design was that it's nearly impossible to keep the two rails exactly parallel and this affected the highest speed the trains could achieve but with just one rail, there would be less jostling of the train at higher speeds.
That's just a myth, actually. The angle of the front wheel support causes the handles to turn towards the turn almost instantly, righting the vehicle. Lock the handlebars or change the angle to straight vertical and the bike will fall over immediately when let go. There is no gyroscopic bicycle effect.
@@giin97 If there was no gyroscopic bicycle effect they wouldn't keep themselves upright and keep picking themselves up from their fall a few times to auto-stabilize.
@@V-XENO you'll notice every time they do that it's because the front wheel first turns in the direction of the tilt, which rights the bike. Try this with the handlebar locked and I believe the bike should tip right over. I think Veritasium has a video on this very subject.
@@notion-y2670 It's not lile it has no influence on stability, I wheelie all the time and it's a world's difference having wheel spin. If your front wheel stops during a wheelie, you'll have a much, much harder time keeping lateral balance.
It was about not having to keep the rails absolutely parallel. Changes in the distance between the rails however small would jostle a train side to side increasingly with speed hence the speeds of trains were limited by having to maintain two rails as perfectly parallel. The gyrotrain removed this side to side jostling of the train.
@@Se-no-csWireless electricity transfer is becoming a thing though. Modern iPhones, for example, can be placed on a wireless charging pad. It could also be used by solar satellites to produce more energy. Also, monowheels are a thing. They’re use mainly for novelty, same as a unicyle. They’re not popular because they’re inpractical.
@@deadmemes21that's not the same wireless electricity.. your iphone uses EMI to charge which is supplied by AC. what tesla wanted was to transfer the direct current
Well, if you suspend the train under the track by having an arm reach around the I-beam you put the rail itself on, you do get the massive benefit of passive perfect tilting behavior; with how much angle is possible there (as in, has been run with prototypes over a century ago), it could take higher G-forces in curves than you can squeeze out of street tires at their absolute limit.... except that the train has no risk of slipping/starting to drift. Not sure how well you can accomodate general population on such a ride with "extended" sections of 2G perceived downforce from following a valley with high-speed track. It's cheaper than tunneling....
@@namibjDerEchte If you suspend the train from the track, you eliminate the possibility of running over some random idiot who happens to be on the line, which means you can eliminate the driver. This is the exact scenario in which you find most existing monorails. It can be justified for very short routes such as between airport terminals. but the track just gets too expensive otherwise.
Elon ten years ago (and probably to this day) made even worse statements about the idiotic hyperloop he "invented" (read: stole a 150 year old idea). Dumbest gimmick of his entire career so far.
Does a top remain spinning once you've pulled the string out. Has not the Earth been spinning for billions of years? It's a matter of inertia, a spinning flywheel is exactly the same as if it was just sitting on a table without spinning, it would take a force to stop it from spinning, granted friction provided a small amount of such a force but that can be minimized with decent bearings and a vacuum chamber. It's only your flawed "common sense" that makes you think it wouldn't be as reliable as just sitting still.
@@HexDrone9637 To be fair, standard, two rail locomotives have *a lot* of moving parts. This reduces the moving drivetrain by at least 33%. So adding back in gyroscopes is not actually the maintenance burden you're thinking.
@@codeman99-dev Standard two rail locomotives can also have each one of those moving parts jam in place and it'll most likely not tip over and derail causing a disaster unlike what the device above would do.
@@codeman99-dev We already have trains that are perfectly fine if their engine turns off or the power goes out. They balance themselves on an even pair of wheels.
@@codeman99-dev Because redundancy in this case would be a spare gyroscope in every carriage as well as some sort of stand device like a kick stand on a bicycle. Thats a lot of extra weight, cost, and unusable space. On the other hand, regular trains keep themselves upright when stopped and wont tip over whenever something goes wrong internally.
