Interesting/Cool Scaling Mechanism Designs

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

It looks like that homebrew compressor was pushing a whole lot more than 1.1 cfm. If you're doing work with air, it's a pneumatic device. (Noted exception for closed cycle air springs.)

Custom Airblowers created from legal motors and fan parts are not constrained by the Pneumatic rules.

If you don't believe me please point to the rule(s) that prove what you are saying.

[bennettj800]

Rule R79:
"Compressed air on the ROBOT must be provided by one and only one compressor. Compressor specifications must not exceed nominal 1.10 cfm flow rate @ 12VDC."

this has already been pointed out...

also, a custom fan blowing a tube up (like a balloon) would be, in any circumstance, a compressor, thereby violating this rule. ergo, the custom fan has got to go if it is actuating something like it is.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by bennettj800

Rule R79:
"Compressed air on the ROBOT must be provided by one and only one compressor. Compressor specifications must not exceed nominal 1.10 cfm flow rate @ 12VDC."

this has already been pointed out...

also, a custom fan blowing a tube up (like a balloon) would be, in any circumstance, a compressor, thereby violating this rule. ergo, the custom fan has got to go if it is actuating something like it is.

For the purpose of FRC, a compressor is a positive displacement device.

Fans are legal per R29:

Hard drive motors or fans that are: included in any Kickoff Kit, distributed via FIRST Choice, part of a legal motor controller (including manufacturer provided accessories), or part of a legal COTS computing device

A fan is a fan, not a compressor. The rule does NOT say "a fan is legal unless you blow it into a tube", so don't try to create rules that don't exist,

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by martin417

For the purpose of FRC, a compressor is a positive displacement device.

What about:

Originally Posted by martin417

don't try to create rules that don't exist

FRC doesn't define a compressor but they do say that there shall be only one source of compressed air, and that it must be rated 1.10cfm or less. I don't remember anything about a positive displacement device in the rules...

[martin417]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

What about:



FRC doesn't define a compressor but they do say that there shall be only one source of compressed air, and that it must be rated 1.10cfm or less. I don't remember anything about a positive displacement device in the rules...

Note: the below is my opinion. I am not on the GDC. For a definitive ruling, submit a question to the GDC.

A fan does not provide compressed air, it provides flow. That is why it is very difficult to even find a rating for delta P for most muffin fans as supplied in the KOP in the past. But I was able to find a rating for for a special "high static pressure" muffin fan for restrictive computer cases. This "high static pressure" fan was able to create a static delta P of .002 PSI when dead-headed.

Fans are listed in the rules under the electrical rules, not the pneumatic rules, for the excellent reason that they are not pneumatic devices.

The Q&A cited earlier was a question about using air from a solenoid valve attached to the pneumatic system, not a fan.

If you are not a member of the GDC, do not cite your opinion as fact (note that I have taken my own advice).

[GeeTwo]

Until and unless the GDC clarifies otherwise, I'll continue to assume that the manuals are written in American English.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Until and unless the GDC clarifies otherwise, I'll continue to assume that the manuals are written in American English.

Can't really argue with that. Of course it really has no bearing on the productive discussion at hand. My admonishment stands: If you are not on the GDC, please do not state your opinion as fact.

Are my bumpers compressors? When my robot is in motion, there is a rise in static pressure across the surface. What about closed cell foam (like pool noodles are made of)? when force is applied to the foam, the pressure inside the cells of the foam is increased. Every time two robots collide or push against each other they are creating air pressure inside the closed cell foam far in excess of anything that could be produced by a muffin fan.

The pneumatic system rules are very clear. Fans are not mentioned, in English or any other language.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Until and unless the GDC clarifies otherwise, I'll continue to assume that the manuals are written in American English.

What are you even talking about? Like, honestly, this post makes absolutely no sense. No one said anything about what language to read the manual in, or the definitions of words.

