View Single Post
  #59   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 31-01-2007, 10:18
Joe Johnson's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Joe Johnson Joe Johnson is offline
Engineer at Medrobotics
AKA: Dr. Joe
FRC #0088 (TJ2)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Raynham, MA
Posts: 2,631
Joe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Banebot 56mm gearbox - double D related

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Baker View Post
snip
4. IF someone can get a fix (prints and a CAD file) done quickly, there could be ways to mass-produce new parts to get out to teams. I would suggest that a well-toleranced print be made, along with an acurrate CAD file (.stp version).
snip
Andy B.
Andy,
I will have a STEP file and associated print with tolerances made by one of the best engineers I know (he's a Delphi guy that I could never quite get involved in FIRST... ...maybe some day).

I am also getting the shaft drawn up in CAD too.

Here is my thought process. I am looking for options here. We don't really have a bound on the problem yet. I believe it is likely that an RC 23 carrier plate will be the solution for teams with 1-CIM. But there are teams that have counted on using the 2-CIM with 16:1 ratio. Also, hoping for a good test outcome is not a plan -- it is just a hope. So, I am looking for options in case the tests show that an RC23 carrier is not enough. In this case, there is no more we can do with the carrier alone because we will just push the failure to the shaft. So... ...I am starting to think about the next step in case we have to take that step.


2 questions for folks with the right knowledge base:
#1 should we make the joint square to increase the surface area (and thereby lower the stress)? I have found an 11/32" square broach (8.73mm). Going from a 9mm D to a 8.73mm square will lower the stress to 46% of the current value (an increase in the failure torque of 2.15 (50% of the reduction is from 4 sides taking torque rather than 2 and the extra 4% reduction is that by going to the smaller distance between the flats, you get a larger load surface).

#2 I am thinking that we should have a target hardness of RC 40. This is a Tensile yield of 180Ksi (1250 Mpa). Is this too brittle? I am thinking it is probably ok. My reasoning is that I know that Forkbolts for car door latches are hardened to RC30-38. If RC38 is good enough to take the impact loading from a car crash, I think that RC38 is not too far. It is a small step from 38 to 40. Please share your educated gut feelings with us (provided you have an educated gut).

Joe J
__________________
Joseph M. Johnson, Ph.D., P.E.
Mentor
Team #88, TJ2

Last edited by Joe Johnson : 31-01-2007 at 11:45.