Team 319 - Single Mechanism Collect and Throw

[Joe Derrick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpayi...ature=youtu.be

Any thoughts?

[AllenGregoryIV]

This is pretty clever.

I don't know how simple it is if it needs a 5 minute video to explain and involves concentric shafts and more than one ratchet.

Thanks for the videos, I really hopes this works well for you, as this is definitely a unique mechanism.

[rwkling1]

It's an interesting idea, the one thing that I would be worried about would be the springs. They are legal, but we purposely avoided them because we knew safety inspectors wouldn't really like them.

[karomata]

This is an awesome idea. I can't believe I didn't come up this idea when designing. It's so simple yet so effective!

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by rwkling1

It's an interesting idea, the one thing that I would be worried about would be the springs. They are legal, but we purposely avoided them because we knew safety inspectors wouldn't really like them.

could you explain that please?

[BrendanB]

Neat idea. I remember a similar concept used by 1276 back in 2008.

One thing I remember from watching that robot was how is the shooter was influenced by movements of the drivebase. Throw your prototype on a robot and see what happens when you shoot while driving. You may not want to shoot while driving but what will happen when you shoot and someone hits you?

Just some ideas to consider.

[rwkling1]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

could you explain that please?

This is at least what my mentors told me. Using a spring is fine by the standards of the rules, but they're not necessarily liked by safety inspectors, depending on the size. Small ones are fine, but when you get large and strong springs it becomes questionable.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by rwkling1

This is at least what my mentors told me. Using a spring is fine by the standards of the rules, but they're not necessarily liked by safety inspectors, depending on the size. Small ones are fine, but when you get large and strong springs it becomes questionable.

We used them back in 2010 and had no problems.

[rwkling1]

Originally Posted by dodar

We used them back in 2010 and had no problems.

How large and strong were they?

[Nate Laverdure]

Originally Posted by rwkling1

Small ones are fine, but when you get large and strong springs it becomes questionable.

You're right insofar as more stored energy invites a more detailed inspection. However, the burden of proof is always on your team to demonstrate to your inspectors that your design is safe. If you can design within this constraint, you can use any size spring you want.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

We will be looking to see that the stored energy cannot be released by bumping into the robot or a misplaced hand by field support or MC. Safety FIRST please.

[rwkling1]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

You're right insofar as more stored energy invites a more detailed inspection. However, the burden of proof is always on your team to demonstrate to your inspectors that your design is safe. If you can design within this constraint, you can use any size spring you want.

Exactly, I agree. We just do our best to stay away from springs because we know that it will bring on a more detailed inspection, like you said.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by rwkling1

How large and strong were they?

This is the best photo I could find showing the size of springs we used. They were pretty huge. At full stroke, we could kick the ball the length of the field and hit the mid-point of the alliance station back in 2010.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by rwkling1

This is at least what my mentors told me. Using a spring is fine by the standards of the rules, but they're not necessarily liked by safety inspectors, depending on the size. Small ones are fine, but when you get large and strong springs it becomes questionable.

Like Nate said, design your robot to be safe. Inspectors will not allow unsafe robots to pass inspection when it comes to those robot mechanisms that require the inspectors opinion to pass. If you can demonstrate the system is safe, reliable, and will not dry fire when bumped/touched you should be just fine. Make sure you can release the stored energy when you need to and when your robot is chilling in your pit, que line, or really anywhere you don't need to launch a ball don't keep energy in the system.

We intend that our shooter can have the energy released quickly, safely from the system, and could even start the match without stored energy/tensioned springs.

[Joe Derrick]

I think we are planning on using the Surgical Tubing that was supplied in the KOP.
Interesting thought about shooting while robot is moving. I am looking forward to putting it on a bot and testing it.

[sanddrag]

The discussion in this thread has me slightly worried, not about our design, but about the standard of "safe" varying between inspectors and between events. We've seen this in the past with things like chain guards or spinning wheel guards.

Is there a universal standard that can be set for the burden of proof that a mechanism is safe? Is it simply "make sure a positive action is needed to fire, and there is no chance of misfire" ? That's good enough for me.

What I would not want to happen is for a mechanism to be deemed illegal when an inspector's opinion is that it is not safe. That's not a good way to go about this. Thoughts?