Author Topic: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---  (Read 19410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wandering

  • BABY DAISY IS FREAKIN HAWT
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
    • XXX FREE HOT WADAISY PICS
RE:FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #50 on: April 09, 2005, 02:19:02 PM »
Putting it on the console would work. But I don't think it would be that much of a problem to put it on the controller.
Nintnedo spent a lot of time in their patent (link, for those who haven't seen it) discussing an apparently unique way they've discovered for making a retractable cord fit inside a controller, without making the controller too big or too expensive.

But I don't care how they do it....it'd be annoying not being able to play during charges. Especially considering the controller will probably have a much lower battery life than Wavebird and, knowing Nintendo, probably won't have an easily replacable battery.  
“...there are those who would...say, '...If I could just not have to work everyday...that would be the most wonderful life in the world.' They don't know life. Because what makes life mean something is purpose.  The battle. The struggle.  Even if you don't win it.” - Richard M. Nixon

Offline nickmitch

  • You can edit these yourself now?!
  • Score: 82
    • View Profile
    • FACEBOOK!
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #51 on: April 09, 2005, 07:21:44 PM »
A retractable cord wouldn't weigh that much. And if all you had to do was pull out a cord and plug it in to your rev. then battery life would be much of an issue.
TVman is dead. I killed him and took his posts.

RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #52 on: April 09, 2005, 10:50:23 PM »
IF they happen to take out the rumble feature then I'm sure the space that used to be designated for the rumble mechanics can be used for that cord retracter (however thats spelled).  Anyways, I'm sure you'll be able to use the controller while its charging.
"It seems that a great number of individuals crave technology that gives an individual a false sense of intimacy. Producing just enough communication to get the job done while stripping out the intangibilities. If you had the chance, would you demand convenience give your humanity back? Or would you

Offline slingshot

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #53 on: April 10, 2005, 05:21:21 AM »
I would still rather have the cord retract into the console- and why is it a problem if the 2 cm connector plug is sticking out
of the console?  I would be pretty easy to grab it if it is sticking out.  Is that really going to bug you?  I think it is bette to
have it protrude slightly than to have it sucked into the console- where you would have to come up with a mechanical
means to get it out- (ie, pushing a button to  partially eject the plug)  K>I>S>S.  You know the old anagram.  The more
mechanics the easier it breaks.  I'm sure Nintendo would have a reason to choose the controller over the console to house
the retracted cord- but I don't see the logic in putting it in the controller when you can keep it out of the way in the console-
you would notice the extra bulk more in a small controller than in a larger console.  Especially when the console just sits
there and does nothing- but you have to hold the controller.  Unless it is integral to the funcionality of the device- it should
be confined to the console (.)

Offline zakkiel

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #54 on: April 10, 2005, 03:13:40 PM »
All right, a brief physics lesson since some of you are in need. I thought they taught this freshman year of high school, but maybe not or maybe you're younger than that.

Human beings move by pushing the planet in the opposite direction. You just don't notice because obviously the planet is so big. If it was just you and a rubber ball in space, you could notie that you could only change velocities by pushing the rubber ball. Paladin, dear, the reaction force actually does cancel out the net force. This is actually codified in what we call Newton's third law, which states clearly and explicitly that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In the case of a cardboard box, you use friction to tip it. The friction applies a torque to the earth exactly equal and opposite to the torque you apply to the box. If you stick the box on some frictionless surface, or in a vacuum, you won't be able to tip it from the inside.

A vibrating object uses systemns colliding with each other inside the object to produce the effect. You get the vibration because of the time delay between collisions. Foir an example, consider a person inside a box in space. He's up against one wall with a big ball which he bounces off the far wall. When he first throws the ball, the box starts moving in the opposite direction of the ball, keeping total change in momentum zero. When the ball bounces off the far end, the box starts moving in the other direction, still keeping total momentum zero. You get motion in the box, all right, but the only way you can get it to move anywhere is by throwing the ball through the box. Otherwise, the box will just move back and forth over a  distance qual to no more than twice its length measured in the direction the ball is thrown. Now, if you stick the box on earth with friction you can play games that will get the box to keep jerking in one direction, but only by pushing the earth in the opposite direction.

