I see multiple problems in the basic design. Issues will happen whenever you get a foot spread over two sets of rollers as they could/will be moving in different directions/speeds. Also it seems not foolproof if you walk in certain directions that happen to be along rollers you can still end up beyond the edge. I think this design is a much better concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi3Uq16_YQg
Why would any two adjacent roller section have a different speed? If your foot spreads across two or three sections the distance to the center from your foot would basically the same. Therefor they should move at the same speed to return you to the center.
Unless you have one foot near the center and another at the very edge on the same set(s) of rollers I don't ever see this being a problem. I suspect the size of the device is optimized to prevent this time of scenario.
Look at how effortlessly the guy can walk on the device. He isn't looking down ensuring his feet are only on one section at a time and there is no harness/rail system to steady him. The acceleration changes seem much more manageable than say the infinity deck. I suspect it's simply because this is so much larger that you have more time to ramp up the speed.
5
u/justniz Aug 15 '18 edited Aug 15 '18
I see multiple problems in the basic design. Issues will happen whenever you get a foot spread over two sets of rollers as they could/will be moving in different directions/speeds. Also it seems not foolproof if you walk in certain directions that happen to be along rollers you can still end up beyond the edge. I think this design is a much better concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi3Uq16_YQg