pic: In-Line Pneumatic Fittings

[Kellen Hill]

loading photo ...

[Chris_Elston]

We used this SAME setup on our robot "Team THRUST 1501". The net savings in weight is about 0.3 lbs per using the Norgren Regulator. We tested it in our practice robot for 8 weeks with no issues.

[Thad House]

Anybody know where we can find the pressure ratings? I'm sure they are legal, but inspectors like the see that kind of stuff, and I can't find it on their website. But these do look really awesome. Especially with those U fittings they sell, we could make a much lighter and smaller setup.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by Thad House

Anybody know where we can find the pressure ratings? I'm sure they are legal, but inspectors like the see that kind of stuff, and I can't find it on their website. But these do look really awesome. Especially with those U fittings they sell, we could make a much lighter and smaller setup.

This is the spec sheet from the automation direct website.

http://www.automationdirect.com/stat...linegauges.pdf

[Mark Sheridan]

I have used these too, they are fantastic. Very happy they are a bit orange to o.

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

This is the spec sheet from the automation direct website.

http://www.automationdirect.com/stat...linegauges.pdf

I saw that, but for me as an inspector the gauge would pass probably, because it says 170, but the regulator might not, because it only says 120. I'm sure we could get actual maximum pressure specs from them, but that sheet wouldn't be enough.

[Jeff Pahl]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

This is the spec sheet from the automation direct website.

http://www.automationdirect.com/stat...linegauges.pdf

And the spec sheet only says that it regulates from 15-120 PSI. Based on that, it does not meet the 125 PSI requirement in the 2015 rules. I know it passed inspection this year, but that does not mean it should have...

Looks like a fantastic part, and the sort of thing I hope we see more of (if it's legal). My advice would be to file it away for future reference, and wait to see if it's determined to be legal in the future. I hope it is, I want to use it on my robot.

Insert standard disclaimer here about all previous year's rules not applying in all future years

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by Jeff Pahl

Insert standard disclaimer here about all previous year's rules not applying in all future years

It's that time of year again!

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by Jeff Pahl

And the spec sheet only says that it regulates from 15-120 PSI. Based on that, it does not meet the 125 PSI requirement in the 2015 rules. I know it passed inspection this year, but that does not mean it should have...

Looks like a fantastic part, and the sort of thing I hope we see more of (if it's legal). My advice would be to file it away for future reference, and wait to see if it's determined to be legal in the future. I hope it is, I want to use it on my robot.

Insert standard disclaimer here about all previous year's rules not applying in all future years

I think I'm going to send an email to them, and ask them to add the maximum pressure rating to the spec sheet. I'm sure its higher then 120psi, since it can regulate down to that. There's a similar one on McMaster that should work, and it says 150 maximum, so it would be legal. 8844K11

[EricH]

I assume that this is a relieving regulator, is that correct? If it isn't, I'm going to have to concur on the "maybe shouldn't have passed inspection" crowd. If it is, I think I'll pass the info on to my team...

[Jeff Pahl]

Originally Posted by Thad House

I think I'm going to send an email to them, and ask them to add the maximum pressure rating to the spec sheet. I'm sure its higher then 120psi, since it can regulate down to that. There's a similar one on McMaster that should work, and it says 150 maximum, so it would be legal. 8844K11

I'm going to be emailing Rick Folea on Monday to ask him that. It just so happens that it's a small world, and a long time ago in another place and time we used to work together

[orangemoore]

Does this even pass rule 66 G?

R66 The only pneumatic system items permitted on 2015 FRC ROBOTS include the items listed below.
A. Items available in the KOP (except as noted in I),
B. Pneumatic pressure vent plug valves functionally equivalent to those provided in the KOP,
C. Solenoid valves with a maximum 1/8 in. NPT port diameter,
D. Solenoid valves that are rated for a maximum rated pressure that is less than 125 psi rating mandated above are permitted,
however if employed, an additional pressure relief valve must be added to the low pressure side of the main regulator. The
additional relief valve must be set to a lower pressure than the maximum pressure rating for the solenoid valve,
E. Additional pneumatic tubing, with a maximum 0.160 in. inside diameter, functionally equivalent to that provided in the KOP,
F. Pressure transducers, pressure gauges, passive flow control valves (specifically “needle valves”), manifolds, and
connecting fittings,
G. Pressure regulators with a maximum outlet pressure of no more than 60 psi,
H. Pneumatic cylinders,
I. Pneumatic storage tanks (with the exception of White Clippard tanks P/N: AVT-PP-41), and
J. Compressors compliant with R68.

[TheHolyHades1]

Is it worth using these type of fittings when the brass fittings do a good job in serving as a heatsink for the compressors?

[BBray_T1296]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

Does this even pass rule 66 G?

The KOP regulators have the capability of regulating higher pressure than 60PSI if you set them to.

[Dunngeon]

Originally Posted by TheHolyHades1

Is it worth using these type of fittings when the brass fittings do a good job in serving as a heatsink for the compressors?

It's not that they serve as a heat sink for the compressor, but that they dissipate heat before it melts the tubing. In any case, weightloss anywhere on the robot is very good, and you won't melt tubing on a competition bot because of the short run times

So yes, if both components are legal then it's worth it to us (and many others)