|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lots of Wheels and F = u x N
Posted by Michael "Special K" Krass at 1/25/2001 3:24 PM EST
Other on team #271, Mechanical Marauders, from Bay Shore High School and Verizon. In Reply to: Lots of Wheels and F = u x N Posted by Ernie P on 1/25/2001 9:41 AM EST: > What you've written above is the formula for the force of friction alone. The total propulsion force, as you call it, is actually the sum of the forces in the horizontal direction. That's made of several components. Force of Wheels On Carpet = a vague definition for the forces at work, but it can and will get ridiculously complicated. Force of friction = m * g * u, where m is the mass of the robot, g is (9.8 m/s^2), and u is mu, the coefficient of friction. Treating the entire robot as a point object (which just makes life easier, even though it's not entirely accurate), we see that: the force of the wheels on the carpet - the force of friction = propulsion force > The normal force is affected by the addition of wheels only in that you're increasing the mass of the robot, and consequently, increasing friction. You're also adding additional friction to the system along the new bearing surfaces that additional wheels provide. However, the additional surface area provided by additional wheels can be advantageous in that in increases tractive effort, can sometimes just look really cool. It's just a matter of weighing the pros and cons. Additional wheels can mean more traction, in more places. That's good. But, it can also make a robot a lot harder to turn, increase friction a bit. That's why a tank tread design seems to be so popular. It allows for a large surface area to be in contact with the floor, with increased tractive benefits that far outweigh the added friction (in most cases . . . ask me about that some other time). But, with a curved or pointed bottom surface, it also facilitates fast rotation at a single point, rather than along the 3' length of the robot. Anyway, I hope my ramblings are a bit useful. Really, I do, because I really dislike physics and wouldn't want my efforts to be for naught. ~ Michael ~ |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| What do you use for wheels? | Andrew | Technical Discussion | 36 | 08-01-2004 10:20 |
| Good or bad: back wheels coming off the ground | Gui Cavalcanti | Technical Discussion | 2 | 17-03-2002 22:09 |
| "Motors and Drive train edition" of Fresh From the Forum | Ken Leung | CD Forum Support | 6 | 29-01-2002 12:32 |
| Question about wheels | Randy_Ai | Technical Discussion | 9 | 24-01-2002 17:14 |
| Skyway wheels w/o bearings | ahecht | Technical Discussion | 4 | 22-01-2002 01:25 |