60 second set-up / pack-up time?

[TDav540]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Quick release pins are the bomb.net

Drop in the zone, use the "super-square" I need to make this weekend, drop and lock the back arms, flip the front arms. It can probably be done in 60 seconds. Probably.

Sounds interesting. I can't wait to see what you guys have been up to at Virginia!

Our team requires four pins and two bolts. Attaches our arms to the main gripper plate. Everything else is well contained within the robot.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

Realizing it the LRI at the competition that will be making the ultimate call...
When using a "flow control valve" as a "blocking valve" it ceases being a "flow control valve" and is no longer legal. While not even predicting if the GDC would answer a question about this, the logic is similar to what they used in the past.

Using a quick connect fitting is a good idea, but they are essential check valves which are not legal. Of course if it is considered to be an integral part of an legally allowed connecting fitting...

Why is a flow control valve not allowed to limit the flow to 0? Can you specify a rule that says it may not? Are you saying that these are not legal, since they can also completely block flow?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Why is a flow control valve not allowed to limit the flow to 0? Can you specify a rule that says it may not? Are you saying that these are not legal, since they can also completely block flow?

Those are flow control valves and are legal.
If you used a ball shut off valve, then it would NOT be legal.

The rules are very specific on this.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Why is a flow control valve not allowed to limit the flow to 0? Can you specify a rule that says it may not? Are you saying that these are not legal, since they can also completely block flow?

The device itself can be a legal part, even while its use violates a rule. For example, CIMs and Spikes are legal, but if you use one to control the other your robot is not. If you use a flow control valve to completely isolate a portion of your pneumatic system, you are not in compliance with R78.

[TheStrategyGuy]

Originally Posted by Sohaib

Ours is a decent job, hooking up Anderson Powerpoles, adding bolts, quick release pins, and connecting pneumatic tubing. We developed a procedure for the drive-team to follow, all 4 drive team members are doing something.

One does the drivestation and selects autonomous, second, attaches the left side of our intake, third does right side. This includes one Powerpole and one pneumatic tube each, in addition to 4 bolts and 4 quick release pins.

The coach runs a quick checklist at the end to make sure everything is done. With a few practice runs, we can do this in 48 seconds.

When you say hooking up Anderson Powerpoles, this this imply you are using a powergun, such as a modified power drill with electrical leads and anderson connectors to energize a mechanism back into the transport configuration?

Doesnt seem like this would be allowed per G14 and the definition of tethering given:

G14 ROBOTS will not be re-enabled after the conclusion of the MATCH, nor will Teams be permitted to tether to the ROBOT.
Tethering includes any wired connection used to electrically energize and/or control elements on the ROBOT.

Also from the answer of Q329/216 from the Q&A:

Q329: Our team has modified an battery operated variable speed drill so that it has Anderson connectors. All our robot motors also use Anderson connectors, so our modified drill can drive motors on the robot without robot power. Do customized battery powered hand tools like ours meet the definition of "battery powered hand tools" under rule G9?

A329: We believe Q216 may answer your question. If not, please let us know.

Q216: Concerning Q205 If the robot has a multipin connector in the power lines to a motor, can a control box be plugged in to actuate a mechanism after a match? Ie: once the driver control is disabled, can a team member walk onto the field with a handheld control box that they connect to the robot that then allows them to electrically retract a mechanism?

A216: No, per G14, teams may not tether to their ROBOT after the MATCH, which includes any wired connection used to electrically energize and/or control elements on the ROBOT. Team Update 2015-01-23 will add a Blue Box clarification to G14.

Might need to rethink that if that was the plan

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by TheStrategyGuy

When you say hooking up Anderson Powerpoles, this this imply you are using a powergun, such as a modified power drill with electrical leads and anderson connectors to energize a mechanism back into the transport configuration?

How did you come up with this? It sounds to me like they are simply plugging in the wiring for a motor, which is on a mechanism that gets removed after the match and reinstalled before the next match.

[TheStrategyGuy]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

How did you come up with this? It sounds to me like they are simply plugging in the wiring for a motor, which is on a mechanism that gets removed after the match and reinstalled before the next match.

That may be simply the case, which is why it was a question.

Just dont want to see anyone disappointed when they try to go out on/off the field with a powergun and told they are not allowed to.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by TheStrategyGuy

When you say hooking up Anderson Powerpoles, this this imply you are using a powergun, such as a modified power drill with electrical leads and anderson connectors to energize a mechanism back into the transport configuration?

It seems obvious to me that they are just using the Powerpoles to make an electrical connection between the robot and an actuator on the removeable appendage. I make that inference because the TechnoKats robot has exactly the same thing.

[AllenGregoryIV]

This was discussed this season by some of the LRI's R66 is very clear.

R66
F. Pressure transducers, pressure gauges, passive flow control valves (specifically “needle valves”), manifolds, and
connecting fittings,

Q227 and R78 outlaws using additional vent plugs to stop flow to a system. Since all vent plugs must release pressure to the system in a reasonable time.

Check valves are also illegal.

Q134 Does allow for pluming a solenoid's outputs into a another's input, but warns that the vent plug must always be able to dump all air. I'm not thinking of a simple way to do this. It might be possible for a single solenoid to switch states when it loses pilot pressure and vent the upstream air regardless of state but I'm not sure about that and would need to test it.

Using a needle valve to stop flow seems legal to me at the moment, and I would pass it at an event I was inspecting right now, any other type of valve would be illegal. That could easily change.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Those are flow control valves and are legal.
If you used a ball shut off valve, then it would NOT be legal.

The rules are very specific on this.

Where are they specific on this? I still see no rule saying you cannot limit flow to 0.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The device itself can be a legal part, even while its use violates a rule. For example, CIMs and Spikes are legal, but if you use one to control the other your robot is not. If you use a flow control valve to completely isolate a portion of your pneumatic system, you are not in compliance with R78.

The portion being isolated is exposed to atmosphere while in transport configuration. No pressure is being stored there. The "pressure vent plug" will still be capable of releasing all pressure from the pneumatic system.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by alicen

I think what we'll be looking at more than anything is not being on the field building your robot for 60 seconds longer than everyone else.

If you are not prompt on leaving the field, or once the field is set up, and most of the other teams have cleared, if you are still working on your bot and not finishing up, the Ref's will notice you.

As a RI and a Ref, what I would do is:

Towards the end of practice matches, make a comment to the Driving Team. (think of this as your first warning).

During Qualification matches, make a comment to the LRI and suggest that the robot be reinspected for "Mechanical, End of Match" on the Inspection Check List. The LRI watches matches, so I'm sure it would not take much convincing. (this is your second warning).

The Refs usually eat lunch together and discuss stuff. I'm sure offending robots would be mentioned. If anything happens after this point, the robot has been warned.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Where are they specific on this? I still see no rule saying you cannot limit flow to 0.

As I said, Flow control valves are legal ... even set to completely shut off flow.

That being said, the seats on those valves generally are not designed for repeated shutoffs and will generally start to leak. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

[scca229]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The portion being isolated is exposed to atmosphere while in transport configuration. No pressure is being stored there. The "pressure vent plug" will still be capable of releasing all pressure from the pneumatic system.

At the end of the match, the team member responsible for activating ONE vent plug does so and backs off without touching anything else. Is there ANY position possible for this butterfly valve to be in that causes all of the air in the system to not be vented when opening ONE vent plug? It doesn't matter what the transport configuration is, it matters if it is possible at all on the field when ONE vent plug operation is performed. Stuff happens during a match that can cause unintended operation of components.

I am highlighting ONE vent plug since it seems to be pretty important in its distinction as R67D says, "At least one pressure vent plug," R78, "Any pressure vent plug must be:," R78A, "connected to the pneumatic circuit such that, when manually operated, it will vent to the atmosphere to relieve all stored pressure in a reasonable amount of time". If there is a piece in the system that "can" prevent this, then I would think real hard of another way to accomplish the task.

As FTAA, I have to remind way too many teams during an event as to why their robot doesn't seem to have a working RSL light, or any light for that matter. It is AMAZING how many bot loaders forget to squeeze the breaker to actually power on the thing. That alone would make me say no way to a manual valve in the pneumatic system that must be physically opened when they get to the field if it has a chance of not allowing full venting from ONE plug activation. Haven't taken my RI cert test yet for this year, but I know how I would answer if this question comes up in it.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by scca229

At the end of the match, the team member responsible for activating ONE vent plug does so and backs off without touching anything else. Is there ANY position possible for this butterfly valve to be in that causes all of the air in the system to not be vented when opening ONE vent plug? It doesn't matter what the transport configuration is, it matters if it is possible at all on the field when ONE vent plug operation is performed. Stuff happens during a match that can cause unintended operation of components.

I am highlighting ONE vent plug since it seems to be pretty important in its distinction as R67D says, "At least one pressure vent plug," R78, "Any pressure vent plug must be:," R78A, "connected to the pneumatic circuit such that, when manually operated, it will vent to the atmosphere to relieve all stored pressure in a reasonable amount of time". If there is a piece in the system that "can" prevent this, then I would think real hard of another way to accomplish the task.

As FTAA, I have to remind way too many teams during an event as to why their robot doesn't seem to have a working RSL light, or any light for that matter. It is AMAZING how many bot loaders forget to squeeze the breaker to actually power on the thing. That alone would make me say no way to a manual valve in the pneumatic system that must be physically opened when they get to the field if it has a chance of not allowing full venting from ONE plug activation. Haven't taken my RI cert test yet for this year, but I know how I would answer if this question comes up in it.

If they do not follow the proper procedure for opening/closing valves, yes. However, that would hold true with needle valves used as flow valves as well (which are explicitly stated in the rules as being legal in R66). As mentioned previously, there are legal parts that could segment off a portion of the pneumatic system. Why should a ball valve or butterfly valve be different than a needle valve?

[Jeffrafa]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

If you use a flow control valve to completely isolate a portion of your pneumatic system, you are not in compliance with R78.

I think it is important to highlight a nuance to the flow control valve function that seems to be missing in this thread. Most pneumatic flow control valves (including this in-line one mentioned by Sean) only restrict flow in one direction. For fittings attached directly to actuators, most are meter-out, although you can find meter-in types. For in-line types, its all in which direction you install it.

This means that the air has two pathways inside the valve, flow in one direction is restricted through the adjustable needle valve. In the opposite flow direction, it can either travel back through the needle, or through a separate internal check valve, which is not restricted.

In the case of using one of these flow controls as suggested in this thread, at no time would the needle valve isolate a portion of the circuit, or prevent complete draining of all pressure when the one relief valve is opened. The check valve integral to the flow control would always allow pressure to be drained completely, even if the needle is fully closed. This is fundamentally different from the use of a ball valve.

As Daniel suggested, you may find the needle valve starts to leak after repeated shut-offs. You will also likely find your one-touch fittings leaking after several re-connections, as they are only good for a dozen or so insertions before the tube needs to be cut shorter.

I would also argue that there are better legal ways to accomplish this (such as a single-acting valve at this connection). A main concern I would have with using a flow control valve is that the team should always drain their pressure completely after the match, before attempting to disconnect this mechanism (regardless of closing the needle valve).