At this point, I should perhaps mention that I am a physics major currently studying quantum mechanics. Basic Fourier transforms with no temporal dependence at this point, but I did in fact acquire some small understanding of elementary Newtonian physics from the courses I had to take to get here, so I know what I'm talking about. Paladin, I suggest you reserve your sarcasm for when YOU know what you're talking about or at least have made a token effort to find out.

Now, gyroscopes. When you apply a torque, which is a force on the exterior of a body that causes it to rotate (I'm being real careful now so there can be no misunderstanding) to a gyroscope's axis, you can get an opposing torque (or force, depending on how you want to look at it for the purposes of the original problem) from the gyroscope provided its spinning fast enough. This allows you to set up weird static systems like briefcases floating by one handle. However, this torque is ONLY in response to the exterior torque, and applies exactly so that it produces a force equal to the weight of the object. It depends entirely on where you place your hand. If you apply an electrical force to create a torque inside the gyroscope, the gyroscope will apply an equal and opposite force to whatever you have inside the controller generating the force - probably an electromagnet. The forces will cancel inside the controller and you will never feel them on the outside (unless they become so strong that they rip the controller apart, which might injure your hand as the components fly apart with a total momentum exactly equal to zero, if you count the earth.)

In conclusion: there are no forcefields, and gyroscopes are not magic devices that produce them. It's a nice thought that, like faster-than-light travel, happens to be impossible. Naysayer that I am, I live in reality and do not expect Nintendo to break the laws of physics.
Defenestration - the only humane method of execution.

Offline PaLaDiN

  • I'm your new travel agent!
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #55 on: April 10, 2005, 04:45:55 PM »
"Paladin, dear, the reaction force actually does cancel out the net force. This is actually codified in what we call Newton's third law, which states clearly and explicitly that every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

I'm sorry, zakkiel, dear, isn't friction one of the effects of the original force? And didn't you say pushing a ball in space would make you move? Why, however could that be, if forces produced no effects because reactions cancelled them all out? Of course the net force is cancelled out, I never said otherwise... read it again, I said "Reaction forces don't cancel out the effects of a force", and by effect I mean the english sense of the word. If forces never produced effects, nothing would ever happen.

Your gyroscope theory makes sense though. Notice how I made no pretense of knowing what I was talking about there.

In the future, honey, if you're going to be condescending, please make sure there's a point of contention first.
<BR><BR>It shone, pale as bone, <BR>As I stood there alone...

Offline Miyamoto Osaki

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #56 on: April 10, 2005, 04:47:57 PM »
wow, I didn’t expect a free physics lesson.
all i hope is that Nintendo is acting and not thinking.
gimme $5 and a can of mount dew, ill get the job done, give chuck norris a gud reason and he does it for free... including a round house kick!

Offline Guitar Smasher

  • Score: 14
    • View Profile
RE:FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #57 on: April 10, 2005, 05:39:08 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: zakkiel


Thank you!  I knew my grade 12 physics was correct.  I'm taking it for the second time now (for the hell of it).  You're in quantum mechanics?  That's crazy stuff, entanglement in particular.

Offline zakkiel

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #58 on: April 11, 2005, 10:43:37 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"Paladin, dear, the reaction force actually does cancel out the net force. This is actually codified in what we call Newton's third law, which states clearly and explicitly that every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

I'm sorry, zakkiel, dear, isn't friction one of the effects of the original force? And didn't you say pushing a ball in space would make you move? Why, however could that be, if forces produced no effects because reactions cancelled them all out? Of course the net force is cancelled out, I never said otherwise... read it again, I said "Reaction forces don't cancel out the effects of a force", and by effect I mean the english sense of the word. If forces never produced effects, nothing would ever happen.

Your gyroscope theory makes sense though. Notice how I made no pretense of knowing what I was talking about there.