This would too, in that case, but a normal train wouldn't derail if it loses power. This one would. It's still adding more possible points of failure. @@347Jimmy
Depends on how much energy you put into the spin of the flywheels in the gyroscopes. The more energy there is, the more offset forces it could resist and the only limitation on the energy would be the tensile strength of whatever the flywheels are made off, in this case steel.
Whoever made this did a great job at making it viable. But sadly the fact the person had to overcome all odds to make it should show you how unviable it really was.
He meant every carriage. And this train would need a gyroscope for every carriage IN ADDITION to everything any other train would have and gyroscopes are chonky as fuck
@@akapple3538 bro like, I know I wrote it vague, but I had just finished the first year of ME bachelor, where we already had kinematics in physics, meaning that I should already know how a gyroscope works- hell, I think the dude even mentioned it in one meet, but despite I remember the forces, inertia etc.., I just can't quite put it together on my own. That's what I'm trying to say. Similar as the fact that I know and I can count with the rope friction, that's the easy S1
I think gyroscopes and magnets are the things that when it comes to understanding how it works, physicists and engineers just throw up their hands and say, "We can explain the principles just fine, but when they're put into practice it's sheer witchcraft!"
It may not have been practical, but it was an amazing design.
Amazing indeed.
@@primalspaceAgreed👍👍👍
@@primalspaceI just think it’s incredibly cool, & the inventor was brilliant and a genius. Thank you for sharing this cool story
And it should be practical now with all the advancements in control engineering and stuff
The bike craze of the 20th century
I can only see it being used in a random town in Germany and then Tom Scott making a video about it.
Like wuppertal ( I don't know why I know that)
The Wuppertal Schwebebahn
Hey. The schwebebahn solves a problem. Wuppertal is build in a valley with both sides allready heavily occupied. The river was literally the only space to build transportation without tearing down low income poc neighborhoods, like the us would have done. We also don't have enough of them to free any significant space.
That gyro train solves nothing. Germans would never build something stupid just to show of (don't look at our maus-tank and albatross-plane ;))
@@blub5117I would not, Hans' 188 tons Porsche is cool just not practical
Sadly no more. R.I.P. Tom Scott
defy the laws of physics ❌
use every single law of physics ✅
Bro found a crack in physics and smoked it
You missed the part where he says "it seems to" not that it actually did.
@@killercat1981 Comprehension not a strong point.
@Flesh_Wizard Just makes me think of an old-timey inventor with a handlebar mustache filming a TikTok about his new "physics hack."
It said seems to defy
Every engineer’s dream is every mechanic’s nightmare 😂
🤣🤣🤣
Wise words!!!
@@Silveryback thanks!
Every architect's dream is an engineer's nightmare.
Im the 600th like lol
I remember this train came up in one of my engineering classes. The main reason it failed was the corrective swaying of this train also induced motion sickness. The same reason the high-speed tilt trains in the UK had their tilting mechanism switched off.
There were also many safety issues related to the failure of the gyroscopes. All in all the train swaying even with the gyroscopes functioning and the train at moderate speed meant it was not pleasant to ride in. The swaying increased dramatically with normal train speeds, which was one of the main factors in why it was eventually scrapped and we don't hear of it.
Use it for transporting goods and not people.
@@carlosfierro3302
And normal trains are still 10x better for that.
@@carlosfierro3302 a lot of wasted space coz of those large mechanisms in every car, and stability also matters there for some kinds of goods
Whut'.😮.. No'.. Stawp' It! J' K'..😅' Nyah ha'😊
@@BaBettesaWolfe😂😂😂
he should've made model/toy trains and sold them. the public would eat that up so fast
Pd: Other option it's learn to do modeling and start offering that options but hand made. I that case good luck nowadays artesanal works isn't appreciate as much as it was 20 years ago.
@@moisesmartinrijo4024
I wouldn't say that. I look at Etsy where people are able to make a good amount of money with hand made handbaskets that look like a bird nest that was run over by a truck. So something of good quality should be able to make actual money.
It would not be possible in lower scale...
@@badmaniakare you acoustic?, the inventor made a small model before making it a big one
@@idkXIII I believe he may be electric, actually.