The Manual allows fans, both electronics muffin fans and fans powered by FRC motors. A cloth bag placed over a fan is not containing compressed air - it's just containing air. The bag restricts flow of the air somewhat but it is not airtight - the bag does not stay even close to inflated the second the air is cut.

These rules have been the same for years, and in previous years the GDC has explicitly allowed mechanisms just like these. There's substantial historical precedent for these mechanisms (see blockers in 2013, similar hanging mechanisms in 2010, etc). You can't state your opinion as certain fact and then refuse to listen to anyone else's view unless the GDC says so. You're applying different levels of scrutiny to yourself versus others.

[bkahl]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Until and unless the GDC clarifies otherwise, I'll continue to assume that the manuals are written in American English.

Do the Canadians get this in Canadian English?

What about those Aussies?

And we can't forget the Hawaiians!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously Gus, your logic just isn't there.
From my understanding...
If my dump valve happens to dump air into a Versatube somewhere on my robot because its mounted near that, I guess that's part of the pnuematics system now?

Introducing the new VEX Versatube with new PNEUMATIC Features!

What about the 2013 blocker I remember 116 having at IRI?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by bkahl

What about the 2013 blocker I remember 116 having at IRI?

To be fair, I wouldn't make the assumption that a device added specifically for an off-season event that doesn't have an inspection process is legal.

[scottandme]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

To be fair, I wouldn't make the assumption that a device added specifically for an off-season event that doesn't have an inspection process is legal.

869 ran one in-season during 2013. It was deemed legal after being added for elims at TCNJ (after being red carded for failing to get it re-inspected). I don't recall if they continued to run it during their later 2013 events.

[Justin Ridley]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

To be fair, I wouldn't make the assumption that a device added specifically for an off-season event that doesn't have an inspection process is legal.

This blocker was built by 118 to add to a 3rd robot at champs. With 4039's help we installed it on their robot and passed supplemental inspection. It was planned for use in the division finals against full court shooters (until the eventual champions knocked us out.). It finally got to see some use at IRI.

This was an off the shelf fan, with model airplane propellers, run by a 775, inflating a custom sewn bag. I never would have called this a pneumatic device and it was never questioned as such.

During this year’s brainstorming, this blocker was brought up as possible way to deliver a hook to the bar. I honestly didn’t foresee it working, and love that 4060 pulled it off… it brought an immediate smile to my face when I saw the video. Great job.

[llamadon]

Originally Posted by Justin Ridley

This blocker was built by 118 to add to a 3rd robot at champs. With 4039's help we installed it on their robot and passed supplemental inspection. It was planned for use in the division finals against full court shooters (until the eventual champions knocked us out.). It finally got to see some use at IRI.

This was an off the shelf fan, with model airplane propellers, run by a 775, inflating a custom sewn bag. I never would have called this a pneumatic device and it was never questioned as such.

During this year’s brainstorming, this blocker was brought up as possible way to deliver a hook to the bar. I honestly didn’t foresee it working, and love that 4060 pulled it off… it brought an immediate smile to my face when I saw the video. Great job.

Slight derail, but it is interesting to hear that this kind of cheesecake is what my team might have been up against if things played out differently in those elimination matches.

Love the climber on 4060, reminds me of the roll up party favor whistles.

[Chris is me]

Not to take anything away from 4060, but this isn't even the first inflatable hanging mechanism deemed legal in FRC. 69 in 2010 added an inflatable hanger for the Boston Regional that year, and used it to hang somewhat consistently and seed high. This continues to demonstrate the long history of these devices not being considered pneumatic devices.

[asid61]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

*snip*

Please stop talking about this, it's pretty clear there are differing opinions on the subject and the team in question can take whatever they want from it.
I didn't know of many cool climber mechanisms so I clicked on this thread, only to find that it's just a giant argument over one team's climber (which was really cool btw).

I am a little surprised no climber has been cheesecaked yet, although I could be wrong.