In the future, honey, if you're going to be condescending, please make sure there's a point of contention first.



Quote

Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"I think what he's trying to say is that the only way something could change movement (in this case, going from none to any) is when an external force is applied to the controller. Any internal forces result in the equal/opposite reaction force, equalling a net force of zero."

Yes, which is why if you put a controller on the ground and let it rumble, it doesn't move. Also, human beings are stationary at all times until they're pushed. And if you're trapped inside a cardboard box, there's no way to tip it over from the inside.
Judging from what you said, you actually didn't mean "effect" in the common English sense of the word, because no one has been arguing that there are no effects due to internal forces in the common English sense of the word. You meant it specifically as a physical translation, which is what the whole argument was about, and now you're equivocating. No good.

Friction is the effect of the force of gravity on the box as a system and the electromagnetic forces between the electrons of the box and the floor. And pushing the ball makes you move because it applies a force to an object external to you (the ball) which applies a force to you in turn. Internal forces can cause systems to dilate and contract, changing their position relative to external forces and thereby causing the system to move: when you push the ball, the internal electromagnetic forces of your muscles cause you to expand as a system, bringing your hand farther into the electromagnetic field of the ball, which changes the external forces. Similarly, the controller could have a telescoping rod that it sticks out to push off of things. Not exactly relevant to the topic.
Defenestration - the only humane method of execution.

Offline KnowsNothing

  • Babycakes
  • Score: 11
    • View Profile
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #59 on: April 11, 2005, 10:49:54 AM »
Nothing is as it seems in The Matrix.
kka wakka wakka wakka wakka wakka wakka wa

Offline PaLaDiN

  • I'm your new travel agent!
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #60 on: April 11, 2005, 01:45:03 PM »
zakkiel, thanks for telling me what I meant. I was confused for a while there.

I wonder why I quoted Guitar Smasher instead of directly quoting you, his source.

Guitar Smasher:
"the only way something could change movement (in this case, going from none to any) is when an external force is applied to the controller."

So tell me, dear, can or can not movement be one of the effects of a force, whether internal or external? No, don't get up... no need to answer, I'll spare you the effort by quoting you. I insist.

You:
"When he first throws the ball, the box starts moving"
"Otherwise, the box will just move back and forth over a distance qual to no more than twice its length measured in the direction the ball is thrown."
"Internal forces can cause systems to dilate and contract, changing their position relative to external forces and thereby causing the system to move"

Uh oh... looks like you disagreed with Guitar Smasher and hence agreed with my argument not once but thrice. That ranks up there in the master list of idiotic faux pas... agreeing with what you're arguing against.

Let me fix the problem you should have helped me fix:

"the only way something could change total momentum (in this case, going from none to any) is when an external force is applied to the controller."

You could have shared in my sarcasm instead of launching a misguided tirade. We could have been smug together and likewise chuckled at another's minor follies. But I guess I was just equivocating, because if I wasn't that means your whole condescending argument-cum-lecture against me was wasted, and we can't have that.

I guess this wouldn't be a good time to say I studied basic Fourier Transforms three semesters ago. zakkiel, honey, I'm so sorry... I hope I didn't hurt you.  
<BR><BR>It shone, pale as bone, <BR>As I stood there alone...

Offline NinGurl69 *huggles

  • HI I'M CRAZY
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
    • Six Sided Video
RE:FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #61 on: April 11, 2005, 03:10:18 PM »
I didn't really want to read in detail what's been going on but after seeing this tug-o-war about internal/external forces makes me want to add that,

don't changes in work/energy with considerations with the moment of inertia and/or inertia in general of whatever body you're talking about better explain things?

I mean, how "definitely" external must these forces be?  Electricity goes thru controller cord, electricity powers an internal motor with some sort of imbalance which rotates, this internal rotation shifts the center of mass, then the controller as a whole moves a bit to follow(?, is it that simple?) its center of mass accordingly -- yay Rumble Pack!  You [the controller] were hanging statically but then the game decided to shake you up so you twitched a little bit thus went from zero to some velocity which means you went from zero to some momentum!  Yay for indirect thingies!

