View Single Post
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-04-2016, 17:53
wireties's Avatar
wireties wireties is offline
Principal Engineer
AKA: Keith Buchanan
FRC #1296 (Full Metal Jackets)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 1,173
wireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to wireties
Re: remote control air regulator

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson View Post
That assumes that the ground connection fails in the "right" place to remove it from the regulator as well as from the resistive divider. By proper design of the actual wire routing, that particular behavior on a loss of ground can be assured, but it requires more thought than just the obvious pair of resistors.
How does a connection to the reference voltage fail other than by opening up? A zener clamping the voltage in the control circuit would be a feel good addition - can't hurt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson View Post
Oh, I can imagine quite a bit more fancy than that. I don't even have to imagine battery voltage ending up on the analog signal -- I have actually seen it happen..
One can imagine wild failure modes with most parts of the fail-safe circuitry on the robot. I remind you the biggest fail-safe mechanism we have is implemented in software!

Recently I had the top come off breakers exposing the fuse. We can go back and forth all day and night about extraordinary failure modes. But one has to pick a prudent affordable safe approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson View Post
You can't just invoke the laws of physics and say nothing will go wrong. You have to see where the laws take you when your assumptions are violated. The robot rules regarding pneumatic systems are very specific, and they do a good job keeping pressures at the appropriate levels unless many things go wrong at once. I don't see an electronically-controlled primary regulator managing to fit in that framework, because it can let full pressure through with just a single failure.
I can indeed "invoke the laws of physics" and assert that the control circuit meets criteria for a fail-safe circuit in this application. I'm not ready to go there, just wanted some opinions. And I appreciate your opinion.

With respect the lack of specificity in the rules is the genesis of this thread. Where does it say the adjustment is mechanical? Did I miss that? There have been a few good pneumatic-related Q&As this season that resulted in corrections to the manual.
__________________
Fast, cheap or working - pick any two!

Last edited by wireties : 01-04-2016 at 17:57.
Reply With Quote