Quote:
Originally Posted by MrForbes
There are different ways to look at pocketing... another way is to see it as a mostly unnecessary process, required only if you designed something with the wrong material, or wrong shape.
But I'm lazy and cheap, so take this with a grain of salt
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JVN
Jim,
Please provide some guidance to inexperienced teams on how to always design with the right material and right shape. 
Otherwise, perhaps withhold advice like your previous post as it might send someone down a path they aren't prepared for. 
"Mr Forbes says we don't need to do pocketing!" *140 lb robot*
148 loves pocketing / trussing. We do it on everything. Maybe we're just bad at designing with the right material & shape.
-John |
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGuy
It's probably because 148 isn't cheap or lazy 
One simple alternative: use thinner material without pocketing. I've seen a lot of pocketed designs in FRC that could have been made simpler and cheaper with practically no effect on strength (although, oftentimes can be made stronger) by using thinner material. |
The difference is easily explained by analogy to bones. While mammal limb bones are simple tubes with filled with marrow, they do not have any truss work within them. This is because mammals are not pushing the envelope on the tensile strength of calcium and phosphate salts as hard. Dinosaurs and birds however, push that envelope. Land dinosaurs came in sizes much larger than mastodons, and birds need to shave every available gram in order to improve performance in the air, so their bones feature (irregular organic) truss work. Here's
a web page comparing the structure of human arm and bird wing bones.