I don't know where I'm going with this!  Civil engineering senior, AWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY@@!!!~!1  
:: Six Sided Video .com ~ Pietriots.com ::
PRO IS SERIOUS. GET SERIOUS.

Offline zakkiel

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #62 on: April 11, 2005, 03:10:34 PM »
" zakkiel, thanks for telling me what I meant. I was confused for a while there." Possibly, but as I reflect on it I think you're simply confused about what every other person here means.

"Uh oh... looks like you disagreed with Guitar Smasher and hence agreed with my argument not once but thrice. That ranks up there in the master list of idiotic faux pas... agreeing with what you're arguing against.

Let me fix the problem you should have helped me fix:

"the only way something could change total momentum (in this case, going from none to any) is when an external force is applied to the controller."

You could have shared in my sarcasm instead of launching a misguided tirade. We could have been smug together and likewise chuckled at another's minor follies. But I guess I was just equivocating, because if I wasn't that means your whole condescending argument-cum-lecture against me was wasted, and we can't have that."

No, no... as I said, I thought on it and realized that you simply weren't paying attention. See, we were all having this argument about force-feedback, and you were off having an argument about the capacity of an internal force to have any effect on anything. Since I usually assume that a post appearing in the midst of the argument attacking someone actually has some relevance to the argument, I misconstrued your position. I apologize. In the future, I will make no such assumptions about your posts. And I freely admit that the element of my tirade directed against you was wasted, since in fact you were talking to yourself.

I am however pleased to see you have made some effort to find out a little about elementary mechanics. Unfortunately, not nearly enough. Guitar smasher is correct. You simply fail to understand system boundaries. The controller is moved by the vibrator only insofar as the vibrator is a different system. If you count the controller as including the vibrating element inside, then the controller does not move, only the case does, which is a part of the controller system. If you don't count the vibrator as part of the controller, then the force between the vibrator and the controller is an external force. The condition Guitar-smasher outlined always holds.

I think you have just committed an idiot faux-pas of an even greater magnetude than the one you describe. Wouldn't you agree?

"I guess this wouldn't be a good time to say I studied basic Fourier Transforms three semesters ago. zakkiel, honey, I'm so sorry... I hope I didn't hurt you. "

"With whate'er gall thou sett'st thyself to write, / Thy inoffensive satires never bite." And I have a thick skin anyway, so never fear.

"Your gyroscope theory makes sense though. Notice how I made no pretense of knowing what I was talking about there." What beautiful incongruity. He knows Fourier transforms but nothing about gyroscopes (your use of the word "theory" kind of gave that one away). But since you've advanced so far, I'm curious: what sorts of functions that may be Fourier transformed?  
Defenestration - the only humane method of execution.

Offline NinGurl69 *huggles

  • HI I'M CRAZY
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
    • Six Sided Video
RE:FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #63 on: April 11, 2005, 03:32:11 PM »
So does the vibrator really apply a force to the controller shell?  Maybe that's where we need some clarity...

I'm assuming the vibrator/motor is structurally a part of the whole system, with the motor causing movement of the whole body by changing the position of the center of mass, not necessarily pushing or pulling anything.  What I thought was that the electrical force which drives the motor was the only force applicable and there wasn't much more we should be concerned with.
:: Six Sided Video .com ~ Pietriots.com ::
PRO IS SERIOUS. GET SERIOUS.

Offline zakkiel

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #64 on: April 11, 2005, 03:49:47 PM »
Systems don't exist in reality - they're simply tools used to simplify complex interactions. You can define them however you want, provided you're consistent inyour definition. Inside any controller with rumble is a moving part, which could be a lop-sided motor. Now, you can count this as part of the controller if you want. If you do, then no, the center of mass doesn't change location at all, and therefore the system doesn't move. The force you feel on your hands comes from the movement of one component of the system, the shell of the controller. But as a whole system, the controller doesn't move, you just don't realize this because you can't see the movement of rumble part that exactly cancels out the movement of the case.  
Defenestration - the only humane method of execution.

