Walking platform loader. Rysev Leonid Leonidovich

Modern designers are working on creating vehicles (including combat ones) with walking platforms. Serious developments are being carried out by two countries: the USA and China. Chinese specialists are working on creating a walking infantry fighting vehicle. Moreover, this car will have to be able to walk on high mountains. The Himalayas may become a testing ground for such a machine.

"Martian cars" have high cross-country ability

“Up close, the tripod seemed even more strange to me; obviously, it was a controlled machine. A machine with a metallic ringing move, with long flexible shiny tentacles (one of them grabbed a young pine tree), which hung down and rattled, hitting the body. The tripod, apparently ", chose the road, and the copper cover at the top turned in different directions, resembling a head. Attached to the frame of the car at the back was a gigantic wickerwork of some white metal, similar to a huge fishing basket; clouds of green smoke came out of the monster's joints."

This is how the English writer Herbert Wells described to us the combat vehicles of the Martians who landed on Earth, and concluded that for some reason the Martians on their planet for some reason did not think of a wheel! If he were alive today, it would be easier for him to answer the question “why didn’t they think of it,” since we know a lot more today than we did more than 100 years ago.

And Wells's Martians had flexible tentacles, while we humans have arms and legs. And our limbs are adapted by nature itself to perform circular movements! That is why man invented a sling for the hand and... a wheel for the feet. It was natural for our ancestors to put a load on a log and roll it, well, then they thought of sawing it into disks and increasing it in size. This is how the ancient wheel was born.

But it soon became clear that although wheeled vehicles can be very fast - as evidenced by the land speed record of 1228 km/h set on a jet car on October 15, 1997 - their maneuverability is very limited.

Well, legs and paws allow you to successfully move everywhere. The cheetah runs fast, and the chameleon also hangs on a vertical wall, or even on the ceiling! It is clear that in reality, no one will probably need such a machine, but... something else is important, namely, that vehicles with walking propulsion have long attracted the attention of scientists and designers around the world. Such equipment, at least in theory, has greater cross-country ability compared to vehicles equipped with wheels or tracks.

The walker is an expensive project

However, despite the expected high performance, walkers have not yet been able to go beyond laboratories and testing grounds. That is, they went out, and the American agency DARPA even showed everyone a video in which a robot mule moves through the forest with four backpacks in its back and steadily follows a person. Having fallen, such a “mule” was able to get back to its feet, whereas an overturned tracked vehicle cannot do this! But... the real capabilities of such technology, especially if we evaluate them according to the “cost-effectiveness” criterion, are much more modest.

That is, the “mule” turned out to be very expensive and not very reliable, and, just as important, backpacks can be carried in other ways. Nevertheless, scientists do not stop working on promising technology with this unusual propulsion device.

Among various other projects, Chinese engineers also took up the topic of walkers. Dai Jingsun and a number of employees at Nanjing University of Technology are studying the capabilities and prospects of walking machines. One of the areas of research is to study the possibility of creating a combat vehicle based on a walking platform.

The published materials discuss both the kinematics of the machine and the algorithms for its movement, although its prototype itself so far exists only in the form of drawings. As a result, both its appearance and all tactical and technical characteristics can seriously change. But today, “it” looks like an eight-legged platform carrying a turret with an automatic cannon. In addition, the vehicle is equipped with supports for greater stability when firing.

With this arrangement, it is clear that the engine will be in the rear of the hull, the transmission will be on the sides, the fighting compartment will be in the middle, and the control compartment, like a tank, will be in the front. It has L-shaped “legs” installed on its sides, arranged in such a way that the machine can lift them, carry them forward and lower them to the surface. Since there are eight legs, four of the eight legs will touch the ground in any case, and this increases its stability.

Well, how it will move will depend on the on-board computer, which will control the movement process. After all, if the operator moves the “legs”, then... he will simply get entangled in them, and the speed of the machine will be simply a snail’s pace!

The combat vehicle depicted in the published drawings has an uninhabited combat module armed with a 30-mm automatic cannon. Moreover, in addition to weapons, it must be equipped with a set of equipment that will allow its operator to observe the environment, track and attack detected targets.

It is assumed that this walker will have a length of about 6 meters and a width of about 2 m. The combat weight is still unknown. If these dimensions are met, this will make the vehicle air transportable, and it can be transported by military transport aircraft and heavy transport helicopters.

Needless to say: this development of Chinese specialists is of great interest from a technical point of view. A walking propulsion unit, unusual for a military vehicle, should theoretically provide the vehicle with high cross-country ability both on various types of surfaces and in different terrain conditions, that is, not only on the plain, but also in the mountains!

And here it is very important that we are talking about mountains. On the highway and even just on flat terrain, a wheeled and tracked vehicle will most likely turn out to be more profitable than a walking one. But in the mountains, a walker may turn out to be much more promising than traditional machines. And China has a very important mountainous territory in the Himalayas, so the interest in this kind of machines specifically for this region is understandable.

Although no one denies that the complexity of such a machine will be high, its reliability is unlikely to compare with the same wheel mechanism. After all, the eight complex running gears on it, along with drives, tilt sensors and gyroscopes, will be much more complex than any eight-wheeled propulsion unit.

In addition, you will need to use a special electronic control system, which will have to independently assess both the position of the car in space and the position of all its support legs, and then control their operation in accordance with the driver’s commands and specified movement algorithms.

True, the published diagrams show that complex drives are available only on the upper parts of the legs-supports of the machine's propulsion. Their lower parts are made extremely simplified, by the way, just like the legs of the DARPA “mule”. This makes it possible to simplify the design of the machine and the control system, but cannot but worsen its cross-country ability. First of all, this will affect the ability to overcome obstacles, the maximum height of which may decrease. It is also necessary to consider at what angle this machine can operate without fear of overturning.