The creator must’ve made this to settle a bet and prove he really was that smart
🤣🤣🤣
@@primalspace sooo ive been using ai to make realistic impressionist 17th, 18th, and 19th century art featuring, well, furries.
@@iamarizonaball2642this is so ramdom😭😭😭😭
@@iamarizonaball2642lmao what
Gyroscope balanced cars and trains existed before this one but with just one gyroscope, they would either have different forces depending on which way they were turning or different forces depending on if they were pitching up or down. Two pivoting counter rotating flywheels canceled the forces on two axis leaving the gyroscope effect on just one axis for the balancing.
Whoever designed this thing deserved gold medal
medal
@@gj1997gj thanks for that
Is there a Nobel prize for technology?
@@jensphiliphohmann1876 ye
i think
Probably some guy named Brennan
The coolest designs usually never see the light of day cause they're not the most elegant/practical.
Just like being conservative is better in long time point of view.
@@4Core100 Yep, that's why we still use horses and smoke signals instead of cars and cellular phones! 😂
@@OrpheusSonOfCalliopethats why we use helicopters and not one of davinci’s flying pyramids
Actually this is very elegant.
@@manuel0578 "Acktually🤓" ... in all seriousness tho, in engineering design, 'elegant' means perfectly suited, i.e complex enough to work whilst simple enough to be viable (which this design is not). Unless you're attracted to trains and think its elegant in that way... then you do you broski
ultimately it was more practical and foolproof to have two wheels
So it became a case of "awesome, but impractical"
The speeds of trains at the time were limited by how parallel they could keep the tracks as any changes jostled the train increasingly with speed so the gyrotrain was to allow higher speeds without as much track maintenance and for that it worked well. The problem is that the common person does not understand inertia and hence investors like you had little faith in the physics. The only lack of practicality is that you needed gyros in every car and you had to compensate for the loss of spin due to friction so you needed an alternate support when not in use. The concept is far more practical than your so called "common sense" is telling you, just as bicycles and motorcycles are practical which actually uses the same forces to balance when at speed.
@@johnwang9914thanks for explaining :)
@@johnwang9914This mf knows what he’s talking bout
@@johnwang9914 The only input I have are malfunctions. A normal train carriage is often just that. A box with wheels, sometimes not even with breaks and most of them without propulsion. The train does not depend on functionality of each carriage, therefore the carriage does not need specific systems to keep it from crashing.
The monorail on the other hand might need redundancies akin to how a plane needs redundancies. If a gyro fails at high speed, you not only need a set of gyros to take over the job, you most likely need it to also counter the malfunction if the failing one still gives an output. You also need to detect such an output as malicious and double redundancy systems to compare which one is correct and which one isn’t. At a power outtage, you need backup power for every single carriage to keep it balanced until it comes to a halt and can apply some stationary balance support that works unpowered. Every single carriage needs to be smarter, better equipped and some degree of authority in contrast to our dummy carriage. You also have a certain degree of redundancy in rails. I can imagine that it takes less to derail a monorail than our trains today.
While is an ingenious idea and having some advantages, considering our modern safety standards (at least in Europe), it is over-engineered and likely introduces more dead weight per carriage as the whole system can offer savings.
@@johnwang9914 you basically just confirmed what OP said while putting words in his mouth, and then had the gall to imply he was the stupid one 😂
the gyroscope on every car is the biggest killer, that space adds up quickly
Build vertical
@@Kyle-nm1khor go wider
@@daveinpublic or stack people
And the difficulty of repairs.
Sort of like putting an electric motor in every car.
Description from one website: "If the power to the gyroscope ever failed, it would create The Mother of All Derailments". 😂
I'm sure if the power to the gyro failed you would have plenty of time to stop before it ran down.
@@chrisglen-smith7662 But how do you stop? If you stop and the gyroscope is off, you're still going sideways. And besides power off, there was also the danger of gyroscope malfunction or breakage. A single wagon going down would bring everything else down, introducing multiple points of failure. Etc.
