Any restrictions on engines?

[eliman47]

I was thinking of putting on an engine on the robot but wasn't sure before I put it all on.

[CalTran]

Um...if we're talking competition robot then yes...

[E. Wood]

You will have to wait until this year rules are released but in previous seasons the answer has been no other power source besides the battery and energy stored by deformation of parts (like springs) or by changing the position of the robot.

2012 Rule Below:

The only legal source of electrical energy for the Robot during the competition is one MK ES17-12 12VDC non-spillable lead acid battery, or one EnerSys NP 18-12 battery, as provided in the 2012 KOP. This is the only battery allowed on the Robot.


Batteries integral to and part of a COTS computing device are also permitted (i.e. laptop batteries), provided they’re only used to power the COTS computing device and any peripheral COTS USB input devices connected to the COTS computing device.


Non-electrical sources of energy used by FRC Robots, (i.e., stored at the start of a Match), shall come only from the following sources:

A. Compressed air stored in the pneumatic system, stored at a maximum pressure of 120 PSI.

B. A change in the altitude of the Robot center of gravity.

C. Storage achieved by deformation of Robot parts.

[Jon Stratis]

Look at [R36] in the 2012 rules to see what sources of energy are allowed (hint: it does not list any engines). Also see [R48] for a list of motors allowed on the robot.

[Brandon Zalinsky]

This is [R48], it says which motors are legal on the robots.


The only motors and actuators permitted on 2012 FRC Robots include:
up to 4 CIM motors (part #FR801-001, M4-R0062-12, AM802-001A, 217-200, PM25R-44F-1005 or PMR25R-45F-1003),
up to 4, in any combination, of the BaneBots motors provided in the KOP (acceptable part numbers are M7-RS775-12, M7-RS775-18, M5-RS550-12, M5-RS550-12-B, and M3-RS395-12),
up to 2 window motors (acceptable part #s are 262100-3030 and 262100-3040),
up to 2 FisherPrice motors (acceptable part #s are 000968-9012, 00968-9013, 00801-0673, and 00968-9015),
up to 2 AndyMark motors (acceptable part # is am-0912),
up to 2 AndyMark gearmotors (acceptable part # is am-0914),
up to 2 Denso throttle control motors (acceptable part # AE235100-0160)
up to 2 VEX motors (acceptable part # 276-2177)
up to 2 window lift, seat, windshield wiper or door motors obtained through either the FIRST-Automotive Recyclers Association partnership or from a prior years’ KOP.

[DonRotolo]

...and of course we all know the difference between a motor and an engine, right?

[rsisk]

Going out on a limb here but I would guess that combustion engines and rocket engines are not legal next year

Don, the answer is no. But after a google search, appears an engine converts a chemical energy into motion, a motor converts electrical energy into motion.

[Justin Montois]

...and of course we all know the difference between a motor and an engine, right?

There's your problem

[DampRobot]

Don, the answer is no. But after a google search, appears an engine converts a chemical energy into motion, a motor converts electrical energy into motion.

The definition I've always heard is that an engine burns fuel, while a motor is a general term for a component that does work. For example, it is perfectly acceptable to say "my car's motor won't start," but not technically correct to call what's under the hood of a Tesla an engine.

[Jon Stratis]

The definition I've always heard is that an engine burns fuel, while a motor is a general term for a component that does work. For example, it is perfectly acceptable to say "my car's motor won't start," but not technically correct to call what's under the hood of a Tesla an engine.

Since I drive a Prius, there is a very important difference between saying "there's a problem with my engine" and "there's a problem with my motor"!

[Nate Laverdure]

The definition I've always heard is that an engine burns fuel, while a motor is a general term for a component that does work.
This definition leaves out steam engines, stirling engines, and perhaps others.

Maybe: an engine takes advantage of differences in pressure, specific volume, and/or temperature to do useful work on a system.

[GBK]

Go with a Big Block. The torque is awesome and you cant beat the sound of a built Big Block with a high lift cam and some open headers. A blower would be a nice addition as well.

Good luck getting past the inspector.

[AlexH]

...and of course we all know the difference between a motor and an engine, right?

the best answer i found was

"A motor is converting electric energy into mechanical energy. A engine is converting chemical energy into mechanical energy."

and thus brings up the question of why was detroit called motor city when it produced cars which are powered by engines?

[Camren]

Hmmmm troll avatar, really really foolish question.

Conclusion
- He thinks that the manual is A a paper paper weight or B useful for starting a fire


Troll Police 1-2-3

[dcarr]

Obvious troll is obvious

[DampRobot]

This definition leaves out steam engines, stirling engines, and perhaps others.

