Pneumatic Regulators from Automation Direct

[ShaneP]

Originally Posted by only1chip

1. How much weight could these parts save on your robot? Be as exact as possible, don’t forget the brass fittings that are no longer needed. We list the ‘packaged weight’ of the two parts above at 0.1lbs each – but I expect there is some rounding error there – maybe someone here on CD can help with a more exact figure??

2. What other AutomationDirect parts have you used on an FRC Robot (this year or previous)? Please include a link to the part on our webstore.

3. Your shipping address (if you are uncomfortable posting this publicly – you can PM me)

Chip

Hello Chip,

1. We will save around .6 lbs switching to these pneumatic components
2. We have used these solenoids for higher flow rates on our pneumatic shooter in 2014: AVS-5211-24D and these other components TU14, UT14, UY14, HVU14-2.
3. Will PM you. Thanks!

[silverD]

Hey Chip!

1. Automation Direct parts saved us about 1/2 pound. We might swap over to the small regulator too.

2. We used the pressure gauge. We also used 3/4" x 10" stroke cylinders for our catapult and a 7/16" bore x 2" for our boulder ejection for low goal. The vent plug works great as well.

3. Will PM address

Thanks again to Automation Direct!
Nate

[lnex1357]

Originally Posted by only1chip

Woot, Woot!!!

A BIG THANKS TO FIRST for clarifying the rules to 'officially' allow the use of our excellent (and super lightweight) regulator!

To celebrate, AutomationDirect would like to give way 10 sets of the regulator and matching gauge to 10 deserving FRC teams:

PRU14 REGULATOR 15-120 PSI 1/4in TUBE CONNECTIONS INLINE $20.25
PGU14 PRESSURE GAUGE 0-170 PSI 1/4in TUBE CONNECTIONS INLINE $17.75


So, the first 10 teams to tell us the following three things (in this thread) will win the parts:

1. How much weight could these parts save on your robot? Be as exact as possible, don’t forget the brass fittings that are no longer needed. We list the ‘packaged weight’ of the two parts above at 0.1lbs each – but I expect there is some rounding error there – maybe someone here on CD can help with a more exact figure??

2. What other AutomationDirect parts have you used on an FRC Robot (this year or previous)? Please include a link to the part on our webstore.

3. Your shipping address (if you are uncomfortable posting this publicly – you can PM me)


Please note that IF you haven’t used your AutomationDirect $30 voucher yet (instructions are here) – THEN you could actually purchase this same pair of parts for only $8 plus shipping. See Rick’s post above to learn how to qualify for our FREE two-day FedEx shipping.

And note that ALL voucher orders include a FREE tubing cutter… great for getting a clean, square cut on your pneumatic tubing, and preventing leaks!

THANKS AGAIN FIRST!

Chip

Good Afternoon Chip

1) We will save about 1lb using the suggested parts.
2)We have been buying all of our quick connect tubing fittings from automation direct for the past 2 years because they are cheaper and lighter than the ones from McMaster. In addition we have been buying all our gauges the past couple years from automation direct.
3) 101 Groton Long Point Rd. Groton, CT 06340

[only1chip]

OK, I count 12 replies to the contest at this point - I'm going to cut it off here.

I have names and addresses for the free parts shipping to: FRC #1678, FRC #3847, FRC #0125, FRC #2848, FRC #0254, FRC #0558, FRC #5188, FRC #0294, FRC #0271, FRC #0330, FRC #2052, FRC #2168. Let me know if I missed anybody.

We will get the parts shipped tomorrow - teams should receive them next week.

But please note what I said about purchasing these parts WITH your AutomationDirect Voucher - it would only be $8 plus shipping.

Chip

[martin417]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

I am an LRI and I'm saying that R77 G was put in place to allow quick exhaust valves. I agree the wording isn't perfect but that was the intent of the rule to my knowledge and how I will be enforcing it.

Then would you also allow these valves? They contain check valves, but one is a flow control valve, and one is a shuttle valve. There is no rule that specifically allows a flow control (unless it was in a previous year's KOP, and there were some) or a shuttle valve (yes, you could make one from two check valves and a tee). The rule says only the items listed below can be used, and I don't see a listing for quick exhaust valves, flow control valves, or shuttle valves. I am sure there are many other valve types that contain check valves that could be found as well.

I am not arguing against quick exhaust valves, I love them, and have had many application in FIRST where I would liked to have used them, but the way the rules are written, I don't see an interpretation that allows them. remember what the manual says about intent:

The intent of this manual is that the text means exactly, and only, what it says. Please avoid interpreting the text based on assumptions about intent, implementation of past rules, or how a situation might be in “real life.” There are no hidden requirements or restrictions. If you’ve read everything, you know everything.
Reply With Quote

[only1chip]

I would also like to apologize to those of you who were still discussing important FRC business here on this thread, I didn't mean to hijack it... Well Ok, maybe I did ;-) but I thought the main points had all been settled...

We offer quick exhaust valves too, if it is determined that they can be used!

Chip

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by martin417

Then would you also allow these valves? They contain check valves, but one is a flow control valve, and one is a shuttle valve. There is no rule that specifically allows a flow control (unless it was in a previous year's KOP, and there were some) or a shuttle valve (yes, you could make one from two check valves and a tee).