@@Homiloko2 um... you stop using the brakes! But yes you still have a problem that once the gyros run down too much it will fall over. I'm just being pedantic, not saying this thing is a good idea, but it would be pretty cool, maybe in a theme park
@@chrisglen-smith7662 Yeah it's a bit of a shame, the idea is amazing but there are so many downsides. One of those physics things that works really well in 'ideal conditions' but the real world is full of wear and tear
@@Homiloko2 The gyroscopes are not going to stop instantaneously.
Imagine if the train had to stop in a turn
Early 1900s scientist is just different level
I think someone should make this as a tourist attraction someplace
The more you want it to tip over, the more it wants to stay upright.
to tip it over, make it stay upright so much it tips over and spins faster than the speed of sound, Tip: add magnets to the train and copper in a circle that is bigger than the train and tip the train over to make a generator!
you sure you're talking about the train there, buddy?
@@haunter_xd yes
@@mijieanngaleon3855 question was for @hmg3
You just defined Gyroscopic Precession, Thumbs up.
When the guy who invented the unicycle decided to get into trains...
Or bicycles or motorcycles...
even those trains have more than just one wheel lol
😂 good one 👍🏼
except unicycles are actually viable
@@Blox117 And so are gyrotrains, it's just that aside from a children's top, gyroscopic balance isn't easily recognized as such by most people as it's not a common experience in their daily life, so to a lot of people, this seems to be an impossible feat when it's just a matter of physics and to defend their cognitive bias and ego, they immediately jump to the conclusion that it must be unsafe and would fail immediately without power which simply isn't true. Common sense really isn't very common nor does it make much sense. Even in the era where this prototype was made, there were gyro stabilized steam ships. The unique feature of this prototype was using two counter rotating flywheels geared to rotate in opposite directions in one plane hence the gyroscopic effect was counter balanced in two axis of rotations so it would only balance on one axis of rotation, that is side to side. There were other gyrotrains and gyrocars proposed before this version but they all had different behaviours when turning and when climbing and descending hills. Of course, the balance of a unicycle is also due to the shifting of the operators own center of weight to balance the unicycle, the gyroscopic effect would make it easier when traveling but was much less of a contributor to the balance with an unicycle.
Me if I was a investor:
Me:vehicle companys need to make a racing event about Brennan Monorail every year
Why did I dreamed about those things even if I didn't knew they existed💀
>defies the laws of physics
>looks inside
>using the laws of physics
Yes, I am finally responding:
Guys, this is supposed to be a joke. I just misheard "defies the laws of physics" so I remembered that ">wireless mouse >looks inside >wires" meme and made this JOKE comment. This isn't that serious.
"seemed to", my guy.
Me Reading a paragraph: 👎
Me reading an essay: 👍
"know your enemy"
he said "seemed to", my guy
next time, learn to rewatch a video and not let your short attention span get the better of you for your little "funny" comment
he used "seems" because if you look outside of it you think it's magic but if you look inside it just physics working at it should be
The thing with this design is that it is one bearing failure away from a cathastrophic accident at any time. And boy, those bearings work harder than you will in your whole life.
And that failure would come quickly because they hadn’t invented ball or roller bearings yet so they were using what is called a “lead babbit” which is a lead bushing that is poured in place and relies on the harder iron/steel shaft to self clearance & then they just filled the little oil cup on top of the assembly and let gravity oil the babbits until they were worn out & then the mechanic would take his little hammer and knock the old babbit out and throw it into the smelter with the rest of the lead & then he would attach a special babbit mold, pour a new babbit and start the process over again. Had this monorail been invented after the invention of ball bearings, they would have never had any reliability issues and gyroscopes in each car wouldn’t have been as big of a deal because of the time saved re-pouring babbits and refilling oilers & the gyros could have been incorporated into the wheel trunions instead of needing to be enclosed in a compartment at the ends of the cars.
@@rollin18wheels🏆
Thanks great info
true
I believe this babbit guy.