Maybe: an engine takes advantage of differences in pressure, specific volume, and/or temperature to do useful work on a system.

A steam or sterling engine would burn some material which would then heat water. On the other hand, I do like the idea of a pressure change being used to do work as part if the definition. That's probbably a more widely acceptable definition.

[Garret]

This definition leaves out steam engines, stirling engines, and perhaps others.

Maybe: an engine takes advantage of differences in pressure, specific volume, and/or temperature to do useful work on a system.

I agree that the chemical energy to mechanical energy definition is flawed. I think that in general an engine converts thermal energy into mechanical energy, but then again that may be just a heat engine.

[Michael Hill]

The best explanation I've seen basically goes as follows:

All engines are motors, but not all motors are engines.

To be an engine, it must be a machine/mechanism (i.e., moving parts) that serves as an energy source.

Examples:

Electric Motor - It has moving parts, but the energy source (the battery) is not part of it, thus it isn't an engine.

Combustion Engine - It has moving parts and gasoline is burned inside, therefore it IS an engine.

Solid Rocket Motor - It serves as an energy source (burning fuel inside of itself), but it has no moving parts, thus it isn't an engine.

Liquid Rocket Engine - It serves as an energy source (burning fuel inside of itself), and there are tons of moving parts (turbomachinery), therefore it IS an engine.

[StevenB]

I love how the trolling thread has been derailed into something useful.

Let's make a list:
Motors
Electric motor
Rocket motor
Molecular motor
Motorcycle
Motor neuron

Engines
Gasoline engine
Jet engine
Steam engine
Stirling engine
Search engine

I remember reading a model rocketry book which was adamant that the propulsion was a "rocket motor", and not a "rocket engine". But I see now that Estes calls them "engines" (http://www.estesrockets.com/rockets/engines).
Wikipedia treats "motor" and "engine" as effectively synonymous, at least until someone here goes and edits the article.

[Ian Curtis]

I love how the trolling thread has been derailed into something useful.

I remember reading a model rocketry book which was adamant that the propulsion was a "rocket motor", and not a "rocket engine". But I see now that Estes calls them "engines" (http://www.estesrockets.com/rockets/engines).
Wikipedia treats "motor" and "engine" as effectively synonymous, at least until someone here goes and edits the article.

A rough rule of thumb I have heard for rockets is that solid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-fuel_rocket) and hybrid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_rocket) rocket engines can be called motors without anyone looking at you funny. However a liquid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket) rocket engine cannot be called a motor without someone raising their eyebrows.

All I know is I have an outboard engine on my motorboat... :rolleyes:

[Michael Hill]

I love how the trolling thread has been derailed into something useful.

Let's make a list:
Motors
Electric motor
Rocket motor
Molecular motor
Motorcycle
Motor neuron

Engines
Gasoline engine
Jet engine
Steam engine
Stirling engine
Search engine

I remember reading a model rocketry book which was adamant that the propulsion was a "rocket motor", and not a "rocket engine". But I see now that Estes calls them "engines" (http://www.estesrockets.com/rockets/engines).
Wikipedia treats "motor" and "engine" as effectively synonymous, at least until someone here goes and edits the article.
Yeah, Estes is wrong. My rocket propulsion professor was equally adamant about solids being a "motor" (I'll take his word for it. He basically wrote "the book" on solid rocket motors)

[ebarker]

I'm betting FIRST will allow you to choose between a search engine or a siege engine. I'm digging siege engines. We can create FRC trebuchets to play Aim High all over again.

[Taylor]

I'm betting FIRST will allow you to choose between a search engine or a siege engine. I'm digging siege engines. We can create FRC trebuchets to play Aim High all over again.

Can we use the batteries as counterweight? Or maybe the pneumatic storage tanks (as long as they're not painted)?

[rsisk]

I'm betting FIRST will allow you to choose between a search engine or a siege engine. I'm digging siege engines. We can create FRC trebuchets to play Aim High all over again.

Well, the search engine does throw a kink into the definition. I think I will call google a search motor from now on.

[BigJ]

Well, the search engine does throw a kink into the definition. I think I will call google a search motor from now on.

So does a siege engine! I don't steam a old train with a steam engine, but I siege a city with a siege engine.

[Ether]

Electric Motor - It has moving parts, but the energy source (the battery) is not part of it, thus it isn't an engine.

Combustion Engine - It has moving parts and gasoline is burned inside, therefore it IS an engine.

Combustion Motor - It has moving parts, but the energy source (the gas tank) is not part of it, thus it isn't an engine.

Electric Engine - It has moving parts and electrons are used inside, therefore it IS an engine.

:)

[Mark McLeod]

We use the engines of our imagination on the robot all the time.
FIRST being an engine of change after all.

[Suitster]

So does a siege engine! I don't steam a old train with a steam engine, but I siege a city with a siege engine.

It would be possible to argue that a siege engine takes energy from gravity, or "deformation of parts" in order to do work on a projectile

But would that make any gun or bow an engine?

[Nick Lawrence]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Had me going for a second though. Well done.

-Nick

[MrForbes]

Go with a Big Block. The torque is awesome and you cant beat the sound of a built Big Block with a high lift cam and some open headers. A blower would be a nice addition as well.

Good luck getting past the inspector.

That's what I did.

But not on the robot.

http://selectric.org/55chevy/HRdw.jpg

[Brandon Zalinsky]

That's what I did.

But not on the robot.

image


that sound... It's beautiful

[Camren]

Go with a Big Block. The torque is awesome and you cant beat the sound of a built Big Block with a high lift cam and some open headers. A blower would be a nice addition as well.

Good luck getting past the inspector.

Drops a overhauled 350 into a robot chassis but there isnt room for a manipulator and inspection is a pain.
# FIRST world problems

[JesseK]

Wait! Wait! You guys are totally missing the obvious FRC legal engine! It runs on compressed air. This is a fun thought exercise since the GDC doesn't put any direct restrictions on it except for weight, volume, and the restrictions on the source of the compressed air (the only FRC-legal compressors, powered by FRC-legal batteries).

I'm sure we could make a drive train, lift, arm, rollers, or some mechanism "move" using it! The utility of such an engine is up to the designer -- who are we to mock it given that we haven't gone through the exercise?

I'm thinking of a robot that looks like the amalgamation of balloons in the movie "Up", where the team has to start filling the tanks as soon as they get to competition and then continue filling the tanks at every spare moment so they don't run out of air during two back-to-back matches. Maybe that's a bit far-fetched; maybe it won't take as much air.

If anything, it may make a cool Hybrid approach to the drive train: extra "boost" in a pushing match for a single-speed robot that's geared for 11ft/s. Maybe it's worth the weight to an outside-the-box type of team; maybe it's not.

[MichaelBick]

Wait! Wait! You guys are totally missing the obvious FRC legal engine! It runs on compressed air. This is a fun thought exercise since the GDC doesn't put any direct restrictions on it except for weight, volume, and the restrictions on the source of the compressed air (the only FRC-legal compressors, powered by FRC-legal batteries).

I'm sure we could make a drive train, lift, arm, rollers, or some mechanism "move" using it! The utility of such an engine is up to the designer -- who are we to mock it given that we haven't gone through the exercise?

I'm thinking of a robot that looks like the amalgamation of balloons in the movie "Up", where the team has to start filling the tanks as soon as they get to competition and then continue filling the tanks at every spare moment so they don't run out of air during two back-to-back matches. Maybe that's a bit far-fetched; maybe it won't take as much air.

If anything, it may make a cool Hybrid approach to the drive train: extra "boost" in a pushing match for a single-speed robot that's geared for 11ft/s. Maybe it's worth the weight to an outside-the-box type of team; maybe it's not.

I actually thought of that a while ago and did some research on it. What I decided was that I didn't think it was worth it because you couldn't get actuators to fire fast(solenoids to slow) enough to get up to a reasonable rpm.

[Nuttyman54]

Non-electrical stored energy devices for power in FRC are always interesting thought exercises. I always wanted to design a pneumatic or clockwork robot, relying solely on compressed air or springs/weights respectively. It would be horribly limited and probably not very competetive, but a killer design challenge. Steampunk FRC anyone?

[GBK]

Drops a overhauled 350 into a robot chassis but there isnt room for a manipulator and inspection is a pain.
# FIRST world problems

Nothing wrong with that high rev horsepower from that small block.. But I will take the wheel spinning heavy car moving torque of that big block any day.

[Conor Walsh]

I built a small pneumatic motor in my Manufacturing class. There is a hole in the main plate that puts air into the cylinder block, pushing the piston out. Just below the air hole is an exhaust hole which bleeds the air out and cycles the system.
Here is the videohttp://youtu.be/j8ucVcNfovk
A couple problems:
The system is really dirty and needs constant oil, and constant maintenance
It doesn't have much torque, at all...
Wobbles a lot, which is why it is nicknamed the Wobbler. Its not too stable

Some good things:
Goes really fast, about 3000 RPM at 30 psi
It just sips air, as far as I can tell it really doesn't use up that much air

This is just an example of a motor, not powered by electric motors, that can be theoretically run on an FRC bot. No solenoids, no electronics, just some air and a really fast and weak motor. It is all made of 6061, besides the crank disk which is brass (Ran out of aluminum stock), and can be made by hand with no CNC, although some was used to make my life easier:D .

[DonRotolo]

Go with a Big Block. The torque is awesome and you cant beat the sound of a built Big Block with a high lift cam and some open headers. A blower would be a nice addition as well.

Good luck getting past the inspector.Yep, the weight might not work out...

An Engine converts pressure differentials into mechanical energy, a motor uses electricity exclusively. My humble definition, anyway.

[Camren]

Yep, the weight might not work out...

An Engine converts pressure differentials into mechanical energy, a motor uses electricity exclusively. My humble definition, anyway.

I wouldn't say a motor uses only electricity. There is a lot of magnetism involved motors. As my physics teacher would say motors run off of EnM Electricity n Magnetism

[kws4000]

A steam or sterling engine would burn some material which would then heat water. On the other hand, I do like the idea of a pressure change being used to do work as part if the definition. That's probbably a more widely acceptable definition.

Electricity could be considered a heat scource.

Back in the 1930s/1940s, in Switzerland, the railways put electric heaters in steam locomotive fireboxes, added pantographs, and turned them into short distance, no-pollution shunters. they did this due to the relative abundance of electricity, lack of coal, and long waiting line for a usable electric locomotive design.

[Alan Anderson]

I propose that there's no clear and unambiguous distinction between engines and motors. In my own usage, engines generally produce power, and motors produce motion. There is obviously overlap between the two.

[Saberbot]

I actually thought of that a while ago and did some research on it. What I decided was that I didn't think it was worth it because you couldn't get actuators to fire fast(solenoids to slow) enough to get up to a reasonable rpm.

Outside of a the legal pneumatic rules, it would really bee cool to see a Tesla turbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine) used in place of an electric motor.

No valves necessary! And some easily constructed ones (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-HahWtvbDY) have a similar output speed to a banebots motor (no idea about torque though)

Either way, it seems pretty inefficient, but it's an interesting idea.

[Camren]

Outside of a the legal pneumatic rules, it would really bee cool to see a Tesla turbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine) used in place of an electric motor.

No valves necessary! And some easily constructed ones (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-HahWtvbDY) have a similar output speed to a banebots motor (no idea about torque though)

Either way, it seems pretty inefficient, but it's an interesting idea.

I had thought of that then I realized how much air can a robot produce in order to keep it in motion.

[MichaelBick]

If you had a bunch of the plastic tanks, it may not be such a problem after all. Each tank charges up to 120 psi, but I'm sure running the turbine on 60 psi would be adequate for FRC. Especially if you use the turbine very little, you could get by in an FRC match.

[Tom Line]

Can we use the batteries as counterweight? Or maybe the pneumatic storage tanks (as long as they're not painted)?

And yet... the new clippards come with a sticker on them, but we can't put stickers on them :D

[Bob Steele]

I have often wondered about putting a fly wheel on the robot...
charging it up to high speed before the match and then using that power in a variety of ways during the match...

I don't think the rules allow for this but you could wind springs and use that energy I believe because that is deformation of a material...

The fly wheel would present some interesting engineering challenges.

[Siri]

I have often wondered about putting a fly wheel on the robot...
charging it up to high speed before the match and then using that power in a variety of ways during the match...

I don't think the rules allow for this but you could wind springs and use that energy I believe because that is deformation of a material...

The fly wheel would present some interesting engineering challenges.According to the 2012 (and previous) rules, starting the match with a spinning flywheel would seem illegal but the springs are not.

[R36]
The only legal source of electrical energy for the Robot during the competition is one MK ES17-12 12VDC non-spillable
lead acid battery, or one EnerSys NP 18-12 battery, as provided in the 2012 KOP. This is the only battery allowed on
the Robot.
Batteries integral to and part of a COTS computing device are also permitted (i.e. laptop batteries), provided they’re
only used to power the COTS computing device and any peripheral COTS USB input devices connected to the COTS
computing device.
Non-electrical sources of energy used by FRC Robots, (i.e., stored at the start of a Match), shall come only from the
following sources:
A. Compressed air stored in the pneumatic system, stored at a maximum pressure of 120 PSI.
B. A change in the altitude of the Robot center of gravity.
C. Storage achieved by deformation of Robot parts.

Would be cool, though.