Originally Posted by seg9585 (Post 1098832)

As a 2006 FRC participant (Aim High) who built a robot using the pitching machine launcher design, I have a few comments about it:

First off, calibrating the wheels ended up being a little more annoying than expected. Even though we used encoders to measure and even out the speed between each wheel, we found the release angle was still inconsistent -- the balls needed to be squeezed by the wheels a bit to get the traction needed to accelerate the ball, and the balls would end up flinging a bit to the right or left depending on which wheel made contact with the ball first and how the ball re-expanded.
For Aim High this wasn't a big deal because the target was relatively large, but with baskets this year we need a lot more precision.

Also, the ball originally came out without spin, so the balls flew like a knuckleball, making scoring unpredictable. We changed the speed of one wheel to add spin, but then had to apply a directional bias since the spin did induce lift on one side of the ball (still better than a knuckleball)!

Lastly, we had to run those large softball wheels with CIM motors to get them spinning fast enough, but when they were on all match it quickly drained our battery. In later matches we had to turn off the spinner during collection periods just to save power, then wait for the wheels to spin up to speed again.

I did see effective single-wheel launchers against a static surface that took out a lot of the multi-wheel variable issues we had, and they seemed to work well.

Originally Posted by robostangs548 (Post 1098892)

I have it everyone, I just need to figure out how to get my hands on this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFl-9W8x-uI

Originally Posted by davidthefat (Post 1099055)

This looks cool: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/33185

Originally Posted by Trez (Post 1099081)

Why didn't your team just use one motor with some gears to run both wheels?

Originally Posted by Mark Sheridan (Post 1099105)

If a team is going to store rotation energy to launch the ball, this is the way to go. Many teams have had some success with this style including me when I was on 766. It generates a lot of backspin, which improves accuracy and creates a shallower bounce of a backboard.

I am really curious what is the limit of accuracy for this design. Shooting a basket is much harder than 2006's game. Hopefully next weekend we will get a prototype running to see if this is practical.

Originally Posted by Apeace (Post 1099113)

I heard one great team effort was where one robot chucked balls at another robot and the other just sat at the goal and caught them all while just pouring them into the goal.

Although, this year there are limited balls on the court.

Originally Posted by davidthefat (Post 1099110)

I am thinking of doing a feeder bot, just grabbing the ball and chucking it all the way across the field is the priority and I think this will be a great mechanism to do it with.

Originally Posted by Apeace (Post 1099113)

I heard one great team effort was where one robot chucked balls at another robot and the other just sat at the goal and caught them all while just pouring them into the goal.

Although, this year there are limited balls on the court.

Originally Posted by Mark Sheridan (Post 1099124)

Yeah I was thinking that a shooter like that, especially one with an adjustable hood, could possibly be both a scorer and a passer. (like 2006: team 111, 2009: teams 1717, 217, 1114)

Also, look at 217's 2006 robot, they had a sheet that caught balls being thrown at them. It would work by absorbing the thrown ball and funneling it to a storage area.

Originally Posted by Garten Haeska (Post 1099131)

So in other words it acts like a Net?

Originally Posted by Sean Raia (Post 1098924)

I would stray away from that idea. Pneumatics (in my experience) are much better for power than for speed. Maybe use your pneumatics to load a spring?

Originally Posted by theprgramerdude (Post 1099146)

Power is speed. And pneumatics do not have power, they have huge amounts of force, at the tradeoff of speed. Power = F x V, don't lose the value of a scientific term by colloquially equating it with something entirely different.