Bipedal walking platforms. Dedicated to Perelman. (version dated April 25, 2010) Part 1. Stability of bipedal walking platforms. Chassis models for walking platforms. Let there be a force F and a point of application C to the walking platform model. The minimum necessary force will be considered to be such that when applied to point C it causes an overturning, and if the point of application changes arbitrarily, overturning will be impossible. The task is to determine the lower estimate of the force or momentum that will lead to the platform overturning. By default, it is assumed that the walking platform should be stable when running, walking and standing in place for all expected types of surface on which one has to move (hereinafter referred to as the underlying surface). Platform models. Let's consider 3 models of walking platforms and the issue of their stability under the influence of overturning force. All three models have a number of common properties: height, weight, foot shape, body height, long leg, number of joints, position of the center of mass. Model Femina. When moving forward, due to the work of the developed hip joint, he places his legs one after the other, in a straight line. The projection of the center of mass moves strictly along the same line. At the same time, forward movement is characterized by excellent smoothness, practically without ups and downs and without lateral vibrations. Model Mas. When moving forward, due to the work of the developed hip joint, he places his legs on both sides of the conditional line onto which the center of mass is projected. In this case, the projection of the center of mass passes along the inner edges of the feet and also represents a straight line. When moving forward, expect slight up-and-down vibrations and minor sideways vibrations. Deformis model. Due to an underdeveloped hip joint, mobility is limited. In this joint, only forward and backward movements are possible, without the possibility of rotation. When moving forward, significant fluctuations occur due to the fact that the center of mass does not move in a straight line, but along a complex three-dimensional curve, the projection of which onto the underlying surface forms a sinusoid. It has two variations, Deformis-1 and Deformis-2, which differ in the structure of the ankle joint. Deformis-1 has both instep (the ability to tilt the foot backwards and forwards) and lateral swing (the ability to tilt the foot left and right). Deformis-2 has only lift. The impact of the shock. Let's consider the effect of a lateral push on the area above the hip joint on a walking model. This requirement can be formulated as follows: the model must be stable while standing on one leg. There are two directions of push: outward and inward, determined by the direction from the foot to the middle of the platform. When pushing outward, in order to tip over, it is enough to move the projection of the platform’s center of mass beyond the limits of the support (foot) area. When pushing inward, a lot depends on how quickly you can put your foot in to create additional support. Femina model, to tip outward, you need to tilt it so that the projection of the center of mass passes half the width of the foot. When pushing inward - at least one and a half foot widths. This is due to the fact that excellent mobility in the joint allows you to place the leg in the optimal way. Mas model, to tip outward, you need to tilt it so that the projection of the center of mass passes the width of the foot. When pushing inward, at least the width of your foot. This is less than that of the Femina model due to the fact that the initial position of the projection of the center of mass was not in the middle of the foot, but on the edge. Thus, the Mas model is almost equally resistant to outward and inward shocks. The Deformis model, to tip outward, must be tilted so that the projection of the center of mass extends from half to one foot width. This is based on the fact that the axis of rotation in the ankle can be located either in the center of the foot or on the edge. When tipping inwards, restrictions on mobility in the hip joint do not allow you to quickly substitute your leg in the event of a push. This leads to the fact that the stability of the entire platform is determined by the length of the projection path of the center of mass within the limits of the support already standing on the surface - the remainder of the width of the foot. Installing the axle on the edge, although beneficial from the point of view of movement efficiency, provokes frequent falls of the platform. Therefore, setting the axis of rotation to the middle of the foot is a smart choice. Push detail. Let the push come to a certain point C on the side surface of the body, with some angles to the vertical and horizontal. In this case, the model already has its own velocity vector V. The model will tip over on its side and rotate around a vertical axis passing through the center of mass. Every movement will be counteracted by friction. When making calculations, we must not forget that each component of force (or impulse) acts on its own lever. In order to ignore the friction force when turning over, you need to select the angles of application of the force as follows. Let us describe a parallelepiped around the platform so that its height, width and thickness coincide with the height, width and thickness of the walking platform. A segment is drawn from the outside of the foot to the edge of the upper rib on the opposite side of the platform. We will produce the push that overturns the platform perpendicular to it. To a first approximation, such an application of the vector will allow us to decompose the overturning and turning forces acting on the platform. Let us consider the behavior of platforms under the influence of a turning force. Regardless of the type of platform, when pushing, the contact of the foot and the surface along which the platform moves (the underlying surface) is maintained. Let us assume that the leg actuators constantly securely fix the position of the foot, preventing the platform from freely rotating at the ankle. If the friction force is not enough to prevent a turn, then given that there is good traction with the underlying surface, you can counter the turn with force in the ankle. It must be remembered that the speed of the platform V and the speed that the platform will acquire under the influence of force are vector quantities. And their modulo sum will be less than the sum of the velocity moduli. Therefore, with a moderate push, sufficiently powerful muscles and sufficient mobility in the hip joint to allow the leg to be planted, the speed of the V platform has a stabilizing(!) effect on the Femina and Mas platforms. Stabilization using a gyroscope. Let us assume that a gyroscope is installed on a walking platform, which can be accelerated and decelerated in order to impart a certain angular momentum to the platform. Such a gyroscope on a walking platform is needed for a number of reasons. 1. If the platform leg has not reached the required position and the actual vertical does not coincide with the one required to ensure a confident step. 2. In case of strong and unexpected gusts of wind. 3. The soft underlying surface may deform under the foot during a step, causing the platform to deflect and become stuck in an unstable position. 