View Single Post
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-02-2008, 22:07
purduephotog purduephotog is offline
Active Defense Design Engineer
AKA: Jason
FRC #3015
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 162
purduephotog is a jewel in the roughpurduephotog is a jewel in the roughpurduephotog is a jewel in the roughpurduephotog is a jewel in the rough
Send a message via AIM to purduephotog
Re: Q&A response - new interpretation of R16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdeaver View Post
The 80" rule is very restrictive. So far our team has worked out the bottom part of the arm geometry and extend out a maximum of 76". To get the top part to be with in is the hard part. If we get it right it should be about 79". To get to this point has given our team lots of problems. So much to do and so little time.
Same here.

We're weak on mentors- very little mech Eng, very little programming... great machinists though! This year we were going to experiment with a 4 bar- team put it to a vote and it won- and then the design headaches started.

I guess (from today's build session) we've scrapped the 4 bar and now have a simple arm that just goes up.

Oh, and square holes are easy:http://www.hartvilletool.com/product/11429
__________________
http://purduephotog.deviantart.com
Portrait Photography: "I used to say Immortalized in Silver, but now I say Captured and Squeezed by Electrons".