Although it is a feat of engineering it is in practice completely useless
1. It doesn't solve any problem from normal trains
2. It is less efficient because it needs to carry a VERY HEAVY gyroscope
3. And most importantly a single rock or branch could send it to the 4th dimension😅
@@CHMichaelat first glance you might think this but it actually wouldn’t save a whole lot. Still have to clear the same amount of land, the foundation for the tracks and are essentially the same because they need to support the same loads, the amount of bridges and other infrastructure are the same, the singular rail would also most likely use the same amount of steel as two because it has withstand the same load without deflection.
@@CHMichael😃😂😆🤣
@@ECL..yeah ... but ... all the cost would be half as much.🤔👍😁
@@__cypher__they already explained why it would be more than half the costs
@@dokterdokterdokterdokterdokter ..... nuh-uh .... think about it ...
...easy math ... one rail ...
... instead of two... half off!
I used this trains gyro setup to inspire a builder on youtube to build his very own self balancing motorcycle.
This invention should be called "The RailBike"
"investors werent confident"
- bruh moment
"every carriage would need its own gyroscope"
- oh okay
yea, usually the things now are the way they are for a reason
I did exactly the same 🫢🤣
Investors are such a horrible species.
@@ModMokkaMattibro these investor invested in some of the word most important item gosh you stupid don't say it's a joke plus one carriage lose and boom it's gg
gyroscopes are expensive?
I see how the science works out, but I also see the mechanism failing and this entire thing derailing in less than a second.
A house divided against itself cannot stand, but a train multiplied against itself cannot fall.
Abraham Lincoln said that.
@@jshepard152and I say he knows a little more about trains than you do, pal, because he invented them!
@@luissemedo3597And then he perfected it so that no living man can best him in the ring of honour!
Lol bruh 💀
r/suddenlytf2
Watch out for those monorail enthusiasts - they have a one-track mind
🤣🤣👏🏼👏🏼
this design is not able to stop without special support
At first glance you might think this would cut the cost of the tracks in half, but it actually wouldn’t save a whole lot. Still have to clear the same amount of land, the foundation for the tracks and are essentially the same because they need to support the same loads, the amount of bridges and other infrastructure are the same, the singular rail would also most likely use the same amount of steel as two because it has withstand the same load without deflection
also, the carriages appear to be just as wide, and with most normal rails already being narrower than trains anyway (not by much, but still) it genuinely does nothing for the trains themselves other than actually _reducing_ the available space onboard.
I mean it just seem overall a very body idea to have to rely upon a gyroscope to keep the train upright. What happens if the Tarain has to stop somewhere and power down where there isn't a landing pad to keep the train upright?
But it could still be useful as a tilting mechanism for tilting trains. Balancing the car internally looks easier than pushing it by hydraulic pistons.
Mind you this was before the invention of safety. with this design you can build an elevated railway let’s say in a city and only have small poles which connect only one continuous rail. They could be heavy duty light poles. You could save quite a bit and also barely impact the street.
“Before the invention of safety” LMAO
Crazy how people come up with this kind of stuff it’s really fascinating
"Perfectly balanced as all things should be"
Without balance one can not be a complete duelist!
Variation: No good engineering idea goes unpunished.
"Unfortunately... investors realized it was a terrible idea, not at all genius, and vastly inferior to simply laying a second rail."
“It’s not a failure if you learn from it” _-fortune cookie probably_
"that seemed to defy the laws of physics" = does everything just by using the laws of physics.
well yeah it *seemed,* without the explanation it'd probably be a mystery to most people
Hey everyone! This guy just discovered what a hyperbole is!
Woooh!
'seemed to'
_“that _*_seemed_*_ to”_
we got trains using reverse cursed technique before gta 6
Before ANY GTA 🫸🫷🔛🤷♂️🔛☠️🧪👨🔬🗣💀⚗️🎁🧀🤒🤧😕🍷🐔🤏🤏🤏👊⁉️🤟🐰🥄🍨🔝📣🤫🔇
We get cursed trains before PONG 😭😭🤯
Mf this isn’t a funny meme anymore
we got them back in 1910
@@railworksamerica we got them before we were born
One of the most complete and perfect exploitation of what gyroscope can do.Well done. great show. Love physics immensely. Cheers!
the train production never made it to the public because of the high costs of the train’s gyroscopes and management
Therapist: "Traincycle isn't real it can't hurt you."