Offline NinGurl69 *huggles

  • HI I'M CRAZY
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
    • Six Sided Video
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #65 on: April 11, 2005, 05:10:31 PM »
Oh that's right, system system system system.  Maintains equilibrium in the absence of external thingies.

Enough about vibrators.

The fact that my controller will rumble itself off the table during a MGS: Twin Snakes cutscene amuses me to no end.
:: Six Sided Video .com ~ Pietriots.com ::
PRO IS SERIOUS. GET SERIOUS.

Offline PaLaDiN

  • I'm your new travel agent!
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #66 on: April 11, 2005, 05:40:10 PM »
zakkiel, please show me where his post or mine for that matter mention anything about system boundaries? As for "talking to myself", I saw an error in his post and moved swiftly to correct it. Sorry for trying to help.

"then the controller does not move, only the case does"

I think you're being obtuse on purpose here. I doubt anybody in this thread but you failed to understand that by controller I meant its case... that being, of course, the whole topic under discussion. Unless of course my implicit assumption was wrong and GS's whole point was to argue that "Force feedback gyros may or may not be possible but the controller itself doesn't move, just the case," which would mean all three of us are just being anal about different points and this whole thing has devolved into a miscommunication. Take your pick.

What's the point of your whole system boundaries argument anyway? Not only is it painfully obvious, but it doesn't negate the possibility of the case moving in any way. It seems you just harped on that as a red herring to distract me with.

"I am however pleased to see you have made some effort to find out a little about elementary mechanics. Unfortunately, not nearly enough. Guitar smasher is correct. You simply fail to understand system boundaries. The controller is moved by the vibrator only insofar as the vibrator is a different system. If you count the controller as including the vibrating element inside, then the controller does not move, only the case does, which is a part of the controller system. If you don't count the vibrator as part of the controller, then the force between the vibrator and the controller is an external force. The condition Guitar-smasher outlined always holds."

I considered that for a second, but if that was really his argument, if the whole thing was rooted entirely in physical terms, then it had absolutely no point... so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed that by "external" he meant outside the controller, as in, "the only thing that can make the case move (force feedback) is something outside the controller (not inside... i.e. not the gyroscopes)." I can see now that may have been a mistake and he may in fact have meant absolutely nothing, which means that none of us had a single point to make aside from yours that gyroscopes had no restoring force.

Oh well.

"What beautiful incongruity. He knows Fourier transforms but nothing about gyroscopes (your use of the word "theory" kind of gave that one away). But since you've advanced so far, I'm curious: what sorts of functions that may be Fourier transformed?"

Weird but true... I've never actually studied anything about gyroscopes till now, but I've taken Fourier and Laplace transforms, which is why I said "I'm sure I could figure it out if I thought about it."

I think it's cute that you doubt my claims... I never doubted yours. To answer your question, if I remember correctly, pretty much any function (continuous or discrete) can be FT'd provided it either has finite energy or satisfies the Dirichlet conditions. It's commonly used for analyzing signals in the frequency instead of time domain. Did you have to study signals to get into quantum mechanics? Where are you studying now, by the way?

Even if this whole mess had absolutely no point, I enjoyed our bantering.
<BR><BR>It shone, pale as bone, <BR>As I stood there alone...

Offline slingshot

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #67 on: April 12, 2005, 04:52:19 AM »
We are not talking about electromagnetic forces, nor force fields here- which I believe are possible- but not for a very very
long time from now.  THe problem with physics and science, is that it is blind- science believes that we know all that there
is to know about itself- and everything else is impossible- until a new discovery is made- then it is possible.

The world, round, Poppycock!  -Oh, so it is....
The sun is the center of the universe?~ how obsurd- whats this, theres proof?
Flying?  Proposterous!  --would you look at that- he's flying!
Force fields- Nevery, impossible.....    ?
Faster than light?  No way-------    ?

If we can warp space time- and create a gravitational safe haven- we can traverse black holes, go faster than light, and
create force fields.  It will happen- maybe not for thousands of years- 10,000 years?  but it will happen.  It just takes
creativity and ingenuity.

PS- gyroscopes don't create motion in a direction, they do resist it though- so a stearing game would seem logical that
when you try to turn the wheel in the oposite direction, you would feel resistance.  And what if the gyro had a heavy
side that COULD cause the controller to be "thrown" off balance to create motion in a direction.  You could always turn
it off if you didn't like it- just like rumble.

-----I am not a physics major.  I never took physics, but I am no village idiot either.

Offline zakkiel

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #68 on: April 12, 2005, 09:02:02 AM »
PaLaDiN, if by controller you mean just the controller case, then the force between the rumbler and the case is external, as I said before. It's a force between the controller (the case) and something else (the rumbler). So, like I said, it's not a counterexample to his statement. Neither are any of the others. Without an external force, you don't get movement.

Guitar-smasher made a statement which is physically accurate. You misinterpreted his statement to mean that internal forces never have external effects, or that internal forces can never cause external forces, and I, assuming you had correctly interpreted his statement, thereby misinterpreted yours to mean that systems could move without external forces.

His point was the same as mine, or rather a clarification of the physical principle behind my point: you can't use a gyroscope to create a restoring force the way slingshot originally suggested, and there are no "force-feedback" gyroscopes. You have to have some interaction with an outside body to get acceleration.

The condition on Fourier transforms of functions is simply that the function have no more than a countably infinite number of discontinuities. Everything else is fair game.

We don't really do signals theory for quantum mechanics except insofar as qm IS signals theory. For example, a Gaussian pulse is the ideal efficient signal (if you don't have packet loss) for the same reason that makes it the minimum uncertainty state of a particle: the Gaussian transform coefficient C(k) is very narrow. In signals, this means that you can use narrow bands to transmit sharp pulses; in qm, this means that you can get a well-defined position x with relatively low momentum k.

Fourier transforms also tell you about moving systems. Different wave frequencies of particles travel at different velocities, so you need to express the particle's wave function as the sum of sines and cosines of differing frequencies in order to figure out what its wave function will look like down the road as it gets all smeared out.

What on earth is your major that you went through Fourier without ever hitting mechanics? I didn't think pure math people bothered, and electrical engineering requires mechanics same as everything else.

Slingshot, no scientist currently believes there's nothing more to discover. A force-field would violate the symmetry of orientation (otherwise expressed as Newton's third law and conservation of momentum) which is probably the physical principle we are MOST confident of. Nonetheless, it could happen. We just have absolutely no reason to think it will.

Warping space in the way you describe has been considered, but as near as we can tell it would take more energy than currently exists in the universe. We might discover a cheap solution. But again, there's no reason to think we will except that we really WANT to be able to go faster than light. Being cool is not a good reason to believe it.

A gyroscope would let you feel when you turned the wheel by resisting you, true; but it wouldn't give you any sense of how far you'd turned the wheel or when the wheel was at 0, the way a steering wheel does in a car. So it wouldn't really simulate the feeling of a steering wheel or give you that tactile knowledge of when the wheel is around 0 and you're moving straight ahead, which is the most useful thing about a steering wheel, joystick, etc.

A "heavy side" of the gyroscope would simply turn it into a rumble feature - it would pull in one direction and then the other, very quickly.
Defenestration - the only humane method of execution.

Offline PaLaDiN

  • I'm your new travel agent!
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #69 on: April 12, 2005, 11:24:25 AM »
"You misinterpreted his statement to mean that internal forces never have external effects, or that internal forces can never cause external forces"

No, actually, you misinterpreted my misinterpretation. I assumed that by "external" he meant "spatially outside the case". But if you're right and that's what both you and he meant by "external"... then what's the point of what either of you said? Force feedback has nothing to do with the whole controller, it just has to do with the case. You haven't disproved anything. The case can move and give force feedback even if the entire controller doesn't. You will always have your hands as an outside body for the controller to interact with.

