Difference between revisions of "Organically shaped truss crane"
m (→Current day limits and future tech opportunities) |
m (→Flying drone alternative) |
||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
For assembly of many small parts many flying quadcopter like drones may provide an alternative but there are downsides of | For assembly of many small parts many flying quadcopter like drones may provide an alternative but there are downsides of | ||
| − | * potential noise (maybe not with [[air | + | * potential noise (maybe not with [[air accelerator]]s) |
* reduced energy efficiency energy efficient. | * reduced energy efficiency energy efficient. | ||
* increased risk (in case drone swarms get software highjacked for nefarious purpouses) | * increased risk (in case drone swarms get software highjacked for nefarious purpouses) | ||
Latest revision as of 11:50, 3 November 2024
Contents
Current day limits and future tech opportunities
Current day cranes are quite good and efficient, no question.
Their optimization is constrained by their manufacturing process (and local assembly process) though.
If nature would grow cranes then it would make use of optimization opportunities standing open due to not being limited by the manufacturing processes of the crane elements. E.g. Not all crane components needing to be based on straight profile steel.
This space of optimization opportunities is what is opened up by advanced gemstone based APM.
Long cables as speed bottleneck
Today's cranes actually operate pretty slowly a lot of the time standing idle.
They can't operate very well (or at all) in face of strong turbulent winds.
One tries to pick a good height but still there are long hanging cables with a low resonant frequency and low damping.
Well, granted, there are probably active damping systems in modern cranes helping with that - (TODO: to check).
Anyway when increasingly going to fully automated building and un-building systems
then the classical crane geometry may grow into a bottleneck for throughput.
Counterbalanced truss robot arm
When pushing for the limits of fully automated high speeds construction then
going for cranes that look more like industrial robot arms might be sensible.
These can avoid slowdown by swinging cables and can operate in much harder wind conditions.
Due to scaling laws there need to be made some modifications though.
As mass scales with size to the third power (10x size 1000x mass)
just like with cranes one needs to go to a truss structure.
Also a movable counterbalance for the high gravitational load is needed to minimize mechanical moments on the robots base.
Finally counterbalance weights for motion inertia may be beneficial too.
Such robots may still turn out to be smaller than the largest cranes of today but that should not be much of a problem.
A natural thing to do would be to operate several of these robots in parallel like self climbing cranes
on the outside, the core, or the top of the building under (de)construtcion.
With advanced gem based APM prefabricated parts can be smaller and
can be moved op via rails on the side or in the core of a growing skyscraper.
Rather than bigger parts being pulled up by free cable.
(They may use rails today too to a degree - (TODO: to check)).
(wiki-TODO: Add an illustration sketch of this concept.Several of the robots as the one illustrated atop a growing skyscraper.)
Flying drone alternative
For assembly of many small parts many flying quadcopter like drones may provide an alternative but there are downsides of
- potential noise (maybe not with air accelerators)
- reduced energy efficiency energy efficient.
- increased risk (in case drone swarms get software highjacked for nefarious purpouses)
- prsychological unease (large swarmed tend to cause that)
