View Single Post
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-08-2007, 21:46
lukevanoort lukevanoort is offline
in between teams
AKA: Luke Van Oort
no team
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,873
lukevanoort has a reputation beyond reputelukevanoort has a reputation beyond reputelukevanoort has a reputation beyond reputelukevanoort has a reputation beyond reputelukevanoort has a reputation beyond reputelukevanoort has a reputation beyond reputelukevanoort has a reputation beyond reputelukevanoort has a reputation beyond reputelukevanoort has a reputation beyond reputelukevanoort has a reputation beyond reputelukevanoort has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to lukevanoort
Re: pic: 114 New Gearbox Design

Quote:
Originally Posted by 114ManualLabor View Post
From my basic knowledge, wouldn't the higher torque at lower speeds mean that my gearbox will end up smaller, less weight
I'd be surprised if the weight difference would be that major, and it might even go in the other direction. Since the big chip weighs ~2lbs more than the little one, and you're using aluminum gears/shafts it would seem to me that the weight of another gear reduction or just a larger reduction on the first and/or second reductions isn't that different than the weight difference of the motors.

EDIT: I plugged the numbers into JVN's spreadsheet, and I got the following for the big chip @ 40 A puts out 276W, and the lil chip 275.7W so the difference is barely noticeable. And, yes, I realized the big chip is putting out more power than the peak power rating FIRST supplies, so I ran a quick power calc on the FIRST supplied NLS and stall torque numbers and came up with 285W being the max power of the big cim. So, something is amiss in either FIRSTs numbers or my calcs. I suspect FIRST's numbers are the culprit because using the same calc I got the right peak power for the lil chip.
__________________
Team 1219: 2009 - Mentor
Team 587: 2005 - Animator, 2006-2008 - Team Captain

Last edited by lukevanoort : 19-08-2007 at 23:33.
Reply With Quote