Quote:
Originally Posted by Flak-Bait
We were talking about this last night, as a matter of fact. The only reservation we have is that we don't know if it's worth it to put another CIM on the shooter. Would the time we save be worth the extra energy it sucks up?
|
That's another approach. You can either prevent (reduce) the single shooter wheel from slowing down during a shot with added inertia, or let it slow down but give it the power of an additional motor so that it can get back to speed faster.
If I were to go with the second option, I don't think I'd use two CIMs (not unless you want to shoot from the pits). Two FPs are more powerful than one CIM, but mounting these would require a complete rework of the shooter you have that already works. You guys are on the right track and always seem to produce awesome capable robots. You'll figure it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aur0r4
The tradeoff with a flywheel is that you have to invest more energy to start it (longer initial spinup) and to keep it going (marginally increased drag through the bearings). The benefit, like you said, Ty, is that you can fire off multiple balls faster.
The advantage of a lighter wheel with more motors is that you have the whole apparatus on for less time, and recovery can be just as fast because the moment of inertia is less. Of course, you're dragging around more weight and have to be a bit clever with allowing the motors to share the load consistently.
Our decision may depend on how the guidance system responds or what our game strategy is. If we take a while to lock on, we might want to be able to fire multiple balls quickly to take advantage of the target window. If our vision system and turret swing is quick, we may go with two motors and a quick spinup for a more drive-by approach.
We'll see! There's always multiple solutions...
|
My sentiments exactly.
(An aside: 1058's ball catching robot in 2004 was my favorite robot at BAE that year. Is that were you got the team name?)