4. Other disturbances. Thus, in calculations it is necessary to take into account both the presence of a gyroscope and the energy dissipated by it. But don't rely solely on the gyroscope. The reason for this will be shown in part two. Calculation using an example. Let's look at the example of a bipedal walking platform from BattleTech. Judging by the description, many walking platforms are created on the Deformis-2 chassis. For example, the UrbanMech platform (as depicted in TRO3025). A similar chassis of the MadCat platform (http://s59.radikal.ru/i166/1003/20/57eb1c096c52.jpg) is of the Deformis-1 type. At the same time, in the same TRO3025 there is a Spider model which, judging by the image, has a very mobile hip joint. Let's calculate the UrbanMech platform. Let's rely on the following parameters: - height 7 m - width 3.5 m - foot length 2 m - foot width 1 m - height of the point of application of force - 5 m - mass 30 t - the center of mass is located in the geometric center of the described parallelepiped. - forward speed is ignored. - rotation occurs in the center of the foot. Tipping impulse depending on mass and dimensions. The lateral tipping impulse is calculated through work. OB= sqrt(1^2+7^2)=7.07 m OM=OB/2= 3.53 m h=3.5 m delta h = 3.5*10^-2 m E=mgh E= m*v*v/2 m=3*10^4 kg g=9.8 m/(sec*sec) h= 3.5*10^-2 m E = 30.000*9.8*0.035 kg*m *m/(sec*sec) E = 10290 kg*m*m/(sec*sec) v= 8.28*10^-1 m/sec m*v=24847 kg*m/sec The turning impulse is more difficult to calculate. Let us fix what is known: the angle between the impulse vectors is found from the OBP triangle. alpha = Arcsin(1/7.07); alpha = 8.13 degrees. The initial force is decomposed into two, which are related in proportion to the lengths of the levers. We find the levers like this: OB = 7.07 We take the length of the second lever as half the width - 3.5 / 2 m. F1 / 7.07 = F2 / 1.75. where F1 is the force that turns the platform on its side. F2 is the force turning around the vertical axis. Unlike the turning force, the force turning the platform around its axis must exceed the friction force. The required force component at point C can be found from the following considerations: F2=(F4+F3) F4 - force equal to the friction force during rotation around the center of mass with the opposite sign, F3 - remainder. Thus, F4 is the force that does not do work. F1/7.07=(F4+F3)/1.75. where F1 is the force that turns the platform on its side. F4 is found from the pressing force equal in magnitude to the weight of the platform and the friction coefficient. Since we do not have data on the sliding friction coefficient, we can assume that it is no better than metal sliding on metal - 0.2, but no worse than rubber on gravel - 0.5. A valid calculation must include taking into account the destruction of the underlying surface, the formation of a pothole and the abrupt increase in friction force (!). For now, we will limit ourselves to an underestimated value of 0.2. F4=3*10^4*2*10^-1 kg*m/(sec*sec) =6,000 kg*m/(sec*sec) The force can be found from the formula: E=A=F*D, where D is the path traveled by the body under the influence of force. Since the path D is not straight and the force applied at different points is different, the following will be taken into account: the straight path and the projection of the force onto the horizontal plane. The path is 1.75 m. The displacement component of the force will be equal to Fpr = F*cos(alpha). F1=10290 kg*m*m/(sec*sec)/1.75 m = 5880 kg*m/(sec*sec) 5880/7.07=(6,000+ F3)/1.75 From which F3 = -4544< 0 (!!) Получается, что сила трения съедает всю дополнительную силу, а значит и работу. Из чего следует, что эту компоненту импульса можно игнорировать. Итого, фиксируется значение опрокидывающего импульса в 22980 кг*м/сек. Усложнение модели, ведение в расчет атмосферы. Предыдущее значение получено для прямоугольной платформы в вакууме. Действительно, в расчетах нигде не фигурируют: ни длинна ступни, ни парусность платформы. Вначале добавим ветер. Пусть платформа рассчитана на уверенное передвижение при скоростях ветра до 20 м/сек. Начнем с того предположения, что шагающая платформа обеспечивает максимальную парусность. Это достигается поворотом верхней части платформы перпендикулярно к потоку воздуха. Согласно (http://rosinmn.ru/vetro/teorija_parusa/teorija_parusa.htm) сила паруса равна: Fp=1/2*c*roh*S*v^2, где с - безразмерный коэффициент парусности, roh - плотность воздуха, S - площадь паруса, v - скорость ветра. Поскольку будем считать, что платформа совершила поворот корпуса, то площадь равна произведению высоты на ширину(!) и на коэффициент заполнения. S = 7*3,5*1/2=12,25. Roh = 1,22 кг/м*м*м. Коэффициент парусности равен 1,33 для больших парусов и 1,13 для маленьких. Будем считать, что силуэт платформы состоит из набора маленьких парусов. Fp=1/2*1,13*1,22*12,25*20*20 кг*м/(сек*сек) = 3377,57 кг*м/(сек*сек) Эта сила действует во время всего опрокидывания, во время прохождения центром масс всего пути в 1/2 ширину стопы. Это составит работу А=1688,785 кг*м*м /(сек*сек). Ее нужно вычесть из работы, которую ранее расходовали на опрокидывание платформы. Перерасчет даст Е=(10290-1689) кг*м*м /(сек*сек). Из чего v = 7,57^-1 м/с; m*v= 22716 кг*м /сек. В действительности нужно получить иное значение импульса. В верхней точке траектории сила, с которой платформа сопротивляется переворачиванию стремится к нулю, а сила ветра остается неизменной. Это приводит к гарантированному переворачиванию. Для правильного расчета нужно найти угол, при котором сила ветра сравняется с силой, с которой платформа сопротивляется переворачиванию. Поскольку сила сопротивления действует по дуге, имеет переменный модуль, то ее можно найти как: Fсопр = Fверт * sin (alpha), где alpha - угол отклонения от вертикали, Fверт - сила которая нужна для подъема платформы на высоту в 3,5*10 ^-2 м. Fверт = 3*10^4*9,8 кг*м/(сек*сек). Alpha = Arcsin(3*10^4*9,8 / 3377,57) = Arcsin(1,15*10^-4) = 0,66 градуса. Теперь путь, который не нужно проходить получается умножением проекции всего пути на полученный синус. А высота подъема исчисляется как разность старой высоты и новой, умноженной на косинус. delta h = ((7,07*cos(0,66) - 7)/2) = 3,47*10^-2 E = 3*10^4*9,8*3,47*10^-2 - 1689+1689*sin(0,66) = 10202-1689+19 = 8532. Из чего v = 7,54^-1 м/с; m*v= 22620 кг*м /сек. Усложнение модели, угол отклонения от вертикали. Дальнейшее усложнение зависит от группы факторов, которые имеют разную природу, но приводят к сходному эффекту. Качество подстилающей поверхности, рельеф и навыки пилота определяют то, с какой точностью платформа приходит на ногу и соответственно к тому, насколько сильно отклоняется от вертикали ось, проходящая через центр масс и середину стопы. Чем выше скорость движения платформы, тем больше ожидаемое отклонение от вертикали. Чем больше среднее отклонение, тем меньший средний импульс нужен для опрокидывания платформы. Точная оценка этих параметров требует сложных натурных экспериментов или построения полной модели платформы и среды. Грубая оценка, полученная за пару минут хождения по комнате с отвесом дала среднее значение, на глазок равное 4 градуса. Значение 0,66 градуса полученное для ветра будем считать включенным. Применяется расчет аналогичный расчету поправки для ветра. delta h = ((7,07*cos(4) - 7)/2) = 2,63*10^-2 E = 3*10^4*9,8*2,62*10^-2 - 1689 + 1689*sin(4) = 6161. Из чего v = 6,4^-1 м/с; m*v= 19200 кг*м /сек. Часть 2. Гироскопы на шагающих платформах. Произведем качественный анализ структуры и устройства гироскопа, а также способов его применения. Пусть есть некоторый гироскоп с как минимум 3 маховиками. Предположим, маховиков всего лишь 3. Тогда если толчок в одну сторону парируется торможением гироскопа, то толчок в другую должен парироваться разгоном гироскопа. Как вино из расчетов в первой части время разгона составляет порядка 0,5 сек. Пусть мы не ограничены мощностью привода, что разгоняет гироскоп. Тогда в вышеупомянутом случае нужно удвоить значение момента импульса, что при неизменной массе маховика потребует учетверения запасенной энергии. Или троекратного увеличения мощности привода. Если же держать маховик покоящимся и разгонять его лишь в момент толчка, то это выглядит намного выгоднее с точки зрения массы привода. Если же есть ограничения на мощность привода, то имеет смысл разделить маховик на 2 части, вращающиеся на одной оси в противоположные стороны. Конечно, это потребует увеличения запаса энергии при том же значении момента импульса. Но время разгона будет уже не 0,5 сек., а паузой равной как минимум времени работы автомата заряжания. По умолчанию это значение будем считать равным 10 сек. Уменьшение массы маховика в два раза и увеличение времени в 20 раз даст возможность снизить мощность привода в 10 раз. Такой подход требует отдельного устройства для запасания и утилизации тепловой энергии. Будем предполагать, что есть некоторая эффективная трансмиссия, это позволит избежать необходимости установки 3 независимых приводов, по одному на каждую ось. Как бы там не было, есть еще ряд зависимостей между свойствами гироскопа. Маховик должен быть по возможности размещен на одной оси с центром масс. Такое размещение позволяет выбрать для шагающей платформы минимальное значение момента импульса. Следовательно, для оптимального размещения нужно установить маховики так: - маховик, качающий вокруг вертикальной оси - поднят из центра масс вверх или опущен вниз, - маховик, качающий вперед-назад - смещается вправо или влево, - маховик, качающий вправо-влево - остается в центре масс. Такая компоновка хорошо вписывается в торс шагающей платформы. Между компонентами момента инерции маховика и структурными компонентами гироскопа наблюдаются такие связи: - площадь корпуса гироскопа пропорциональна квадрату радиуса маховика, - площадь гермокорпуса маховика прямо пропорциональна квадрату радиуса маховика. - масса трансмиссии или тормозной системы обратно пропорциональна массе и квадрату радиуса маховика (выводится через утилизируемую энергию). - масса двухосевого карданова подвеса или устройства аналогичного назначения прямо пропорциональна массе и радиусу маховика. Моменты инерции платформы и маховика можно найти по следующим формулам. Маховик в виде пустотелого цилиндра: I=m*r*r. Маховик в виде сплошного цилиндра: I=1/2*m*r*r. Момент инерции всей платформы посчитаем как у параллелепипеда I= 1/12*m*(l^2+ k^2). Величины l и k каждый раз берутся из разных проекций. Рассчитаем величины на примере все той же платформы UrbanMech. - высота 7 м - ширина 3,5 м - длинна ступни 2 м - ширина ступни 1 м - высота точки приложения силы - 5 м - масса 30 т - центр масс находится в геометрическом центре описанного параллелепипеда. - наличествует трехосевой гироскоп общей массой 1 т. Используя компоновку гироскопа можно сказать, что половина ширины маховика (вправо-влево) и ширина маховика (вперед-назад) занимают половину ширины платформы. Отобрав по 25 см. с каждой стороны на броню, несущий каркас и корпус гироскопа получим, что диаметр маховика составляет 3/2/ (1,5) = 1 м. Радиус равен 0,5 м. При плотности около 16 т./м.куб. можно получить маховик в виде низкого пустотелого цилиндра. Такая конфигурация намного предпочтительнее в плане расходования массы, нежели сплошной цилиндр. Моменты инерции всей платформы посчитаем как у параллелепипеда массой 30 т. I1= 1/12*m*(l^2+ k^2) = 1/12*30000*(3,5*3,5+7*7) = 153125 кг*м*м. I2= 1/12*m*(l^2+ k^2) = 1/12*30000*(3,5*3,5+2*2) = 40625 кг*м*м. I3= 1/12*m*(l^2+ k^2) = 1/12*30000*(2*2+7*7) = 132500 кг*м*м. Третий маховик, тот, что вращает вокруг вертикальной оси, нужен, когда платформа уже упала, чтобы помочь встать. Соответственно поделим массу маховиков в соотношении моментов инерции между маховиками. 1 = 61,25 X +53 X +16,25 X. X = 2/261. Наибольший интерес вызывает маховик вперед-назад. Его массу можно определить как 4,06*10^-1 массы всех маховиков. Пусть существует привод, развивающий достаточную мощность, чтобы можно было обойтись без системы теплоотвода и торможения. Пусть масса подвеса, корпусов, привода и всего остального составит 400 кг. Такое значение выглядит возможным, при условии применения легированного титана, высокотемпературных сверхпроводников и других сверхвысокотехологичных изысков. Тогда момент инерции маховика составит: I=m*r*r, m=243 кг. r=0,5 кг. I=60,9 кг*м*м. В то же время I3 = 132500 кг*м*м. При равном моменте импульса это даст соотношение угловых скоростей как 1 к 2176. Пусть для стабилизации нужна энергия равная 6161 Дж. Угловая скорость платформы составит: 3,05*10^-1 радиан/сек. Угловая скорость маховика составит 663,68 радиан/сек. Энергия на маховике составит 13,41 МДж! Для сравнения: - в пересчете на алюмотол 2,57 кг. - для БТ определена условная единица энергии равная 100 Мдж/15 = 6,66 МДж, тогда энергия на маховике составит 2 таких единицы. В реалистичном расчете нужно учесть, что: - импульс толчка может прийти в положении платформы с отклонением выше среднего, сразу после погашенного маховиком импульса выстрела, что потребует еще более высоких энергий, до 8 условных единиц, - в действительности даже сверхпроводники не спасут положение, виду слишком высокой массы. Для сравнения, реально существующий сверхпроводниковый 36,5 МВт привод от American Superconductor весит 69 тонн. Пусть есть возможность считать, что сверхпроводники будущего позволят уменьшить вес аналогичной установки еще в 5 раз. Это предположение исходит из того, что обычная современная установка такой мощности весит более 200 т. Пусть есть возможность запасать тепло в конструкции гироскопа и выводить его отдельным независимым устройством. Пусть применяется метод торможения, вместо метода разгона. Тогда масса привода составит 69*0,1*0,2 т. = 1,38 т. Что намного больше всей массы конструкции (1 т.). Адекватная компенсация толчков внешних сил работой маховика - нереальна. Часть 3. Стрельба с двуногих шагающих платформ Как видно из расчетов сделанных в первой части значение опрокидывающего импульса весьма велико. (Для сравнения: импульс снаряда из пушки 2а26 равен 18*905=16290 кг*м /сек.) В то же время если допустить компенсацию отдачи лишь с помощью устойчивости, то близкое совпадение по времени выстрела с платформы и попадания в платформу приведет к падению и серьезным повреждениям, даже без пробития брони. Рассчитаем способы, позволяющие поставить на платформу орудие со значительным импульсом, но без потери устойчивости. Пусть есть противооткатное устройство, что рассеивает максимальное количество тепла, расходуя на это энергию отката. Или запасают эту энергию в виде электричества, опять таки расходуя на это энергию отката. A = F*D = E, где F - сила трения (или ее аналог), D - длина пути отката. Обычно можно показать зависимость силы трения от скорости движения откатника. При этом, чем меньше скорость, тем меньше сила трения, при неизменном коэффициенте трения. Будем считать, что существует такое устройство откатника, что позволяет создавать одну и ту же силу трения при убывающей(!) скорости подвижной части. Чтобы платформа не начала опрокидываться, надо чтобы сила трения была меньше силы, с которой платформа сопротивляется переворачиванию. Угол между горизонталью и силой равен углу полученному ранее, в Ч1, когда определяли оптимальный угол подбрасывания. Он равен 8,1 градуса. Прилагаемая сила проходит угол от 8,1 до 0 градусов. Следовательно, от 8,1 нужно отнять средний угол отклонения от вертикали, равный 4 градусам. Fсопр = Fверт * sin (alpha), где alpha - результирующий угол. Fверт = 3*10^4*9,8 кг*м/(сек*сек). alpha = 4.1 градуса. Fсопр = 21021 кг*м/(сек*сек). От нее нужно отнять ожидаемую силу ветра, из Ч1. Fветра= 3377,57 кг*м/(сек*сек). Результат будет таков: Fрез = 17643 кг*м/(сек*сек). Работа этой силы никоим образом не расходует запас устойчивости платформы. Более того, будем считать, что перенос веса с ноги на ногу производится так, что не увеличивает угла отклонения. Тогда можно полагать, что сила сопротивления переворачиванию не уменьшается. Современные танковые орудия имеют длину отката порядка 30-40 см. Пусть на шагающей платформе стоит орудие с ходом отката в 1,5 метра и некоторой массой откатываемой части. В первом варианте 1 метр идет на откат с трением, оставшиеся 0,5 метра - для обеспечения обычного отката и наката. (Как известно, обычные противооткатные устройства рассчитаны в первую очередь для уменьшения силы и мощности отката.) Тогда A = F*D = E, E= 17643 кг*м*м /(сек*сек). Если вес откатываемой части составит 2 т. Из чего v1 = 4,2 м/с; m1*v1= 8400 кг*м /сек. Если вес откатываемой части составит 4 т. Тогда v2 = 2,97 м/с; m2*v2= 11880 кг*м /сек. Наконец, если вес откатываемой части составит 8 т. v3 = 2,1 м/с; m3*v3= 16800 кг*м /сек. Больший вес откатываемой части вызывает значительные сомнения. Отдельный откат на 0,5 метра нужен для того, чтобы сила, действующая на платформу во время выстрела, не приводила к разрушениям. Это же позволит добавить к импульсу, погашаемому трением, часть или весь импульс, компенсируемый устойчивостью платформы. К сожалению, такой способ увеличивает риск падения платформы при попаданиях. Что в свою очередь увеличивает вероятность серьезного ремонта ходовой и всего выступающего оборудования даже без пробитий брони. Второй вариант предполагает, что все 1,5 метра уйдут на откат с трением. Если вес откатываемой части составит 8 т., то E= 3/2*17643 кг*м*м /(сек*сек), v4 = 2,57 м/с; m3*v4= 20560 кг*м /сек. Сравнив это с значением 19200 кг*м /сек получим, что такая пара чисел весьма похожа на правду. При такой комбинации факторов опрокинуть платформу можно будет лишь в случае попадания из предельного по характеристикам орудия с небольшого расстояния. Иначе трение о воздух уменьшит скорость снаряда, а значит и импульс. Максимальный темп стрельбы определяется частотой шагов. Для уверенной постановки ноги требуется сделать два шага. Полагая, что платформа может совершать 2 шага в секунду, то минимальный промежуток между залпами составит 1 сек. Этот промежуток намного меньше времени работы современных автоматов заряжания. Следовательно, огневая производительность шагающей платформы будет определяться автоматом заряжания. Орудия БТ делятся на классы. Самые тяжелые (АС/20) должны иметь скорость снаряда порядка 300-400 м/сек., если исходить из прицельной дальности по мишени типа шагающая платформа. Взяв вариант с импульсом 20560 кг*м/сек. и скорость 400 м/сек. получим массу снаряда в 51,4 кг. Импульс пороховых газов игнорируется, будем считать, что он полностью гасится дульным тормозом.

4. /4 Hearty congratulations.doc
5. /5 Very nice.doc
6. /6 Horizontal.doc
7. /7 Army-themed puzzles for February 23.doc

Horizontally:

1. Large connection of aircraft.
3. A soldier who fights on a tank.
5. This announcer was honored to announce the beginning and end of the Great
7. A warship that destroys transport and merchant ships.
9. Outdated name of the projectile.
11. The cry of soldiers running to attack.
13. A widely used structure in the forest or on the front line, usually where the command was located during the Great Patriotic War.
15. Brand of pistol.
17. Brand of a popular Soviet car in the post-war years
19. Type of troops landed on enemy territory.
21. Tracked armored vehicle.
23. From military equipment: walking platform, loader.
25. Flying machine with propellers.
26. Nickname for combat jet vehicles during the Great Patriotic War.
27. Military training using this method.
29. Cossack rank.
31. Firing point.
33. In the old days, a person who was hired or recruited into service.
35. Type of submarine.
37. A paratrooper jumps out of a plane with him.
39. Explosive ammunition needed to destroy enemy people and equipment using manual throwing.
41. What do people call soldiers' boots?
42. Unexpected attack for the enemy.
43. Group aerobatics.
45. In what month do the Russian people celebrate the victory over Nazi Germany? Vertically:

2. The most popular machine gun of the Great Patriotic War?
3. Heavy combat vehicle with a turret and a gun on it.
4. Self-propelled underwater mine.
6. The part of a firearm that rests on the shoulder when fired.
8. Military rank in the Russian army.
10. In what month did Germany attack the USSR?
12. Simultaneous firing from several guns.
14. The blockade of this city lasted 900 days.
16. The name of the military system.
18. One of the junior naval ranks.
20. An aerobatics maneuver, when the wings of an airplane sway during flight.
22. Type of troops.
24. Type of aircraft during the Great Patriotic War.
25. Military unit.
26. A soldier who studies at a military school.
28. Soldier's rank in our army.
30. Who provides communication with headquarters?
32. Military rank.
34. The soldier guards the object entrusted to him, being where?
36. A piercing weapon at the end of a rifle or machine gun.
37. What does a soldier learn to do in the first years of service?
38. Disarms a mine or bomb.
40. Warship: destroyer.
42. Diameter of a firearm barrel.
44. Officer rank on a ship held by the commander of the ship.

Answers:

Horizontally:

1st squadron; 3-tanker; 5-levitan; 7-raider; 9-core; 11-hurray; 13-dugout; 15-makarov; 17-victory; 19-landing; 21 wedges; 23-odex; 25-helicopter; 26.-Katyusha; 27-drill; 29-esaul; 31-dot; 33-recruit; 35-atomic; 37-parachute; 39-grenade; 41-kerzachi; 42-counteroffensive; 43-diamond; 45th May.

Vertically:

2-Kalashnikov; 3-tank; 4-torpedo; 6-butt; 8-sergeant; June 10; 12-volley; 14-Leningrad; 16-rank; 18-sailor; 20-bell; 22-artillery; 24-bomber; 25-platoon; 26-cadet; 28-ranked; 30-signalman; 32-officer; 34-guard; 36-bayonet; 37 foot wraps; 38-sapper; 40 destroyer; 42-caliber; 44-capt.

The “Iron Curtain” between East and West collapsed, but as a result the pace of development of military technology not only did not change, but even accelerated. What will the weapons of tomorrow be? The reader will find the answer to this question in the proposed book, which contains information about the most interesting examples of experimental military equipment and about projects that will be implemented in the next century. The Russian reader will be able to get acquainted with many facts for the first time!

Performers

Performers

This is how the battlefield of the near future is described in one of the futuristic books: “... radio signals from communication satellites warned the commander about the impending enemy attack. A network of seismic sensors installed at a depth of several meters confirmed this. By registering ground vibrations, the sensors send information via coded signals to the headquarters computer. The latter now knows quite accurately where enemy tanks and artillery are located. The sensors quickly filter out acoustic signals received from military objects of different masses, and by the vibration spectrum they distinguish artillery pieces from armored personnel carriers. Having established the enemy's disposition, the headquarters computer makes a decision to launch a flank counterattack... Ahead of the attackers, the field is mined, and there is only a narrow corridor. However, the computer turned out to be more cunning: it determines with an accuracy of thousandths of a second which of the mines should explode. But this is not enough: miniature jumping mines blocked the retreat route behind the enemy’s back. Having jumped out, these mines begin to move in a zigzag pattern, exploding only when they recognize - by the mass of metal - that they have hit a tank or artillery piece. At the same time, a swarm of small kamikaze planes descends on the target. Before striking, they send a new piece of information about the state of affairs on the battlefield to the headquarters computer... Those who manage to survive in this hell will have to deal with robot soldiers. Each of them, “sensing”, for example, the approach of a tank, begins to grow like a mushroom and opens its “eyes”, trying to find it. If the target does not appear within a radius of one hundred meters, the robot heads towards it and attacks with one of the tiny missiles it is armed with...”

Experts see the future of military robotics mainly in the creation of combat vehicles capable of acting autonomously and also “thinking” independently.

Among the first projects in this area is the program to create an army autonomous vehicle (AATS). The new combat vehicle is reminiscent of models from science fiction films: eight small wheels, a high armored body without any slots or windows, a hidden television camera recessed into the metal. This real computer laboratory is designed to test methods for autonomous computer control of ground combat assets. The latest AATS models already use several television cameras, an ultrasonic locator and multi-wavelength lasers for orientation, the data collected from which is collected into a clear “picture” of not only what is located along the course, but also around the robot. The device still needs to be taught to distinguish shadows from real obstacles, because for a computer-controlled television camera, the shadow of a tree is very similar to a fallen tree.

It is interesting to consider the approaches of the firms participating in the project to the creation of PBX and the difficulties they encountered. The movement of the eight-wheeled automatic telephone exchange, which was discussed above, is controlled using on-board computers that process signals from various means of visual perception and use a topographic map, as well as a knowledge base with data on movement tactics and algorithms for drawing conclusions regarding the current situation. Computers determine the length of the braking distance, cornering speed and other necessary driving parameters.

During the first demonstration tests, the PBX was driven along a smooth road at a speed of 3 km/h using a single television camera, thanks to which the sides of the road were recognized using volumetric information extraction methods developed at the University of Maryland. Due to the low speed of the computers used at that time, the AATS was forced to make stops every 6 m. To ensure continuous movement at a speed of 20 km/h, the computer performance had to be increased 100 times.

According to experts, computers play a key role in these developments and the main difficulties are associated with computers. Therefore, by order of UPPNIR, Carnegie Mellon University began to develop a high-performance WARP computer, intended, in particular, for AATS. It is planned to install a new computer on a specially manufactured car for autonomous control on the streets adjacent to the university for driving at speeds of up to 55 km/h. Developers are cautious about whether a computer can completely replace the driver, such as calculating how quickly young and old pedestrians can cross a street, but are confident it will be better at tasks such as choosing the shortest route from a map.

UPPNIR ordered a set of software from General Electric that will allow the automatic telephone exchange to recognize terrain details, cars, combat vehicles, etc. while moving. The new set of programs is supposed to use image recognition based on the geometric features of the shooting object when comparing it with reference images, stored in computer memory. Since the computer construction of an image of each recognizable object (tank, gun, etc.) requires a lot of labor, the company has taken the path of capturing objects from photographs, drawings or models in various views, for example, from the front and side, and the images are digitized, traced and converted to vector form. Then, using special algorithms and software packages, the resulting images are converted into a three-dimensional contour representation of the object, which is entered into the computer memory. When the PBX is moving, its on-board television camera takes pictures of an object in its path, the image of which, during processing, is presented in the form of lines and points of convergence in places of sharp changes in contrast. Then, during recognition, these drawings are compared with projections of objects entered into the computer memory. The recognition process is considered successful when there is a sufficiently accurate match of three or four geometric features of the object, and the computer performs further, more detailed analysis to improve recognition accuracy.

Subsequent more complex tests on rough terrain were associated with the introduction of several television cameras into the PBX to provide stereoscopic perception, as well as a five-band laser locator, which made it possible to assess the nature of obstacles in the path of movement, for which the absorption and reflection coefficients of laser radiation were measured in five sections of the electromagnetic spectrum

UPPNIR also allocated funds for the development of the University of Ohio to create an automatic telephone exchange with six supports instead of wheels for moving over rough terrain. This machine is 2.1 m high, 4.2 m long and weighs approximately 2300 kg. Similar self-propelled robots for various purposes are currently being actively developed by 40 industrial companies.

The concept of an unmanned combat vehicle, the main task of which is to guard important objects and patrol, is most clearly embodied in the American combat robot "Prowler". It has combined control, is made on the chassis of a six-wheeled all-terrain vehicle, is equipped with a laser rangefinder, night vision devices, Doppler radar, three television cameras, one of which can rise to a height of up to 8.5 m using a telescopic mast, as well as other sensors that allow detect and identify any violators of the protected area. The information is processed using an on-board computer, the memory of which contains programs for the autonomous movement of the robot along a closed route. In offline mode, the decision to destroy the intruder is made using a computer, and in remote control mode - by the operator. In the latter case, the operator receives information via a TV channel from three television cameras, and control commands are transmitted via radio. It should be noted that in the robot’s telecontrol system, the controls in the mode are used only when diagnosing its systems, for which the operator has a special monitor installed. The Prowler is armed with a grenade launcher and two machine guns.

Another military robot, called Odex, can load and unload artillery shells and other ammunition, carry loads weighing more than a ton, and bypass security lines. As indicated in the analytical report of the Rand Corporation, according to preliminary calculations, the cost of each such robot is estimated at 250 thousand dollars (for comparison, the main tank of the US ground forces, the Abrams Ml, costs the Pentagon 2.8 million dollars).

“Odex” is a walking platform with six legs, each driven by three electric motors, and controlled by six microprocessors (one for each leg) and a central processor coordinating them. While moving, the width of the robot can change from 540 to 690 mm, and the height - from 910 to 1980 mm. Remote control is carried out via radio channel. There are also reports that a version of the robot has been created on the basis of this platform, operating both on the ground and in the air. In the first case, the robot moves using the same supports, and in the second, the movement is provided by special blades, like a helicopter.

The NT-3 robots for heavy loads and ROBART-1, which detects fires, toxic substances and enemy equipment penetrating the front line, and has a dictionary of 400 words, have already been created for the American naval forces. ROBART-1, in addition, is capable of driving itself to a gas station to recharge its batteries. The widely publicized expedition to the site of the famous Titanic, which was carried out in 1986, had a hidden main goal - to test the new military underwater robot "Jason Jr."

In the 80s, special unmanned combat vehicles appeared that performed only reconnaissance missions. These include reconnaissance combat robots TMAR (USA), Team Scout (USA), ARVTB (USA), ALV (USA), ROVA (UK) and others. The four-wheeled, small-sized unmanned remote-controlled vehicle TMAR, weighing 270 kg, is capable of conducting reconnaissance at any time of the day using a television camera, night vision devices and acoustic sensors. It is also equipped with a laser designator.

“Team Scout” is a wheeled vehicle with thermal television cameras, various sensors and motion control manipulators. It implements combined control: in telecontrol mode, commands come from a control machine located on a tractor-trailer, in autonomous mode - from three on-board computers using a digital map of the area.

Based on the M113A2 tracked armored personnel carrier, an unmanned combat reconnaissance vehicle ARVTB was created, which has a navigation system and technical surveillance equipment to perform its functions. Like the Scout Team, it has two modes of operation - telecontrol with transmission of commands via radio and autonomous.

All of the above reconnaissance robots use two types of technical controls. In the remote control mode, supervisory telecontrol is used (based on general operator commands, including speech), and in the autonomous mode, adaptive control is used with the limited ability of robots to adapt to changes in the external environment.

The ALV reconnaissance vehicle is more advanced than other designs. At the first stages, it also had program control systems with adaptation elements, but later more and more elements of artificial intelligence were introduced into the control systems, which increased autonomy when solving combat missions. First of all, “intellectualization” affected the navigation system. Back in 1985, the navigation system allowed the ALV to independently cover a distance of 1 km. True, then the movement was carried out on the principle of automatically keeping the device in the middle of the road using information from a television camera for viewing the area.

To obtain navigation information, the ALV is equipped with a color television camera, acoustic sensors that echolocate nearby objects, as well as a laser scanning locator with precise measurement of the distance to obstacles and display of their spatial position. American experts expect to ensure that the ALV vehicle can independently choose a rational route over rough terrain, avoid obstacles, and, if necessary, change the direction and speed of movement. It should become the basis for creating a fully autonomous unmanned combat vehicle capable of carrying out not only reconnaissance, but also other actions, including the destruction of enemy military equipment from various weapons.

Modern combat robots that carry weapons include two American developments: “Robotic Ranger” and “Demon”.

The Robot Ranger is a four-wheeled, electric-powered vehicle that can carry two ATGM launchers or a machine gun. Its weight is 158 kg. Telecontrol is carried out via a fiber-optic cable, which provides high noise immunity and makes it possible to simultaneously control a large number of robots in the same area. The length of the fiberglass cable allows the operator to manipulate the robot at a distance of up to 10 km.

Another “Ranger” is in the design stage, which is able to “see” and remember its own trajectory and moves through unfamiliar rough terrain, avoiding obstacles. The test sample is equipped with a whole set of sensors, including television cameras, a laser locator that transmits a three-dimensional image of the area to a computer, and an infrared radiation receiver that allows movement at night. Because huge amounts of computation are required to analyze sensor images, the robot, like others, can only move at low speeds. True, as soon as computers with sufficient speed appear, they hope to increase its speed to 65 km/h. With further improvement, the robot will be able to constantly monitor the enemy’s position or engage in battle as an automatic tank, armed with highly accurate laser-guided guns.

The small-sized Demon weapon carrier with a mass of about 2.7 tons, created in the USA back in the late 70s - early 80s, belongs to the combined unmanned wheeled combat vehicles. It is equipped with an ATGM (eight to ten units) with thermal homing heads, a target detection radar, a friend-or-foe identification system, as well as an on-board computer for solving navigation problems and controlling combat assets. When moving to firing lines and at long ranges to a target, the Demon operates in remote control mode, and when approaching targets at a distance of less than 1 km, it switches to automatic mode. After this, detection and destruction of the target are carried out without operator participation. The concept of the telecontrol mode of the Demon vehicles was copied from the German B-4 tankettes mentioned above at the end of the Second World War: one or two Demon vehicles are controlled by the crew of a specially equipped tank. Mathematical modeling of combat operations carried out by American specialists showed that joint actions of tanks with Demon vehicles increase the firepower and survivability of tank units, especially in defensive battles.

The concept of the integrated use of remotely controlled and crewed combat vehicles was further developed in the work under the RCV (Robotic Combat Vehicle) program. It involves the development of a system consisting of a control vehicle and four robotic combat vehicles that perform various tasks, including the destruction of objects using ATGMs.

At the same time as light, mobile weapon-carrying robots, more powerful combat weapons are being created abroad, in particular a robotic tank. In the USA, this work has been carried out since 1984, and all the equipment for receiving and processing information is manufactured in a block version, which makes it possible to turn an ordinary tank into a robot tank.

The domestic press reported that similar work is being carried out in Russia. In particular, systems have already been created that, when installed on the T-72 tank, allow it to operate in completely autonomous mode. This equipment is currently being tested.

Active work on the creation of unmanned combat vehicles in recent decades has led Western experts to the conclusion that it is necessary to standardize and unify their components and systems. This especially applies to chassis and motion control systems. The tested versions of unmanned combat vehicles no longer have a clearly defined purpose, but are used as multi-purpose platforms on which reconnaissance equipment, various weapons and equipment can be installed. These include the already mentioned Robot Ranger, AIV and RCV vehicles, as well as the RRV-1A vehicle and the Odex robot.

So will robots replace soldiers on the battlefield? Will machines with artificial intelligence take the place of people? Huge technical hurdles must be overcome before computers can perform tasks that humans can easily perform. So, for example, in order to endow a machine with the most ordinary “common sense”, it will be necessary to increase its memory capacity by several orders of magnitude, speed up the operation of even the most modern computers and develop ingenious (there is no other word for it) software. For military use, computers must become much smaller and be able to withstand combat conditions. But although the current level of development of artificial intelligence does not yet allow the creation of a completely autonomous robot, experts are optimistic about the prospects for future robotization of the battlefield.

Owners of patent RU 2437984:

The invention relates to the field of hydraulic structures. The walking platform contains working and auxiliary platforms mounted with the possibility of translational and rotary movement relative to each other by means of mechanisms for their movement and movable supports. The auxiliary platform is located under the working platform. A slider equipped with a translational movement mechanism is mounted between the platforms. The slider is connected to the working platform by means of a rotary connection and is mechanically connected to the auxiliary platform by means of hooks. The design of the walking platform is simplified, its metal consumption and energy consumption are reduced when changing the direction of movement. 1 salary f-ly, 5 ill.

The claimed invention relates to the field of hydraulic structures, namely to the structures of offshore platforms for the development of the shallow continental shelf, and can be used for transportation and installation of heavy structures during construction.

A known design of a walking platform includes a movable platform with a plurality of movable supports in a vertical direction relative to the platform (see US Patent No. 4288177 of 1981).

The disadvantage of this known design of a walking platform is the limited number of movable supports (8 supports), as a result of which the platform is suitable for use only on dense soils. In addition, equipping with rectangular auxiliary devices does not allow the same amount of movement of the platform in the longitudinal and transverse directions and its rotation around the vertical axis.

A walking platform is known, containing a working and auxiliary platform, mounted with the possibility of translational and rotary movement relative to each other by means of mechanisms for their movement and movable supports (see utility model patent of Ukraine No. 38578, IPC 8 B60P 3/00 dated 2008 - prototype).

The disadvantage of the prototype is that the working platform is made of two parts, upper and lower, spaced apart in height. Thus, a space is formed inside the working platform in which the auxiliary platform is located.

This complicates the design of the entire platform, since in the lower part of the working platform (in its most loaded middle section) it is necessary to make openings to ensure horizontal movement of the movable supports of the auxiliary platform.

The dimensions and configuration of these openings must ensure that when the platform moves (steps) the mutual movement of the working and auxiliary platforms relative to each other both in the linear (longitudinal and transverse) direction and when the entire platform rotates. The number of these openings is determined by the number of movable supports of the auxiliary platform.

Due to the openings, the lower part of the working platform is weakened in the most loaded place.

To compensate for the weakening of the lower part of the working platform, it will be necessary to increase the size of its cross sections, which will lead to an increase in the height dimensions of the entire platform and an increase in its metal consumption.

Also, a disadvantage of the prototype design is that the platform has a rotation angle limited by the size of the openings at each step, as a result of which the platform’s rotation trajectory will have a fairly large radius when changing the direction of movement. Due to this, energy consumption to ensure a change in direction of movement increases.

The technical result of the claimed invention is to simplify the design of the walking platform, reduce its metal consumption and energy consumption when changing the direction of movement.

The specified technical result is achieved in a walking platform containing a working and auxiliary platforms, mounted with the possibility of translational and rotary movement relative to each other by means of mechanisms for moving them and movable supports, in that the auxiliary platform is placed under the working platform, and a slider equipped with mechanism of translational movement, while the slider is connected to the working platform through a rotary connection and is mechanically connected to the auxiliary platform through hooks.

The specified technical result is also achieved in a walking platform in that the rotary connection of the slider with the working platform is made in the form of a slewing bearing and is equipped with a rotary movement mechanism.

Figure 1 shows the inventive walking platform, side view;

figure 2 - the same, front view;

figure 3 - section A-A, figure 1;

Fig.4 - section B-B, Fig.3;

Fig.5 - node B, Fig.4.

The inventive walking platform includes a working platform 1 with movable supports 2 and an auxiliary platform 3 with movable supports 4. The auxiliary platform 3 with movable supports 4 is located under the working platform 1, and between them there is a slider 5 equipped with a translational movement mechanism 6, which is made in the form of hydraulic cylinders 7. Brackets 8 are installed on the slider 5, and brackets 9 are installed on the auxiliary platform 3. The slider 5 is connected to the working platform 1 by means of a rotary connection 10, which is made in the form of a slewing bearing, for example a roller bearing 11 with optionally mounted rotation relative to each other by the upper ring 12 and the lower ring 13 with teeth 14 and pins 15 and 16. The upper ring 12 is connected with pins 15 (rigidly) to the working platform 1, the lower ring 13 with pins 16 (rigidly) connected to the slider 5. Rotation mechanism 17 is installed on the working platform 1, and its gear 18 interacts through the teeth 14 with the lower ring 13 of the roller support 11. In this case, the slider 5 is equipped with hooks 19 interacting with the shoulders 20 mounted on the auxiliary platform 3.

The movement of the inventive walking platform and the change in the direction of its movement are carried out as follows.

The movable supports 2 of the working platform 1 are lowered down onto the ground until the hooks 19 interact with the shoulders 20, and the auxiliary platform 3, together with the movable supports 4, rises, and its movable supports 4 come off the ground. In this case, a gap is formed between the slider 5 and the auxiliary platform 3.

If the walking platform needs to move in the longitudinal direction, then the auxiliary platform 3 is moved along with the movable supports 4 using hydraulic cylinders 7, which, resting against the brackets 8 on the slider 5, push it with the movable supports 4 through the brackets 9 mounted on it to the required distance. In this case, the auxiliary platform 3, together with the movable supports 4, moves, sliding the shoulders 20 along the hooks 19.

During this movement, since the slider 5 is connected to the working platform 1 through a roller support 11 with pins 15 and 16, the auxiliary platform 3, together with the movable supports 4, moves relative to the working platform 1.

After moving the auxiliary platform 3, its movable supports 4 are lowered until they stop in the ground and the gap between the slider 5 and the auxiliary platform 3 is removed. With further lifting of the auxiliary platform 3 on the supports 4 through the slider 5, the working platform 1 is raised and its movable supports 2 are lifted off the ground. If in this position the hydraulic cylinders 7 are put into operation, then longitudinal movement of the working platform 1 relative to the auxiliary platform 3 is ensured.

If in this position you first put into operation the turning mechanism 17 and rotate the working platform 1 on the roller support 11 to any required angle, and then put the hydraulic cylinders 7 into operation, then when turning through an angle of 90°, the longitudinal movement of the platform changes to transverse.

When turning at an angle less than 90°, the longitudinal movement of the walking platform changes to movement with rotation.

This completes the step of moving the walking platform.

After completing the step, to repeat it, lower the movable supports 4 of the auxiliary platform 3 until they stop in the ground and repeat the operations of lifting the auxiliary platform 3 and the operations described above.

Thus, in the claimed design of the walking platform, by introducing into its design a slider with a rotary connection in the form of a roller support 11, it is possible to change its movement with any required angle of rotation.

Due to this, when moving the walking platform, the energy consumption for performing steps of its movement with changing the direction of movement is reduced.

In addition, the design of the working platform 1 is simplified, since it eliminates the grooves and cutouts for the movable supports 4 of the auxiliary platform 3. Due to this, the metal consumption of the walking platform is reduced.

1. A walking platform containing a working and auxiliary platforms, mounted with the possibility of translational and rotary movement relative to each other by means of mechanisms for their movement and movable supports, characterized in that the auxiliary platform is located under the working platform, and a slider is mounted between them, equipped with a translational mechanism movement, while the slider is connected to the working platform by means of a rotary connection and mechanically connected to the auxiliary platform by means of hooks.

2. The walking platform according to claim 1, characterized in that the rotary connection of the slider with the working platform is made in the form of a slewing bearing and is equipped with a rotary movement mechanism.

Similar patents:

The invention relates to a device for transporting, installing and dismantling the deck of an offshore oil production platform and to methods for transporting, installing and dismantling the deck of the said platform.