Traincycle:
🤣🤣🤣
more like unitrain
@@gametalk3149 unitraincycle
The investors were right to steer clear of this bicycle train
Bro said "I turned off gravity"
You might need to revise physics sir
@@daizdamien1409 my physics are good and ik it's a gyroscope
Where is your Apple?
Angular momentum playing its card
I thought I told you what goes around comes back around!
Good thing it never caught on. Just imagine the carnage it would cause if that gyroscope siezed up.
None. This is a prototype. In production you add redundancy.
A train has a ton of moving parts already. Look at *any* steam locomotive. This design reduces the running gear by at least 33%. Adding in gyroscope is not the intense maintenance burden you think it is.
@@codeman99-dev A good and reliable redundant factor to add would be a 2nd rail for it to balance upon in case the machinery fails.
@@codeman99-dev Whats the redundancy? A second gyroscope in every carriage? What about if it has to stop somewhere that isnt a premade platform?
Once i saw the inside i thought* THEY ADDED A MINIGUN!*
SAME
im not sure how I feel that at least two other people thought the same silly thing I did XD
was it to kill a spider
@@Jordanvlogs-k2h give em the likes people
Mind you, the gyroscopes were really for slow speeds and standing still, at higher speeds, the normal wheels provided some of this effect as they do on bicycles and motorcycles. The reason for this design was that it's nearly impossible to keep the two rails exactly parallel and this affected the highest speed the trains could achieve but with just one rail, there would be less jostling of the train at higher speeds.
That's just a myth, actually. The angle of the front wheel support causes the handles to turn towards the turn almost instantly, righting the vehicle. Lock the handlebars or change the angle to straight vertical and the bike will fall over immediately when let go. There is no gyroscopic bicycle effect.
@@giin97 If there was no gyroscopic bicycle effect they wouldn't keep themselves upright and keep picking themselves up from their fall a few times to auto-stabilize.
@@V-XENO you'll notice every time they do that it's because the front wheel first turns in the direction of the tilt, which rights the bike. Try this with the handlebar locked and I believe the bike should tip right over. I think Veritasium has a video on this very subject.
@@notion-y2670 And he mentions how it's due to the effect that it rights itself back up. It's what I said earlier.
@@notion-y2670 It's not lile it has no influence on stability, I wheelie all the time and it's a world's difference having wheel spin. If your front wheel stops during a wheelie, you'll have a much, much harder time keeping lateral balance.
Perfectly balanced as all things should be 💜
There are too many cool designs that solve problems that don’t exist
It's all fun and games until a bearing goes and that gyro seizes out of nowhere. :D
And now they have built personal motorcycles like this.
The legend said if Caseoh fell we have a *accident* 😌
Anything with Gyro is turn out to be amazing.
Those investors weren't very level headed.
Bro was like "if i can't make a full one, this must do"
It was about not having to keep the rails absolutely parallel. Changes in the distance between the rails however small would jostle a train side to side increasingly with speed hence the speeds of trains were limited by having to maintain two rails as perfectly parallel. The gyrotrain removed this side to side jostling of the train.
There's so many cool inventions that never got into production
like what
@@vomm like Nicola tesla's wireless electricity or a bike with one wheel
@@Se-no-csWireless electricity transfer is becoming a thing though. Modern iPhones, for example, can be placed on a wireless charging pad. It could also be used by solar satellites to produce more energy.
Also, monowheels are a thing. They’re use mainly for novelty, same as a unicyle. They’re not popular because they’re inpractical.
