Un ascensor amb un motor d’1 dòlar: per què gairebé no puja
Current Concept intenta aixecar una persona amb un motor d’un dòlar i una reductora de 350.000:1. El resultat explica parell, fricció i seguretat.
Pot un motor de corrent continu que costa un dòlar elevar una persona fins al sostre? Current Concept converteix aquesta pregunta en un experiment d’onze minuts ple d’engranatges impresos en 3D, motors cremats i una plataforma de fusta. El resultat és tècnicament un moviment ascendent, però tan lent i fràgil que no resol el problema original.
Els errors són la lliçó: la transmissió ideal promet multiplicar el parell, però fricció, massa, pèrdues i límits tèrmics dominen el sistema real. No és un tutorial ni una construcció segura per transportar persones.
1. Un motor massa ràpid i amb molt poc parell
La motivació còmica és arribar als llums del garatge sense improvisar equilibris. A 00:00, el creador troba un petit motor i decideix aprofitar-ne el gir per aixecar els seus 223 lliures, uns 101 quilos. La primera prova deixa clar el conflicte: l’eix gira de pressa, però el parell disponible és minúscul.
Intenta mesurar les revolucions comptant-les, filmant a càmera lenta i fins i tot acostant un altre motor, sense èxit. Aquesta dificultat condueix a la idea central de 01:40: engranar una roda petita amb una de gran per reduir velocitat i augmentar parell.
Una transmissió no crea energia gratuïta. En un model ideal, si la velocitat angular es redueix quatre vegades, el parell pot multiplicar-se aproximadament per quatre. La potència continua limitada pel motor i, en un mecanisme real, una part es perd en fricció, deformació, calor i soroll.
2. De l’engranatge impossible al tren compost
A 02:00, el primer parell d’engranatges demostra el principi, però encara gira massa ràpid per mesurar-lo bé. El creador consulta finalment la fitxa tècnica del motor i calcula la reducció necessària per aixecar el seu pes.
Si intentés obtenir-la amb una única parella, la roda gran necessitaria uns 8,4 milions de dents i un diàmetre d’uns 350.000 peus, diu a 02:39. La xifra és deliberadament absurda, però il·lustra per què les caixes reductores distribueixen una gran relació entre diverses etapes.
La solució és un tren compost: una roda gran i un pinyó petit comparteixen eix, i cada etapa multiplica la reducció de l’anterior. A 04:20, el vídeo es fixa com a objectiu aproximadament 350.000:1. Sobre el paper, moltes relacions moderades poden produir aquest número sense construir una roda de mida lunar.
3. El primer enemic real és la fricció
La primera caixa de proves té una relació de 64:1. Gira sense càrrega, però el motor s’atura tan bon punt s’hi aplica resistència a 05:00. Un intent improvisat de mesurar la força amb una balança acaba amb un altre motor cremat.
El creador substitueix suports simples per coixinets, eixos d’acer i engranatges metàl·lics. El conjunt continua oferint massa resistència. A 05:53, reconeix el factor que els càlculs ideals havien deixat fora: la fricció és real. Cada contacte entre dents, cada coixinet mal alineat i cada eix que ha de girar consumeixen part del parell.
Els engranatges metàl·lics, a més, fan girar eixos més pesants. Per reduir la càrrega interna, torna a peces impreses en 3D i construeix nou etapes compostes. La relació teòrica arriba a 262.144:1 a 06:36. La caixa gira, però pressionar-ne una roda torna a sobrecarregar i cremar el motor.
4. Plataforma, cables, politges i tambor
Amb quatre dels sis motors ja malmesos, Current Concept decideix integrar la transmissió en una estructura. Des de 07:18, construeix un bastidor de llistons, duplica el contraplacat per fer la base més rígida i prepara quatre punts de suspensió.
Uns cables d’acer passen per politges i s’enrotllen en un tambor imprès. L’engranatge del tambor eleva la reducció total fins a l’objectiu de 350.000:1. Girat a mà, el sistema pot pujar i baixar la plataforma. És una prova del recorregut del cable, no de la capacitat sota càrrega.
Quan el creador hi posa pes a 08:43, els engranatges es desalineen i necessita afegir suports laterals. Aquest detall mostra un altre límit dels càlculs de parell: l’estructura també ha de mantenir geometria, estabilitat i rigidesa quan rep forces.
5. Sí, es mou; no, no és un ascensor útil
El primer intent motoritzat amb la plataforma carregada gairebé no és visible i crema el cinquè motor a 09:20. El creador canvia a un model físicament més gran que també pot comprar-se en un paquet a un dòlar la unitat. El preu es manté, però ja no és exactament el mateix motor amb què havia començat.
Accelerant les imatges un 2.000%, el tambor gira i la base s’aixeca. Segons el càlcul de 10:00, una volta completa tarda 87 minuts i proporciona més de dotze polzades, uns trenta centímetres, de recorregut. Això equival a una velocitat mitjana de només uns sis mil·límetres per minut.
En pujar-hi, una part es trenca i només s’eleva un costat. Després de lubricar-la, la transmissió encara gira sota el seu pes, però tan lentament que el mateix autor estima que podria necessitar una setmana per recórrer una polzada. El muntatge acaba aixecant només la plataforma buida abans que també es trenqui l’últim motor.
6. Què ensenya l’experiment sobre una reductora extrema
La gran reducció canvia velocitat per parell, però també acumula pèrdues. Nou etapes que fossin eficients individualment poden tenir una eficiència conjunta molt menor. Una lleugera desalineació en cada engranatge, multiplicada pel tren complet, es converteix en una càrrega considerable per a un motor diminut.
També importa el temps. Si el motor ha de treballar a prop del bloqueig, el corrent augmenta i l’escalfament pot destruir-ne els bobinats o les escombretes. Els cinc motors cremats no són una casualitat: indiquen que el punt de funcionament queda fora del que el component tolera.
Finalment, un sistema que produeix prou força estàtica pot continuar sent inútil si la velocitat és gairebé zero. L’èxit d’enginyeria no és demostrar només que alguna cosa es mou, sinó complir simultàniament càrrega, recorregut, velocitat, durabilitat i seguretat.
7. Per què aquesta plataforma no s’ha d’utilitzar amb persones
El vídeo adopta un to de comèdia i no presenta la màquina com un ascensor homologat. Li falten guies rígides, portes, tancaments, frens independents, detecció de sobrecàrrega, finals de carrera, redundància de suspensió i protecció contra caigudes. Una plataforma que queda inclinada quan falla un costat ja demostra el perill.
El codi ASME A17.1/CSA B44 cobreix disseny, construcció, instal·lació, inspecció, prova, manteniment i reparació d’ascensors. La distància entre aquest marc i el prototip és part de la lliçó.
Fins i tot les normes d’OSHA per elevar personal exigeixen proves sense ocupants, inspecció, dispositius de seguretat i control competent abans d’una elevació. No s’ha de pujar cap persona amb motors, cordes, politges o fustes sense classificar només perquè el conjunt aguanta una prova breu.
Conclusions
Current Concept aconsegueix demostrar que un motor d’un dòlar pot moure una plataforma mitjançant una reducció extrema. Ho fa després de redissenyar la caixa, passar de metall a plàstic, afegir suports, cremar cinc motors i substituir el component inicial per un model més gran del mateix preu unitari.
El resultat no eleva una persona de manera pràctica ni segura. La plataforma buida puja molt lentament, amb càrrega es desquadra i el sistema acaba trencat. Precisament per això el vídeo és una bona explicació intuïtiva: el parell teòric no basta quan la fricció, la calor, la rigidesa i la velocitat entren al càlcul.
La victòria no és haver construït un ascensor funcional, sinó haver convertit un fracàs visible en una lliçó sobre transmissions. I la conclusió de seguretat és inequívoca: una màquina capaç de moure pes no és, per aquest sol fet, apta per transportar persones.
Contrast i context
Fonts consultades
-
01
Current Concept I Built an Elevator With a $1 Motor
- 02
-
03
Occupational Safety and Health Administration 1926.1431 Hoisting personnel
Font de treball
Transcripció amb marques de temps
Consulta la transcripció
-
0:00
, obre el vídeo en una pestanya nova
I have a severe genetic condition that flares up every time I try to plug in my garage lights, which inevitably results in a redneck backwater version of the nutcracker that would make Shakespeare cry. So as to not disappoint big S anymore, I started looking around my garage for something I could use that would help me reach the ceiling when I found the perfect item. At first the motor didn't really seem to help, but then I remembered motors are really good at spinning, and if I could And somehow harness the spinach, I could use it to levitate towards the ceiling and no longer make a fool out of myself. So the plan for today is to make an elevator, no, the other kind of elevator. No, what is that? That's not. Yes, that's what I, yeah, that's. There are a couple of problems with this idea.
-
0:43
, obre el vídeo en una pestanya nova
For one, I'll always be a fool, especially for the city. And fourthly, this motor is very, very weak. Extensive scientific testing shows that the torque value on the motor is less than the motor weight itself and equivalent to roughly four succulent beans. So how on earth is this tiny, weak $1 motor going to lift all 223 pounds of my curvacious bean? I embroiled my cranium in a severe weather of incession and came up with a few ideas, but first I need to figure out how fast this thing spends. I wasn't sure about the best way to measure the speed, so I brought my pinned and paper out to count the rotations manually, which I think was pretty darn accurate. But just to be sure, I put a Sharpie on another motor to count the first motor's rotation, but that idea failed before it even started.
-
1:26
, obre el vídeo en una pestanya nova
So I decided to cheat and use slowmo, but analyzing the footage frame by frame proved to be too fast-mo for me to accurately find the speed. For those keeping score at home, I now have two problems. The motor is too fast for me to measure, and it isn't even close to having enough torque. So there I sat trying to solve both issues at the same time with my wheel spinning, my gear's turning, but no light bulb. That's it. Gears. Gears solve all of my problems. If I drive a small gear against a big gear, mechanical black magic occurs and the big gear has a higher torque but slower speed. The difference in amount of teeth between the two gears is what some make all the
-
2:07
, obre el vídeo en una pestanya nova
gear ratio. I printed these gears with a car to unicycle ratio so the big gear should have four times the amount of torque with four times less speed than the small gear. So I set up a little test to see if I could get the big gear to turn using the cheapo motor. I still needed to find the motor speed, and I hoped by clearly marking the big gear, it would be slow enough to capture the speed, but a last, and the camera I went up to enough. What? I did get to see some e-roscopic effect in action though, so that was pretty cool. Like most of us, in the end, I turned to Divine Intervention, sometimes referred to as a data sheet, to figure out the speed of the motor under load and torque.
-
2:50
, obre el vídeo en una pestanya nova
And after doing some edge of the napkin calculations to find out the gear ratio for the torque required to lift me. It turns out if I use this small gear on the motor, I will need a big gear with 8.4 million teeth and a diameter of 350,000 feet, which is about 3% of the moon's diameter. Now I thought this would be a pretty standard gear, but I had a really hard time finding it until I stumbled upon this website called JLCMC, which had exactly what I was looking for. Okay, maybe they don't have a gear with millions of teeth, but they do have millions of dollars which they use the entirety of to sponsor this video. JLCMC is like if Willy Wonka made a mechatronics website instead of a chocolate factory and all the candy turned into sour patch gears, Lolly Polis, gummy bearings, you name it. They have an absurd amount of items on here that I have no clue what they are but I want them. Like what is that? I don't know, but I saw it and now I need it. These parts are the cheapest you'll find while maintaining good quality. I mean, a metal spur gear for only $2. Yeah, I'll be taking six of those. JLCMC allows you to select from a wide range of parts and even has a built in 3D model view you receive can make sure the part is the dimensions you want, or just download the
-
3:50
, obre el vídeo en una pestanya nova
CAD file and bring it into your modeling software. For this video, I grabbed a bunch of bearings, shafts, spurrgears, a secret gear, and some pulleys. These puppies were packaged as if they were indeed puppies and were swathed in foam and arrived unscathed. And when you create a JLC account, new members get $60 with a coupon across all of JLC sites. So if you need 3D printing services, printed circuit board fabrication, CNC machine and services, or mechatronics parts, head over to JLC for some of those delicious coupons. Thank you again to JLCMC for sponsoring this video, and I'm back to what I was doing. Oh yeah, gears. Now that I've got all these spiky disks, I need to do something with them.
-
4:24
, obre el vídeo en una pestanya nova
You've probably seen these ridiculous gearboxes with a Google D1 or 2 million to 1 gear ratios, which is frankly quite absurd. I just need to make a meager 350,000 to 1 gearbox in order to raise my carcass off of the floor. But hold on, the aforementioned gearboxes don't have gears with millions of teeth, so how are they getting such insane ratios? Let's ask our resident gear experts, Stephen Tyler. Thanks Steve, by using the gear train with compound gears where a small gear acts like a tumor to a big gear in turns with it, I can get my desired gear ratio. I assemble the fixture to test this theory and make sure my piece of crap motor could overcome our mutual hatred of friction. With it, turn!
-
5:05
, obre el vídeo en una pestanya nova
The 64-1 gearbox was boxing the gears just fine until I introduced some resistance, which instantly euthanized the motor. I had a feeling that may happen, so I bought a six pack of them and after tossing the used in a way cracked open a cold one with the intention of measuring the final output torque. The idea here was that I could record the amount of pressure the final gear was capable of by pressing down on the flat blade and the scale would record it. The motor had a different idea however and after having its fun also gave up the ghost. That's too down. I thought the Jank test setup may have been the reason for the demise of a third of my motors so I got serious and started dumping bearings on plastic. I cut some 8mm shaft that I couldn't get out of my garage floor crack and had way too hard of a time figuring out how my gears needed to mesh together. But the struggle was worth it because in the end it didn't work at all. It was simply too hard to turn the gears and at first I thought it was my poor
-
6:01
, obre el vídeo en una pestanya nova
modeling skills that didn't mesh well with the solid metal gears but after iterating at least twice I came to a horrifying realization. Friction is real. I felt sick from this discovery as if millions of high school physics teachers suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. Now I did get the gearbox to turn, but the motor itself was going slow and almost all of my torque was being used on the friction of just turning the gears, and I blew up another motor in the process. With both gears being keyed to the shafts of it turned in phase, the whole shaft has to turn, and the weight of that is three times the amount of the plastic compound gears. So unfortunately I had to save the heavy metal gears for a rainy day and print the gears to be as lightweight as possible. I then assembled the new gearbox with 9 compound gears for a total gear ratio of 262,144 to 1. And if the $1 motor can't drive this, I think this project has failed. 3, 2, 1. All good things must come to an abrupt end, and I blew up my fourth motor by putting some pressure
-
7:06
, obre el vídeo en una pestanya nova
on a gear, which some may call for shadowing. But now I'm down to two motors, and the gearbox does technically work, so I'm just going amount it to my elevator and see what happened. Wait, I forgot to make an elevator. Okay, the plan is to make a platform that raises and lowers from cables and I believe this will be the world's first tailored elevator. I then went hunting with my trusty saw and returned with a plentiful harvest of four by two's to screw together. The build started at Alhunky Dory, until I stripped bits, put it together wrong, stripped myself, and then stripped the wood. As always, I made sure to get Home Depot's best pieces of lumber for such an important project and after all that effort I wound up with what an alien might make for a chair-building
-
7:45
, obre el vídeo en una pestanya nova
contest despite never having seen a chair. Next I needed to make a platform, but one sheet of plywood was too bendy so I doubled it and gave it to myself. I didn't have a third clamp for the center part, but my mama told me to be the change you want to see in the world so I was stuck on a table in the garage for six hours. The double-cheeked-deplat form was much stronger and my ideas to use these steel cables to raise the platform like so. And where there's cables, There's Polis, and where there's Polis, there's shafties that need to have some simple un-eventful holes drilled. How...in what? I finished drilling the rest of the holes for the shafts and took a page out of my middle Eastern Brethren's book to cut the shaft to length. He doesn't! I then ran the cables through the platform and printed a cable drum, which most drummers
-
8:32
, obre el vídeo en una pestanya nova
can't play, and with the drum gear, the final gear ratio is the coveted 350,000 to one. And after choking the cable drum with cables just the way it likes, the platform could be raised and lowered by twisting the drum which was actually looking pretty promising, but the similarities between me and a one dollar DC motor start and end with the shaft. Finally, I mounted the gearbox to the elevator and first needed to see if the elevator could even hold my weight. OK. Turns out the gears were a little nervous and just needed some emotional support brackets installed which being the mental health conscious man I am happily obliged. Judgment Day have finally arrived and after so much struggling heartbreak on this project, I really hoped it wouldn't be a complete failure. If I can make this matter, and it's yours to tell me with...
-
9:19
, obre el vídeo en una pestanya nova
Actually, 3, 2... Okay, so they were moving, but barely. And you're never gonna believe this, but I burnt up the fifth motor. It's times like these that cheating was invented for, and after tossing Mumble number 5, grab the neck-size-up motor, which I could find a 10 pack for for $10, so it's still a $1 motor. This bigger motor had better shape-out or ship-up. Even though it looks like I forgot to take my meds, if I speed the footage up by 2,000% the drum did actually turn in the platform lifted up. Boys, we have an elevator on our hands. By my calculations, the drum should rotate once every 87 minutes, giving me over 12 inches of lift.
-
10:21
, obre el vídeo en una pestanya nova
That did matter though, because I immediately broke it when I stepped on the platform, and from then on only one sided lift up. a little WD-40 later, and I gave the elevator a final try to lift me, which, to its credit, still kept turning, and maybe if I stayed on there for a week, I would have traveled in inch. The elevator could still lift the platform, though, and in the end, I knew there was only one proper thing to do. With five of his brothers and arms dying valiantly for this cause, it seemed only right that the lone survivor's destiny lay among the clouds formed by the the collective last breath of his slain comrades. Godspeed, little one. Yeah, the driving gear flew off immediately. And I broke the motor casing trying to put a new one on. Six.