Do you have an example product page and specification sheet? I'm not familiar with either of these and would probably call Al or HQ at the event to get a ruling, from talking to HQ already I know that the quick exhaust valves are legal. (unless they decide to change what they have communicated to LRIs, which they can do like with the regulators)

[martin417]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

Do you have an example product page and specification sheet? I'm not familiar with either of these and would probably call Al or HQ at the event to get a ruling, from talking to HQ already I know that the quick exhaust valves are legal. (unless they decide to change what they have communicated to LRIs, which they can do like with the regulators)

The whole point of my argument is to try to eliminate poorly written rules. If the GDC wants to make quick exhaust valves legal, then they should add quick exhaust valves to the list of allowed pneumatic parts, not add check valves and believe that teams will read that as quick exhaust valves.

They say they don't want teams to try to figure out the intent, only look at exactly what is written. Under a strict interpretation, the rules say quick exhaust valves are not legal, but a LRI says "I know they are legal, that's what they meant". How is a team supposed to know what they meant? Why not be clear in the first place?

Edit: removed incorrect statements

I don't mean to be a stickler or PITA, but it is very important for the rules to be explicit and clear, with no ambiguity.


As for the two valve types I mentioned, here are some data sheets

Flow control

shuttle valve

[Sparky3D]

Originally Posted by martin417

...
And why not specifically list flow control valves?
...

Maybe I'm missing something, but flow control valves are specifically listed as being allowed:

R77
F. Pressure transducers, pressure gauges, passive flow control valves (specifically “needle
valve”), manifolds, and connecting fittings,

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Sparky3D

Maybe I'm missing something, but flow control valves are specifically listed as being allowed:

My bad, I missed that. the rest of my point still stands.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by martin417

The whole point of my argument is to try to eliminate poorly written rules. If the GDC wants to make quick exhaust valves legal, then they should add quick exhaust valves to the list of allowed pneumatic parts, not add check valves and believe that teams will read that as quick exhaust valves.

They say they don't want teams to try to figure out the intent, only look at exactly what is written. Under a strict interpretation, the rules say quick exhaust valves are not legal, but a LRI says "I know they are legal, that's what they meant". How is a team supposed to know what they meant? Why not be clear in the first place?

Edit: removed incorrect statements

I don't mean to be a stickler or PITA, but it is very important for the rules to be explicit and clear, with no ambiguity.


As for the two valve types I mentioned, here are some data sheets

Flow control

shuttle valve

On that you and I are in complete agreement. I got all bumpers banded for a little while a couple years ago because of the mission to make properly written rules. Looking at the shuttle valve you mentioned if it's plumbed in a way that meets the rules for check valves, I would allow it and seek further guidance from HQ/Al on the specific situation. In this case anyone can Q&A and ask specifically if quick exhaust valves are considered check valves by the GDC. I believe that they are and have been instructed to enforce it in that manner, if I was using one on my robot I'd probably ask in the Q&A just to be sure and have proof in case another RI or LRI doesn't see it the same way.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

On that you and I are in complete agreement. I got all bumpers banded for a little while a couple years ago because of the mission to make properly written rules. Looking at the shuttle valve you mentioned if it's plumbed in a way that meets the rules for check valves, I would allow it and seek further guidance from HQ/Al on the specific situation. In this case anyone can Q&A and ask specifically if quick exhaust valves are considered check valves by the GDC. I believe that they are and have been instructed to enforce it in that manner, if I was using one on my robot I'd probably ask in the Q&A just to be sure and have proof in case another RI or LRI doesn't see it the same way.

Q&A has consistently refused to rule a part legal unless it's recommended or mandated. You'll probably have better luck if you word the question to ask if the function of the part is consistent with a short list of rules, with reference to your part as an example of one that performs the function.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Q&A has consistently refused to rule a part legal unless it's recommended or mandated. You'll probably have better luck if you word the question to ask if the function of the part is consistent with a short list of rules, with reference to your part as an example of one that performs the function.

Here is the exact question and answer from (edit) 2014:

Q34
Q
.Is a quick release valve, such as the one sold by Bimba (part number 1BQEV), considered a flow
control valve, and thus a legal pneumatic component per Rule 77 (F)?
A
.Quick Exhaust Valves are not included on the list of permitted items in R77

Which is the basis for my argument. They are still not included in the list of permitted items, but we are being told by a LRI that they are legal because check valves are now in the list.

[GeeTwo]

R77 was about the pressure switch last year; I presume the 2015 question was about R66 (F).

I just asked Q926:

Q. Is a quick release valve or quick exhaust valve, such as the ones sold by Bimba (#1BQEV), or Automation Direct (QEU14) considered a check valve, and thus a legal pneumatic component under R77 (G), provided other rules are also met?

I agree with Martin that the answer should be no. Check valves have two ports, QEVs have three. I don't see any way to plumb a check valve to make it into a QEV, either.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

R77 was about the pressure switch last year; I presume the 2015 question was about R66 (F).
.....

Sorry, the Q&A was from 2014, here is a link...

Look down for question Q34