OP- you may consider spring returns added on, spring return cylinders, or a smaller cylinder to retract the whole mechanism if your idea doesn't pan out.
As I understand it one of the two solenoid outputs would have a regulator between the solenoid and the air cylinder. The outputs of
one solenoid are connected to the air cylinder(s) and it would seem legal, in my non-expert opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billbo911
There is also the other option: One valve for extension, the other for retraction.
Is that legal? The two feeds are separated by the disk in the cylinder and not tied together.
|
Quote:
R90
The outputs from multiple valves may not be plumbed together.
|
Now... there are two ways to interpret this... either the outputs cannot be connected to the same cylinder, or they cannot be connected to the same port and/or tee-d together. Our resident expert, Al, interprets it as they cannot be connected to the same cylinder.
In 2010 that rule did not exist (as far as I know) and my team did exactly this, and it was inspected as legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew_martin
I think the best option would be to use Pressure Flow Regulators that are actually fittings that mount on the cylinders themselves. I know you can order then from AndyMark here: http://www.andymark.com/product-p/am-2032.htm
They look kinda like the things in the picture. |
The intent, I assume, is to reduce air usage, not to slow down the mechanism. I assume 610 is going to have an awesome air-powered shooter and they want to get more shots out of it in each match.