Team 1676 tried that last year, but we had mixed results. The feedback loop (including the valves, movement of the air, etc.) wasn't fast enough to hold a position pneumatically when faced with variable loading. The problem is that air compresses, and so changes in load made the arm move: We hung a tetra on the arm and it drooped down. Also, the operator cannot expect instant response - we had something like a 1/2 second delay, and that was hard on the operator. We used a double-solenoid valve (3-way), no fooling with modulating exhausts and whatnot.
In short: Pneumatics are excellent for endpoint positioning, but awful for precision or intermediate positioning. Not that it can't be done - we did it - just that motors are a FAR better choice.
My advice would be to abandon ideas of variable mid-point positioning using pneumatics.
On the other hand, pneumatics were excellent for our gripping claw - open/closed.
Don
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
The idea of having an arm that is moved by pneumatics, and locked in place anywhere within its range of motion - thats very clever! I dont think I have ever seen it done on a FIRST robot
you dont need to get fancy with the valves, simply use the flow restrictors to limit the speed at which the arm will move
and to get precise control, use feedback. Instead of having the operator release the clutch and move the arm up or down, and then engage the clutch at the right position, have something like a potentiometer on the arm reporting position. the operator would move the joystick up or down, and the system will sense the arm is not where the joystick says it should be, unlocks the clutch, pressurizes the cylinder in the right direction, and engages the clutch when the feedback sensor = the joystick setting.
I really like this idea. You could have a very light, very simple, multiple axis or multiple elbow articulated arm, with very precise control of its motion - using nothing but pnuematics!
|