@deadmemes21 Well, those things we're invented like a hundred years ago, and they were not in use until now
@@deadmemes21that's not the same wireless electricity.. your iphone uses EMI to charge which is supplied by AC. what tesla wanted was to transfer the direct current
Elon, in a few years: “trust me bro this is the future of transportation, this beats rail”
Well, if you suspend the train under the track by having an arm reach around the I-beam you put the rail itself on, you do get the massive benefit of passive perfect tilting behavior; with how much angle is possible there (as in, has been run with prototypes over a century ago), it could take higher G-forces in curves than you can squeeze out of street tires at their absolute limit.... except that the train has no risk of slipping/starting to drift.
Not sure how well you can accomodate general population on such a ride with "extended" sections of 2G perceived downforce from following a valley with high-speed track.
It's cheaper than tunneling....
@@namibjDerEchte If you suspend the train from the track, you eliminate the possibility of running over some random idiot who happens to be on the line, which means you can eliminate the driver. This is the exact scenario in which you find most existing monorails. It can be justified for very short routes such as between airport terminals. but the track just gets too expensive otherwise.
Elon ten years ago (and probably to this day) made even worse statements about the idiotic hyperloop he "invented" (read: stole a 150 year old idea). Dumbest gimmick of his entire career so far.
@@jules8876 so far
I'm glad the investors didn't invest in it. I don't trust it either. If that gyroscope breaks or malfunctions, goodbye everyone.
Train:perfectly balanced
My coffee: on the floor
then get a gyroscope in your mug
Keeping it up right while stopped combined with maintenence of the gyroscope I imagine would be more costs than it's worth
They're afraid something would go wrong with the gyroscope and everything would go down.
Does a top remain spinning once you've pulled the string out. Has not the Earth been spinning for billions of years? It's a matter of inertia, a spinning flywheel is exactly the same as if it was just sitting on a table without spinning, it would take a force to stop it from spinning, granted friction provided a small amount of such a force but that can be minimized with decent bearings and a vacuum chamber. It's only your flawed "common sense" that makes you think it wouldn't be as reliable as just sitting still.
@@johnwang9914the hell you talking about? You do not want a giros locking in the wrong place mate. Too many moving parts=things that cam go wrong
@@HexDrone9637 To be fair, standard, two rail locomotives have *a lot* of moving parts.
This reduces the moving drivetrain by at least 33%. So adding back in gyroscopes is not actually the maintenance burden you're thinking.
@@codeman99-dev Standard two rail locomotives can also have each one of those moving parts jam in place and it'll most likely not tip over and derail causing a disaster unlike what the device above would do.
It reminds me of the monorail in Springfield.
❤❤❤ I HAVE WRITTEN ON THE MONORAIL IN SEATTLE SEVERAL TIMES
❤ WHICH SPRINGFIELD ARE YOU REFERRING TO ❓❓❓
SOMEHOW I DOUBT IF IT'S SPRINGFIELD OREGON❤❤
@@donhagerty5669 The Simpsons has a monorail episode
Wasn't the pranksters name also Brennan?
That Episode was written by Conan O'Brian
The definition of anxiety
People say don't reinvent the wheel but we've had perfected gyroscope technology for like 10 years. Why have we not reinvented the wheel yet?!
No safety net in redundancy.
That's why planes travelling over water need multiple engines.
Why do you assume there's no redundancy? It never made it to production. Planes started with no engine at all before production.
@@codeman99-dev We already have trains that are perfectly fine if their engine turns off or the power goes out. They balance themselves on an even pair of wheels.
@@codeman99-dev Because redundancy in this case would be a spare gyroscope in every carriage as well as some sort of stand device like a kick stand on a bicycle. Thats a lot of extra weight, cost, and unusable space.
On the other hand, regular trains keep themselves upright when stopped and wont tip over whenever something goes wrong internally.
A train running on paired rails doesn't have redundancy, it'll derail on one 🤷🏻♂️
This would too, in that case, but a normal train wouldn't derail if it loses power. This one would. It's still adding more possible points of failure. @@347Jimmy
reinventing the wheel just for it to stray further away from simplicity
Trains are not simple. Not even a little.
This was histories worst rail disaster waiting to happen
Train Idea ❌️
Roller coaster Idea ✅️
Haha fair.
You say its "impractical" I say its "dope as shit"
“I know what we are going to do today, Ferb”
Improve this thing?
Exactly
Perfectly balanced as all things should be
Impressive. Very nice. Now lets see the Atmospheric Railway, capable of reducing an entire horse to a souplike homogenate in 30 seconds.
That’s unfortunate because it was ahead of it’s time!
It was very much behind it's time
They’re smarter than us
This could be useful in theme parks.
That is pretty neat... but could it hold up to a party of THICC girls from the hood doing the Cha-Cha Slide? We'll never know.
🤣🤣🤣 you're right, we (probably) won't haha
@@primalspace Just turn up the power on the gyroscope if needid. It wuld be fine.
Depends on how much energy you put into the spin of the flywheels in the gyroscopes. The more energy there is, the more offset forces it could resist and the only limitation on the energy would be the tensile strength of whatever the flywheels are made off, in this case steel.
A monorail, with a single wheel line. This The Simpsons' heaven!
🤣🤣🤣
Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!
matlock
guys what happens when it looses power and the gyro turns off or the gyro seizes
thats why it never got implimented
I'd pay 1000 dollars extra just to ride this thing 😭🙏
Truly a wonder of engineering.
It uses physics not defys it...
SEEMED
Would be perfect for a themepark. They always have a train going around and like this it'd be an awesome experience/attraction too!
Haha I think so too!
So this is the most amazing channel I’ve ever found. And why have I not heard of any of this until now?
Whoever made this did a great job at making it viable.
But sadly the fact the person had to overcome all odds to make it should show you how unviable it really was.
This channel is GOLD. We need to save it at ALL costs!
Thank you so much 🙏🏼
Whoever did this, deserves a Nobel prize in physics 👏 👏👏👏
no he doesn't
@@headahhboiyeah gyroscopes are overrated
He's long dead, and this isn't nobel-worthy.
Pure genius… a monorail from over a 100 years ago.. think about how much labor and cost that would have saved compared to trains nowadays.. amazing
It's literally 10x worse, would've been more expensive, and would've required more labour.
the spiffing brit: the self balancing monorail is perfectly balanced with no exploits
Probably should have had 4 gyros - one in each corner of each rail car
I thought the gyroscope was a mini gun for a second
Every train would need it's own gyroscope just like every train would need it's own motors, wheels,chassis, everything
He meant every carriage. And this train would need a gyroscope for every carriage IN ADDITION to everything any other train would have and gyroscopes are chonky as fuck
Conversely, think how much they would save by having to lay down one rail instead of two.
@@Guavauava not much
Better than the hyperloop
They should build a handful at a theme park or something. I would love to ride on one. Too cool.
Perfectly balanced, as all things should be…
I'll always find it hilarious that humans trust mechanics more than physics, even though only one of those two can break.
Gyroscope is the thing that I bet I wont ever understand despite the possibility of becoming an mechanical engineer 💀
I think you’d need the first before getting the second :)
@@akapple3538 bro like, I know I wrote it vague, but I had just finished the first year of ME bachelor, where we already had kinematics in physics, meaning that I should already know how a gyroscope works- hell, I think the dude even mentioned it in one meet, but despite I remember the forces, inertia etc.., I just can't quite put it together on my own. That's what I'm trying to say.
Similar as the fact that I know and I can count with the rope friction, that's the easy S1
@@kexcz8276 ahaha I’m sure you’ll figure it out eventually. Good luck with your studies:)
I think gyroscopes and magnets are the things that when it comes to understanding how it works, physicists and engineers just throw up their hands and say, "We can explain the principles just fine, but when they're put into practice it's sheer witchcraft!"
@@akapple3538 thx bro! 👍
It's genius, but the investors were right, I don't see any utility of this over regular trains, it's just a gimmick
I feel like that bqck then was its own futuristic time
this seems like something you’d get on just to feel some risk