Any restrictions on engines?

[Brandon Zalinsky]

Originally Posted by squirrel

That's what I did.

But not on the robot.

image

that sound... It's beautiful

[Camren]

Originally Posted by GBK

Go with a Big Block. The torque is awesome and you cant beat the sound of a built Big Block with a high lift cam and some open headers. A blower would be a nice addition as well.

Good luck getting past the inspector.

Drops a overhauled 350 into a robot chassis but there isnt room for a manipulator and inspection is a pain.
# FIRST world problems

[JesseK]

Wait! Wait! You guys are totally missing the obvious FRC legal engine! It runs on compressed air. This is a fun thought exercise since the GDC doesn't put any direct restrictions on it except for weight, volume, and the restrictions on the source of the compressed air (the only FRC-legal compressors, powered by FRC-legal batteries).

I'm sure we could make a drive train, lift, arm, rollers, or some mechanism "move" using it! The utility of such an engine is up to the designer -- who are we to mock it given that we haven't gone through the exercise?

I'm thinking of a robot that looks like the amalgamation of balloons in the movie "Up", where the team has to start filling the tanks as soon as they get to competition and then continue filling the tanks at every spare moment so they don't run out of air during two back-to-back matches. Maybe that's a bit far-fetched; maybe it won't take as much air.

If anything, it may make a cool Hybrid approach to the drive train: extra "boost" in a pushing match for a single-speed robot that's geared for 11ft/s. Maybe it's worth the weight to an outside-the-box type of team; maybe it's not.

[MichaelBick]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Wait! Wait! You guys are totally missing the obvious FRC legal engine! It runs on compressed air. This is a fun thought exercise since the GDC doesn't put any direct restrictions on it except for weight, volume, and the restrictions on the source of the compressed air (the only FRC-legal compressors, powered by FRC-legal batteries).

I'm sure we could make a drive train, lift, arm, rollers, or some mechanism "move" using it! The utility of such an engine is up to the designer -- who are we to mock it given that we haven't gone through the exercise?

I'm thinking of a robot that looks like the amalgamation of balloons in the movie "Up", where the team has to start filling the tanks as soon as they get to competition and then continue filling the tanks at every spare moment so they don't run out of air during two back-to-back matches. Maybe that's a bit far-fetched; maybe it won't take as much air.

If anything, it may make a cool Hybrid approach to the drive train: extra "boost" in a pushing match for a single-speed robot that's geared for 11ft/s. Maybe it's worth the weight to an outside-the-box type of team; maybe it's not.

I actually thought of that a while ago and did some research on it. What I decided was that I didn't think it was worth it because you couldn't get actuators to fire fast(solenoids to slow) enough to get up to a reasonable rpm.

[Nuttyman54]

Non-electrical stored energy devices for power in FRC are always interesting thought exercises. I always wanted to design a pneumatic or clockwork robot, relying solely on compressed air or springs/weights respectively. It would be horribly limited and probably not very competetive, but a killer design challenge. Steampunk FRC anyone?

[GBK]

Originally Posted by Camren

Drops a overhauled 350 into a robot chassis but there isnt room for a manipulator and inspection is a pain.
# FIRST world problems

Nothing wrong with that high rev horsepower from that small block.. But I will take the wheel spinning heavy car moving torque of that big block any day.

[Conor Walsh]

I built a small pneumatic motor in my Manufacturing class. There is a hole in the main plate that puts air into the cylinder block, pushing the piston out. Just below the air hole is an exhaust hole which bleeds the air out and cycles the system.
Here is the videohttp://youtu.be/j8ucVcNfovk
A couple problems:
The system is really dirty and needs constant oil, and constant maintenance
It doesn't have much torque, at all...
Wobbles a lot, which is why it is nicknamed the Wobbler. Its not too stable

Some good things:
Goes really fast, about 3000 RPM at 30 psi
It just sips air, as far as I can tell it really doesn't use up that much air

This is just an example of a motor, not powered by electric motors, that can be theoretically run on an FRC bot. No solenoids, no electronics, just some air and a really fast and weak motor. It is all made of 6061, besides the crank disk which is brass (Ran out of aluminum stock), and can be made by hand with no CNC, although some was used to make my life easier .

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by GBK

Go with a Big Block. The torque is awesome and you cant beat the sound of a built Big Block with a high lift cam and some open headers. A blower would be a nice addition as well.

Good luck getting past the inspector.

Yep, the weight might not work out...

An Engine converts pressure differentials into mechanical energy, a motor uses electricity exclusively. My humble definition, anyway.

[Camren]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Yep, the weight might not work out...

An Engine converts pressure differentials into mechanical energy, a motor uses electricity exclusively. My humble definition, anyway.

I wouldn't say a motor uses only electricity. There is a lot of magnetism involved motors. As my physics teacher would say motors run off of EnM Electricity n Magnetism

[kws4000]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

A steam or sterling engine would burn some material which would then heat water. On the other hand, I do like the idea of a pressure change being used to do work as part if the definition. That's probbably a more widely acceptable definition.

Electricity could be considered a heat scource.

Back in the 1930s/1940s, in Switzerland, the railways put electric heaters in steam locomotive fireboxes, added pantographs, and turned them into short distance, no-pollution shunters. they did this due to the relative abundance of electricity, lack of coal, and long waiting line for a usable electric locomotive design.

[Alan Anderson]

I propose that there's no clear and unambiguous distinction between engines and motors. In my own usage, engines generally produce power, and motors produce motion. There is obviously overlap between the two.

[Saberbot]

Originally Posted by MICHAELABICK

I actually thought of that a while ago and did some research on it. What I decided was that I didn't think it was worth it because you couldn't get actuators to fire fast(solenoids to slow) enough to get up to a reasonable rpm.

Outside of a the legal pneumatic rules, it would really bee cool to see a Tesla turbine used in place of an electric motor.

No valves necessary! And some easily constructed ones have a similar output speed to a banebots motor (no idea about torque though)

Either way, it seems pretty inefficient, but it's an interesting idea.

[Camren]

Originally Posted by Saberbot

Outside of a the legal pneumatic rules, it would really bee cool to see a Tesla turbine used in place of an electric motor.

No valves necessary! And some easily constructed ones have a similar output speed to a banebots motor (no idea about torque though)

Either way, it seems pretty inefficient, but it's an interesting idea.

I had thought of that then I realized how much air can a robot produce in order to keep it in motion.

[MichaelBick]

If you had a bunch of the plastic tanks, it may not be such a problem after all. Each tank charges up to 120 psi, but I'm sure running the turbine on 60 psi would be adequate for FRC. Especially if you use the turbine very little, you could get by in an FRC match.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Can we use the batteries as counterweight? Or maybe the pneumatic storage tanks (as long as they're not painted)?

And yet... the new clippards come with a sticker on them, but we can't put stickers on them