Aha! I think I've pinpointed the confusion now: I count rumble as a form of force feedback because I remember its being touted as such in its early days and I guess because I adopted the general/CS idea of feedback. Given that definition, you agree with me:

"A "heavy side" of the gyroscope would simply turn it into a rumble feature - it would pull in one direction and then the other, very quickly."

So we're both right and this was all a big misunderstanding... I have no idea what GS meant anymore though.

"The condition on Fourier transforms of functions is simply that the function have no more than a countably infinite number of discontinuities. Everything else is fair game."

No, actually... that's just one of the Dirichlet conditions. The other three are that each discontinuity has to be finite, that the function has to be absolutely integrable, and that the function has a finite number of minima and maxima within any finite interval. But that stuff is rarely ever violated in practice, so you're practically right.

"What on earth is your major that you went through Fourier without ever hitting mechanics?"

Of course I went through mechanics... what makes you think I didn't? I'm in electrical engineering and CS, we just never went through gyroscopes so I'm not even sure what it consists of mechanically. Maybe I studied it under another name, but I'm pretty sure that nowhere in any of my mechanics classes was the word "gyroscope" ever mentioned.  
<BR><BR>It shone, pale as bone, <BR>As I stood there alone...

Offline Guitar Smasher

  • Score: 14
    • View Profile
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #70 on: April 12, 2005, 12:34:40 PM »
"So we're both right and this was all a big misunderstanding... I have no idea what GS meant anymore though."

I (think) I was explaining why you couldn't use gyroscopes to actually 'move' the controller.  Like if you pull it left, the gyros create a counter force pulling right.  I never even had rumble in mind.  It seems to me we haven't been thinking of the same idea for several posts.  I think I'm pretty much done with this.
 

Offline slingshot

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #71 on: April 13, 2005, 05:14:59 AM »
Yeah- I guess your right about that heavy sided gyro- owell.

Going faster than light would be useful if you want to get somewhere really fast, say, to the other side of the galaxy.  
I read somewhere that we have discovered actual matter that moves at 99.9999...% the speed of light.  I know- it
doesn't violate any rules- but it does make us wonder about perhaps why we cannot see anything moving faster than light-
perhaps it is possible, but something happens to the matter at that point which makes it invisible.  I don't have any
answers, but anything seems possible in this universe- perhaps the  matter us unable to exist in our 3rd dimention if it
passes the light speed barrier, and it shifts into a 4th dimention until it slows down.  Who knows really.

the only reason I am intrigued by the idea of force fields, is because I am amazed by invisible forces- particularely
magnetics.  Gravity I can envision, by the curvature of space theory, and the friction-free environment allows 'things' to
stay in orbit (like a penny rolling around those spiral funnels until they drop down the center of the hole - due to friction)
But I am amazed by magnetics- electro mags... Just holding 2 magnets that want to repel eachother, and trying to
push them together- feeling that invisible force between them is amazing.  If magnetics can repel just about anything
that is magnetic- or attract it- what other forces are out there that can do the same?

I realize the amount of energy required is insane compared with what we can do- but someday we will be using
matter-antimatter reacters instead of nuclear- and that will change much in the way we view feasible energy requirements.

I also think that there is something on the otherside of black holes- I've no idea what- maybe it is like a drain in a bathtub-
and a meatgrinder at the same times-  Things get sucked in and pulverized, and pop out somewhere else to start a new
galaxy in some unseen place- other dimention, other universe, other galaxy?  who knows.  If you could protect yourself
from the crush of the gravitational forece by bending it around yourself, you ( no easy task ) I wonder what you would see?

Offline MrMojoRising

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #72 on: April 13, 2005, 07:51:08 AM »
I wish I was high while I read all of this.

Offline zakkiel

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #73 on: April 13, 2005, 01:10:07 PM »
"The case can move and give force feedback even if the entire controller doesn't. You will always have your hands as an outside body for the controller to interact with." Sure, you could have the case translate if you mounted little jets in it or something. Otherwise, rumble is it for what you can do with a controller.

"The other three are that each discontinuity has to be finite,"

Not quite. It has to have a finite number of discontinuities in a defined interval, which is what it means to have no more than a countably infinite number of discontinuities.

"that the function has a finite number of minima and maxima within any finite interval." I'd be fascinated to see how you can get an infinite number of extrema without violating the first condition.

"that the function has to be absolutely integrable"
Again, how do you violate this without violating the first principle?

And the fourth principle is simply the definition of a function. So as I see it, you still only have the one.

"Of course I went through mechanics... what makes you think I didn't? I'm in electrical engineering and CS, we just never went through gyroscopes so I'm not even sure what it consists of mechanically. Maybe I studied it under another name, but I'm pretty sure that nowhere in any of my mechanics classes was the word "gyroscope" ever mentioned. " A gyroscope is any body rotating rapidly about its center of mass. Which is why I'm so stunned that you never ran into it.

"Going faster than light would be useful if you want to get somewhere really fast, say, to the other side of the galaxy.
I read somewhere that we have discovered actual matter that moves at 99.9999...% the speed of light. I know- it
doesn't violate any rules- but it does make us wonder about perhaps why we cannot see anything moving faster than light-
perhaps it is possible, but something happens to the matter at that point which makes it invisible. " Becauser it would require infinite energy. The speed of light isn't a hard barrier that you can get arbitrarily close to; as you approach it, your mass increases without bounds, so the energy it takes to push you closer to that limit keeps going up.

"But I am amazed by magnetics- electro mags... Just holding 2 magnets that want to repel eachother, and trying to
push them together- feeling that invisible force between them is amazing. If magnetics can repel just about anything
that is magnetic- or attract it- what other forces are out there that can do the same?" Depends on how you count, but two for most purposes. The weak nuclear force holds nuclei together, the strong nuclear force binds quarks together. They have been unified with electromagnetism, however, so technbically that force you feel between the two magnets is the only force in existance besides gravity, and gravity may get unified as well.

Mr.Mojo, why DID you read all of this?
Defenestration - the only humane method of execution.

Offline PaLaDiN

  • I'm your new travel agent!
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:FORCE FEEDBACK GYROS FOR THE REV---
« Reply #74 on: April 13, 2005, 11:14:38 PM »
Wow.

zakkiel, at this point it's your word against my textbook's (that I have in front of me right now). I know which I trust. Seriously, look up Dirichlet conditions... they're an established part of any serious study of transforms, I'm completely shocked you haven't heard of them. Ask your teacher about them, or look here or here (look under Fourier Integrals) or here (the conditions are similar for series as well).

"Not quite. It has to have a finite number of discontinuities in a defined interval, which is what it means to have no more than a countably infinite number of discontinuities."

I said the other three. Countably infinite number is the first one. The ones I mentioned are three more that guarantee the convergence of the Fourier series to the actual function.

As for how the second two would be violated without the first, that's some advanced calculus stuff. My teacher gave examples but I don't remember them. This was, after all, three semesters ago. But let me try and think up a couple that may or may not work. At this point, I'm just making up stuff, but it feels intuitive.

1. Infinite discontinuities is not the same as infinite number of discontinuities. To see this, think of a function that has a single infinite jump, ie a vertical asymptote. That's an infinite discontinuity, but it's just one, so the number is finite.
2. Infinite minima and maxima... think of a sinuisoid that's infinitely compressed. There are no discontinuities.
3. Think of the 1/x function, which if I remember right isnt's absolutely integrable because it doesn't die down fast enough. No discontinuities.

"A gyroscope is any body rotating rapidly about its center of mass. Which is why I'm so stunned that you never ran into it."

Oh. Yeah, I have some recollection of rotating bodies, but I never knew they were gyroscopes and I don't remember the calculations and observations involved.
<BR><BR>It shone, pale as bone, <BR>As I stood there alone...