![]() |
pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
|
Re: pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
Nice concept, I like it! Strong, simple, and easy to maintain... everything you need in a drivetrain. I especially like the use of stackerboxes as transmissions; using only one gear reduction and only one chain reduction should make it nice and efficient.
I'm not sure about the rectangluar crossmembers though... cutting the holes may be a bit challenging. Have you considered using round tubes at all? May make manufacturing easier. Great design. |
Re: pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
or even just a channel across each end, so the frame can flex, since mecanums like "suspension".
I like the idea of using CIMs on stackers, who thought of that? :) |
Re: pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
My only input is that if you plan on using the Andy Mark 6" mecanums I would wait until the redesign is available next yea. 1675 had many problems with them this and Andy said that they are redesigning them to hopefully eliminate most of the problems seen this year.
|
Re: pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
Quote:
|
Re: pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
This might be a stupid question, but what type of metal is the frame made out of?
|
Re: pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
Quote:
Without an active tensioner, my hunch is that the Stackerboxes will inevitably slide in the directions the chain is pulling them. I'm guessing that you will need something actively pulling the sliding motors/stackerboxes toward each other to keep the correct tension on the chains; perhaps a spring or one of those gizmos that has an eye bolt on each end and has an oval you twist to move the bolts closer or farther apart. Also, to avoid having the chain tension creating a moment that wants to twist the shaft the drive sprocket is on, a bracket that wraps around the sprocket and supports both ends of the shafts could be what is at each end of a tensioning system. Blake |
Re: pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
Quote:
:) (I know you knew that....) |
Re: pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
Quote:
|
Re: pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
Quote:
Turnbuckle, Turnbuckle, Turnbuckle, Turnbuckle, ... Blake |
Re: pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
Quote:
Also note that the kit bot has an aluminum bracket bolted to an aluminum frame; lots of frictional force! Lexan may not act the same way and might slip, but I don't know for sure. A turnbuckle may be a very good idea! (or one of those cam shaped tensioners, like on the 968/254/60 drive) |
Re: pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
Quote:
Also, why would anyone use Lexan as the drive frame? (And don't tell me to see the 2007 design book--that team used a metal frame to support their drive.) |
Re: pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
I believe Team 20 used Stackerboxes for their Mecanum drive this year. It seemed to work out pretty good for them. I may be mistaken though.
|
Re: pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
Quote:
|
Re: pic: Stackerbox Mecanum Prototype
I usually wouldn't use a COTS turnbuckle to tension chain as it just seems big and unweildy..... But, if you got one that is about the length between the inner bolts (to the center of the robot) on one stackerbox and the inner on the other, and the eyelets were about the clearance size for a #10, you could tension both chain runs by pulling the gearboxes towards each other.
EDIT: on second thought, get a turnbuckle with plain threaded ends instead. Make a block with a threaded hole for that end on one face, and a clearance hole for a #10 on the perpendicular face (not vertical). Put that block on one of the inner #10s on each of the stackerboxes, and hook up the turnbuckle to them. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi