Go to Post An opportunity is always there waiting to be discovered, we just have to look and then see what we can do to help create change. - JaneYoung [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
View Poll Results: Reasonable and achievable or shoot for the stars?
Reasonable and acheivable 87 60.84%
Shoot for the stars 56 39.16%
Voters: 143. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 11:24
Joseph Smith's Avatar
Joseph Smith Joseph Smith is offline
Persistence alone is omnipotent.
FRC #3539 (Byting Bulldogs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Romeo
Posts: 194
Joseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant future
Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

This is something I've been thinking about for a while.
In a lot of threads, I read comments like "too many teams are going to try to do everything and fail" and "teams should focus on doing ONE task really well". While these are fair points, would it really be better if all but the powerhouse teams only attempted to build "reasonable" robots?

So here is my question:
Are students on a team more likely to be inspired and learn about the engineering process if their team decides to build a reasonable, achievable robot that performs some aspects of the game strongly?
OR
If their team attempts a more ambitious, challenging design that they feel BEST meets the objectives of the game, and ends up struggling to finish and/or perform at the level that they wanted?

At the end of the day, is it better to know your limits and not push too hard, or step up in the face of the challenge and try something awesome? After all, even if a lot of teams struggle, there will be teams out there who pull off something they never previously imagined possible.
__________________
Design/fab team 2011-2013
Design/fab mentor 2014--
There are three types of people in the world:
1. Those who make things happen
2. Those who watch things happen
3. Those who wonder what happened.

Reply With Quote
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 11:36
Jon Stratis's Avatar
Jon Stratis Jon Stratis is offline
Mentor, LRI, MN RPC
FRC #2177 (The Robettes)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,844
Jon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond reputeJon Stratis has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

Why not both?

Especially this year, if done right teams can add on mechanisms to address each challenge one at a time. You can spend the time needed to figure out shooting and get that functional, then add on a gear mechanism, and then a climber (or whatever order you prefer) as time allows.

Achieving an "everything" robot is pretty inspirational. But so is achieving a successful robot that gets you into the playoffs. I would argue (based on experience) that going after an "everything" robot and missing is worse for a team (in terms of moral, getting members to return the following year) than going after a simpler robot and being as successful as that strategy would allow.
__________________
2007 - Present: Mentor, 2177 The Robettes
LRI: North Star 2012-2016; Lake Superior 2013-2014; MN State Tournament 2013-2014, 2016; Galileo 2016; Iowa 2017
2015: North Star Regional Volunteer of the Year
2016: Lake Superior WFFA
Reply With Quote
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 11:37
EricLeifermann's Avatar
EricLeifermann EricLeifermann is offline
That was a short break
FRC #2826 (Wave Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,074
EricLeifermann has a reputation beyond reputeEricLeifermann has a reputation beyond reputeEricLeifermann has a reputation beyond reputeEricLeifermann has a reputation beyond reputeEricLeifermann has a reputation beyond reputeEricLeifermann has a reputation beyond reputeEricLeifermann has a reputation beyond reputeEricLeifermann has a reputation beyond reputeEricLeifermann has a reputation beyond reputeEricLeifermann has a reputation beyond reputeEricLeifermann has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

Having been on teams in every spectrum of skill and resources. I can say that a robot that moves and meets its objectives is way more inspirational than a robot that doesn't do anything because the team overreached.

Set reasonable goals and expectations and do everything in your power to achieve them. Elite teams are elite because of what they do in the off season not what they do during the build season. If you want to shoot for the stars the time to do that is May-December not January-April.
__________________
2002-2005 Appleton East High School: Team 93
2005-2011 Michigan Technological University: Team 857
2012-Present Wave Robotics Team 2826



Reply With Quote
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 11:39
lenny8's Avatar
lenny8 lenny8 is offline
Aww Yea
AKA: L-Deezy
FRC #1018 (Robodevils)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 239
lenny8 has much to be proud oflenny8 has much to be proud oflenny8 has much to be proud oflenny8 has much to be proud oflenny8 has much to be proud oflenny8 has much to be proud oflenny8 has much to be proud oflenny8 has much to be proud oflenny8 has much to be proud oflenny8 has much to be proud of
Re: Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

It all really depends on a teams ability and resources. For some teams shooting for the stars is another teams reasonable and achievable.
__________________
Learn something, Know Something, Do something
Reply With Quote
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 11:53
Valkonn's Avatar
Valkonn Valkonn is offline
Registered User
AKA: Paulo Garcia
FRC #3495 (Mindcraft Robotics)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Rookie Year: 2014
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 46
Valkonn is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

For the past 3 years, team 3495 had a very small design team and made very small and incremental improvements. During that time, I would have agreed with you in the "reasonable and achievable" approach. There is no point in overreaching and attempting to fulfill goals that are way out of your experience level.

For example, building a turret without any successful vision experiences is likely going to end up pretty badly. Building a fixed shooter would be the more reliable option.

However, if you stick with this mindset forever, you're going to be pumping out bots without any advancement and will always perform at a sub-par level. Speaking for my team personally, last year was the year we decided to switch things up. We used vision processing (it failed). We switched our drivetrain belts to chain (that failed, they were incredibly high maintenance). We went with an innovative drivetrain design (it failed) rather than the basic pneumatic wheel setup.

Now, those failures were pretty rough. We got crushed in the Las Vegas quarterfinals and let down our teammates. But by the end of the season we had a greater understanding of vision, chain, and drivetrains. Those failures allowed us to make huge improvements and apply them to this robot.

My point is that it's OK to fail, so long as you learn from your mistakes. You should never be content with your level of performance. The point of this program is to learn, and that means taking leaps into technical areas you know very little about. Whether you succeed or not is irrelevant.
__________________
Copy the best, screw up the rest.
Reply With Quote
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 11:56
Chris is me's Avatar
Chris is me Chris is me is offline
no bag, vex only, final destination
AKA: Pinecone
FRC #0228 (GUS Robotics); FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 7,797
Chris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Chris is me
Re: Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
Why not both?

Especially this year, if done right teams can add on mechanisms to address each challenge one at a time. You can spend the time needed to figure out shooting and get that functional, then add on a gear mechanism, and then a climber (or whatever order you prefer) as time allows.
I was expecting this game to play out in this way, but the extreme packaging constraints this game imposes really hinders a piece-wise development strategy like this. It's very difficult to make room for everything without planning for it all at once in advance... and then you become a do-everything bot that's falling behind in build season.

---

To address the OP: I've been on teams that shot for the stars and failed. I've been on teams that did the reasonable and achievable thing. The latter is much more inspirational and rewarding, every single time. No matter how reasonable and achievable, every robot will have lessons to learn, things to tweak, etc. Maybe if you're a top tier team with your act together, you'll get bored and your kids won't learn as much, but I really think those are the teams that don't struggle to shoot for the stars anyway.

It's not just about competitive success that makes reasonable robots better - it's just a smoother process overall, and people are more inspired when they make something that works.
__________________
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-?)
--2016 Waterbury SFs (with 3314, 3719), RIDE #2 Seed / Winners (with 1058, 6153), Carver QFs (with 503, 359, 4607)
Mentor / Consultant Person: 2170 (2017-?)
.
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-2015)
-- 2015 TVR Motorola Quality, FLR GM Industrial Design -- 2014 FLR Motorola Quality / SFs (with 341, 4930)
-- 2013 BAE Motorola Quality, WPI Regional #1 Seed / Delphi Excellence in Engineering / Finalists (with 20, 3182)
-- 2012 BAE Imagery / Finalists (with 1519, 885), CT Xerox Creativity / SFs (with 2168, 118)
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 MN 10K Lakes Regional Winners (with 2826, 2470)
2791 Build Season Photo Gallery - Look here for mechanism photos My Robotics Blog (Updated April 11 2014)

Last edited by Chris is me : 06-02-2017 at 11:58.
Reply With Quote
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 12:00
Kevin Sevcik's Avatar
Kevin Sevcik Kevin Sevcik is offline
(Insert witty comment here)
FRC #0057 (The Leopards)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,761
Kevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kevin Sevcik Send a message via Yahoo to Kevin Sevcik
Re: Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricLeifermann View Post
Having been on teams in every spectrum of skill and resources. I can say that a robot that moves and meets its objectives is way more inspirational than a robot that doesn't do anything because the team overreached.
This. Aiming to over-achieve is fine if you know you have an achievable fall-back position, which is a really easy prospect this year, since a gearbot with a winch will be a viable 2nd pick. Years where the game really forces less capable teams to pick a hard, flashy, probably high points task vs. an easier, less flashy, lower points task are often painful to watch. We've had less of those as the GDC's gotten better, but ball launching in 2014 or climbing more than one level in 2013 come to mind. There were better things to do with your time and space than either of those, but committing to them didn't leave you much of a fallback.

Also, real world engineering is very much about knowing what you, your team, and your materials are capable of, and not exceeding that. Promising a client the moon and only making it half way doesn't usually end well.
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.

Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter
Reply With Quote
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 12:00
JABot67 JABot67 is offline
Unregistered User
AKA: John Bottenberg
FRC #2930 (Sonic Squirrels)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 335
JABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond reputeJABot67 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

Knowing what is reasonable and achievable for your team or organization, and planning a great design and strategy around it, is essential to the engineering process. It would be my opinion that if members of FRC teams do not consider in their design process past experiences and educated guesses, they are not learning real-world engineering.

The way to shoot for the stars is not to dive into the depths of uncertainty, or even worse, go forward with a plan that you know has a high chance of failure. The real way is to gather up resources and knowledge and experience to the point that you are actually comfortable about tackling that next challenge. For now, the way to inspire your team to grab that next rung in the ladder is to do what you can with what you've got.

Play to your strengths. Go for awards. Have your driver learn defense. Make a simple mechanism that possibly doesn't work as well as a complex one but is much easier to repair and make replacements for. Compared to other competitions, FRC makes it relatively easy to do well with limited resources. Why not make the most of this fact?

I have too many FRC anectotes about this topic to possibly talk about in a post like this. However:

Consider 3322 in 2013. We decided to climb the pyramid, and based our entire robot dimensions on our design for a climber. This resulted in sacrifices for disc loading and shooting. The result was that we didn't get a climber on the robot and we experienced disc jams the whole season because our dimensions disallowed us from designing the shooter we wanted to design. Next, consider 2930 in 2015. We had a modified kit frame with a simple elevator and simple pneumatic grabber, and a PVC can grabber for PNW. This was by far the simplest robot design by a team I've been on. The result? We seeded 5th, 8th, and then 2nd at our district events and won the Pacific Northwest Championship. Looking back, we have learned from our past seasons and we are a stronger team that can afford to try more things, as long as we don't neglect our priorities.

By building a simple, reasonable robot, you are not "giving up". Knowing your limits proves you are not weak, but strong.
__________________
John Bottenberg - University of Michigan '14 - Microsoft
FLL Team "Dark Matter": 2003-2005
Robofest Team "Dark Matter": 2005-2008
Team 67 Programmer: 2007-2010
Team 3322 Programming Mentor: 2012-2014
Team 2930 Engineering Mentor: 2015-????
Reply With Quote
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 12:06
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is offline
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 3,735
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

I think most teams have a presumption that doing 1 thing well is less of a "challenge" than trying to do everything. Any team can ferry a few gears in a match and climb a rope after many seconds of line up and capture. It is quite difficult to build a robot which will consistently ferry MANY gears, account for ALL 10% occurrences and THEN capture/climb a rope in a minimum amount of time. It's the difference between a true expert and someone who 'dabbles'.

This year I've learned a lesson lesson that would seem obvious given that it is in plain sight, but isn't put to practice by the majority. Average teams who do not understand what it takes to optimize and test a design for realistic on-field scenarios will never be at the same level of power house teams. It is the perfect year & game design to learn this lesson, as optimization of the "easier" challenge is still quite valuable.




Now for the metaphor...

Don't shoot for the stars. It's ambiguous, has many unknown unknowns (including purpose), and is generally lonely up there. Eventually you can't even see where 'home' is and lose all perspective. Shoot for something more plausible, like the Moon or Mars. If you're particularly ambitious, orbiting Venus or Jupiter would be pretty cool too. And if you aim for those targets, don't miss - even our solar system is vastly empty and quite lonely.

Besides, I don't think our FRC batteries have enough juice to get the balls into orbit, let alone beyond orbit.
__________________

Drive Coach, 1885 (2007-present)
2017 Scoring Model
CAD Library | GitHub
Reply With Quote
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 12:17
Joseph Smith's Avatar
Joseph Smith Joseph Smith is offline
Persistence alone is omnipotent.
FRC #3539 (Byting Bulldogs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Romeo
Posts: 194
Joseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant future
Re: Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

Some very interesting and thought provoking responses here.

In my experience, the times I've learned the most and felt the most inspired as a student on the team were when we chose an ambitious design or mechanism and put in a lot of time and effort to refine it and make it work. Even if it means struggling at the first competition or working long hours before bag, it's always been immensely satisfying to see all that work pay off.

I agree that there is nothing fun or inspiring about performing poorly at an event because you couldn't get it working in time.

In the end, maybe the best route is to choose a design that you know you can achieve and be successful with, but with some aspect that pushes your boundaries a little bit- a new mechanism or technique that you've never attempted- but have a fall-back in case it doesn't work out.
__________________
Design/fab team 2011-2013
Design/fab mentor 2014--
There are three types of people in the world:
1. Those who make things happen
2. Those who watch things happen
3. Those who wonder what happened.

Reply With Quote
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 12:20
Joseph Smith's Avatar
Joseph Smith Joseph Smith is offline
Persistence alone is omnipotent.
FRC #3539 (Byting Bulldogs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Romeo
Posts: 194
Joseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant futureJoseph Smith has a brilliant future
Re: Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK View Post
Besides, I don't think our FRC batteries have enough juice to get the balls into orbit, let alone beyond orbit.
But that's the beauty of it, we're burning FUEL as we go, and thanks to the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, the more FUEL we burn, the lighter the load we have to lift!
__________________
Design/fab team 2011-2013
Design/fab mentor 2014--
There are three types of people in the world:
1. Those who make things happen
2. Those who watch things happen
3. Those who wonder what happened.

Reply With Quote
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 12:23
Caleb Sykes's Avatar
Caleb Sykes Caleb Sykes is online now
Registered User
FRC #4536 (MinuteBots)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 1,079
Caleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond reputeCaleb Sykes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK View Post
Besides, I don't think our FRC batteries have enough juice to get the balls into orbit, let alone beyond orbit.
FRC batteries store about 1MJ of energy, and it takes about 1MJ of energy to get a 100 gram object to escape velocity, so one battery has enough energy to get about 1 fuel beyond earth's orbit.
Reply With Quote
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 12:28
Kevin Sevcik's Avatar
Kevin Sevcik Kevin Sevcik is offline
(Insert witty comment here)
FRC #0057 (The Leopards)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,761
Kevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kevin Sevcik Send a message via Yahoo to Kevin Sevcik
Re: Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK View Post
Besides, I don't think our FRC batteries have enough juice to get the balls into orbit, let alone beyond orbit.
18 Ah @ 12V = 12*18 Watt-hours * 60 min/hr * 60 s/min = 777600 Watt-s or Joules. Escape velocity is 11186 m/s. So 777600 = 1/2 * m * (11186)^2 = 12.4g. Balls weigh 70g, so you'd need 6 batteries charging your ball launching system to reach escape velocity. Not counting drag, etc. A properly designed charging system could probably send a penny into solar orbit, though.

EDIT: Wikipedia also tells me delta-v to Low Earth Orbit is 9.4km/s, so getting into orbit isn't any easier. Not to mention you need an onboard motor for a circularization burn. Unless you're using ground based lasers ablating your fuel as a "motor".
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.

Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter

Last edited by Kevin Sevcik : 06-02-2017 at 12:41.
Reply With Quote
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 12:35
RoboChair's Avatar
RoboChair RoboChair is offline
He who fixes with hammers #tsimfd
AKA: Devin Castellucci
FRC #1678 (Citrus Circuits and 5458 Digital Minds)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Davis, CA
Posts: 715
RoboChair has a reputation beyond reputeRoboChair has a reputation beyond reputeRoboChair has a reputation beyond reputeRoboChair has a reputation beyond reputeRoboChair has a reputation beyond reputeRoboChair has a reputation beyond reputeRoboChair has a reputation beyond reputeRoboChair has a reputation beyond reputeRoboChair has a reputation beyond reputeRoboChair has a reputation beyond reputeRoboChair has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik View Post
18 Ah @ 12V = 12*18 Watt-hours * 60 min/hr * 60 s/min = 777600 Watt-s or Joules. Escape velocity is 11186 m/s. So 777600 = 1/2 * m * (11186)^2 = 12.4g. Balls weigh 70g, so you'd need 6 batteries charging your ball launching system to reach escape velocity. Not counting drag, etc. A properly designed charging system could probably send a penny into solar orbit, though.
That's the most interesting math I have seen all year.
__________________

12 Years and counting! Over a third of my life has been spent with FRC.
Reply With Quote
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2017, 12:37
Kevin Sevcik's Avatar
Kevin Sevcik Kevin Sevcik is offline
(Insert witty comment here)
FRC #0057 (The Leopards)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,761
Kevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kevin Sevcik Send a message via Yahoo to Kevin Sevcik
Re: Poll: Reasonable and achievable, or shooting for the stars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoboChair View Post
That's the most interesting math I have seen all year.
I bet I know what someone's planning for an offseason project....
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.

Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:15.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi