Quote:
Originally Posted by Cem8301
This is an off season project my team has nearly finished. It has served at a great learning tool for new students/ a first time test for pneumatics and Solidworks for the team. Any suggestions for improvements?
|
The picture is a bit small, so it's hard to make out many details. The first thing that I saw that I'd change is how the pneumatic cylinder on the arm is mounted -- and I don't mean the duct tape.
Right now, when the cylinder rod extends, it is 'exposed' and any side loading on the end of the arm will get transferred back against the cylinder rod. A rough impact may bend your cylinder rod and then you're in a bad place since replacing the cylinder is expensive -- both in time and money.
It'd require a rework of the upper link of the arm, but consider sliding the cylinder back toward the upper pivot so that, when its rod is fully extended, it's still supported and protected by the fixed part of that arm. I suspect your design is inspired heavily by 148. Look more closely at that robot -- its CAD model is available here -- and consider carefully why they designed their extending upper link the way the did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperNerd256
Do you know how many mecanums usually make it to Einstein? As far as I know, none.
|
Forgive the derailment, but I see this getting parroted a lot these days and I'm not convinced it's a valid argument. Folks make it seem as if the only difference between a mecanum wheeled robot and 254 et al is the wheelset. That's absurd on its face.
So, let's have it -- in your opinion, which teams were capable of winning the Championship but, by deciding to use mecanum wheels, didn't make it?