Go to Post ...I tried to pump it up to the 47 inches. I stopped around 42 inches, than tried getting it through a 36" door. It got stuck, I proceeded to dropkick the thing in front of my team and a girl I had gone out with the previous Fri. It didn't move, I hit the floor. Ouch, my pride. - ChrisMcK2186 [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Technical > Pneumatics
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-02-2011, 19:45
PAR_WIG1350's Avatar
PAR_WIG1350 PAR_WIG1350 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Alan Wells
FRC #1350 (Rambots)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,190
PAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Solution: Variable position of cylinder in compliance with <R74>

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboman01 View Post
1: Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

2: That makes sense, but the system will not be as authoritative in its movements, if you're varying the pressure, and therefore, the output force.

3: If you're entirely set of using the adjustable regulator, why not go with an electronic one? That would cut down on your overall weight immensely. Also, my team is not measuring the extent of the cylinder directly; rather, we're actuating an arm. The arm has an encoder at the joint, which obviously measures the position of the arm itself. For our purposes, my system will work far more efficiently, since we won't have a variable output force. Also, my system will most likely weigh far less than yours, as we don't need a motor, gearbox, or secondary regulator. This is important, at least for my team, since we are within a few pounds of the limit.

4: Actually, my system could possibly be easier to program for, at least, in my team's application. For us, we either need the valve in one extreme or the other, or simply off. Also, we can gain higher positioning accuracy without any extra electronics, other than the single encoder on the joint of the arm. In order to make sure that you are positioned correctly, you would need both an encoder/potentiometer on the regulator, as well as an encoder/potentiometer on the arm, assuming you're using this for an arm.
Why would you need 2 encoders/pots? One for the regulator would be sufficient. Also, the additional motor is offset by the deletion of the solenoid (at least from th electrical and software systems). I don't know if it would be legal to get rid of it completely or not.

Our team also has only one position sensing device on the arm, but then again, we aren't attempting variable positioning with pneumatic actuators anywhere on our robot.

Additionally, I may prefer my method over alternatives for variable positioning of pneumatic actuators, but I also prefer motors over pneumatics .
__________________
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:18.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi