View Single Post
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-01-2008, 19:06
Daniel_LaFleur's Avatar
Daniel_LaFleur Daniel_LaFleur is online now
Mad Scientist
AKA: Me
FRC #2040 (DERT)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 1,972
Daniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to Daniel_LaFleur
Re: Parallel or Series, which is better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtengineering View Post
Whatever the original question was about, this has resulted in a very good discussion of flow rates and bottlenecks in the pneumatics system to which I would like to contribute.

FIRST contends in the Q&A that the diameter of the tubing has been specifically chosen to restrict flow rates in the system, but Daniel's comments have encouraged me to look at some of the specs.

The FESTO valve, for instance, is rated at 14 "cfm"... I presume they mean scfm, which is about the same as the flow rate of the main system regulator. This means that if you are trying to fill a large cylinder quickly, putting two valves in parallel to that cylinder might speed things up a bit, but would mostly transfer the bottleneck right back to the main regulator. You're stuck with a 14 scfm bottleneck either way... which at 60psi works out to something like 100 cubic inches of compressed air per second.

Now let me add a generous quantity of "IMHOs" around here... my thermo and fluids marks at university weren't that great to begin with, and that was 20 years ago, but it seems to me that if the tubing is not the bottleneck that the way to fill a cylinder most quickly would be to put two or three of the clippard tanks downstream of the regulator (and thus only at 60 psi, but past one bottleneck) and use two or three valves in parallel to control the motion of the cylinder. This reduces the total amount of stored energy in the system, but may allow for higher flow rates, albeit for a briefer period of time.

If the tubing was the bottleneck (and my only evidence for that is the GDC's comments in the Q&A... which contradicts both my "gut feeling" and Daniel's assertions, but comes from a usually reliable source) then rather than using say, a 2"x8" cylinder, you could use two 1.5x8" cylinders to get similar force at a higher flow rate.

Or, as others have suggested, you could preload a cylinder by using a longer cylinder than needed, latching it in position, pressurizing it, and then allowing the gas to expand completely free of bottlenecks.

And if you're thinking of doing that, you probably want to make sure you read team update #5 about trackball launcher safety!

Jason
Thank you for pointing me to the spec sheets. I was quite shocked to see the Norgren regulator only has a max flow rate of 14 SCFM, thats very low for a regulator. I guess that teaches me to look for the specs before making assumptions.

We ran tests running 2 festo valves in parallel with the 4 clippard volumes behind the regulator and it actually slowed down our cylinder. This makes sense with the regulator and Valve being series orifices and the "T"s creating non-laminar flow. We then changed back to 1 Festo valve and moved 2 of the clippard volumes to downstream of the regulator and this greatly increased our cylinder speed.

Again, thanks Jason. I hate it when I'm being a dolt
__________________
___________________
"We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. "
- Tennyson, Ulysses