Go to Post Being professional means doing things right. Being gracious means doing the right thing. They complement each other perfectly. But I think we should remember to use GP as a guide for our own behavior, not as a yardstick to measure others' shortcomings. - Alan Anderson [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-01-2009, 12:01
Matt C's Avatar
Matt C Matt C is offline
Registered User
FRC #1468 (J-Birds)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Islip Terrace, NY
Posts: 396
Matt C has a reputation beyond reputeMatt C has a reputation beyond reputeMatt C has a reputation beyond reputeMatt C has a reputation beyond reputeMatt C has a reputation beyond reputeMatt C has a reputation beyond reputeMatt C has a reputation beyond reputeMatt C has a reputation beyond reputeMatt C has a reputation beyond reputeMatt C has a reputation beyond reputeMatt C has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Matt C
Re: <R08> Section M

Quote:
Originally Posted by artdutra04 View Post
In order for this to happen, the two robots would have to be at opposite ends of the playing field, and simultaneously floor it and accelerate as fast as possible without wheel slip until then both hit each other head on. You know, kind of like what's going to happen in autonomous? ;-)
Are you implying that with the way the robots are positioned at the beginning of a match, that autonomous is going to be like some . . Robot Demolition Derby?
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-01-2009, 12:18
Richard Wallace's Avatar
Richard Wallace Richard Wallace is online now
I live for the details.
FRC #3620 (Average Joes)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Southwestern Michigan
Posts: 3,667
Richard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond repute
Re: <R08> Section M

The 2003 game (Stack Attack) had four robots start the game by simulatenously charging up a ramp, trying to be first to hit a wall of bins and knock/plow as many as possible into their own scoring zones. The frequent result was high-speed collisions, mitigated (i.e., damped) in most cases by bins interposed between the colliding robots. Bumpers were not required back then so most robots didn't have them. Fortunately, many robots also lacked sufficiently powerful drivetrains to develop significant kinetic energy at the moment of impact; however, in a few cases the crashes were spectacular.

Lunacy will provide much more frequent crash opportunities. Bumpers designed to mitigate the effects of those crashes are not just a good idea, they are the law.
__________________
Richard Wallace

Mentor since 2011 for FRC 3620 Average Joes (St. Joseph, Michigan)
Mentor 2002-10 for FRC 931 Perpetual Chaos (St. Louis, Missouri)
since 2003

I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.
(Cosmic Religion : With Other Opinions and Aphorisms (1931) by Albert Einstein, p. 97)
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-01-2009, 12:32
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: 3,827
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: <R08> Section M

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt C View Post
Are you implying that with the way the robots are positioned at the beginning of a match, that autonomous is going to be like some . . Robot Demolition Derby?
yeah... it should be fun to watch! Everyone's autonomous mode is going to be "get away from the guy right behind me chucking balls into my trailer"... and on top of that, everyone starts out pointed straight at the center point!
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-01-2009, 21:44
johnr johnr is offline
Registered User
FRC #0910
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: michigan
Posts: 567
johnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond repute
Re: <R08> Section M

So the gdc probably isn't going to come out with a minimum requirement for bumper backing. So i say leave it up to the teams to decide how to protect their robot,but have a test at inspection. Maybe a 120 pound weight with a six inch bumper on it. Pull it back(to a set distance) and let it fly. If your bot 's bumper survives your good to go. If not ,at least your in the pits.
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-01-2009, 21:48
Unsung FIRST Hero
Karthik Karthik is offline
VEX Robotics GDC Chairman
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,346
Karthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond reputeKarthik has a reputation beyond repute
Re: <R08> Section M

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard View Post
What I'd like is for the GDC to provide some guidance for teams, and for robot inspectors, on what qualifies as structure/frame. Is a strip of 0.062" thick aluminum too flimsy to qualify? What about angle with a similar thickness? Or maybe 0.125" thickness is needed? What about other materials, such as plastic and wood -- can they qualify as structure/frame?
The following Q&A entry addresses some of your concerns, in regards to one specific example.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11349
__________________
:: Karthik Kanagasabapathy ::
"Enthusiasm is one of the most powerful engines of success. When you do a thing, do it with all your might. Put your whole soul into it. Stamp it with your own personality. Be active, be energetic, be enthusiastic and faithful and you will accomplish your object. Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm" -- R.W. Emerson
My TEDx Talk - The Subtle Secrets of Success
Full disclosure: I work for IFI and VEX Robotics, and am the Chairman of the VEX Robotics and VEX IQ Game Design Committees
.
  #21   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-01-2009, 22:07
Richard Wallace's Avatar
Richard Wallace Richard Wallace is online now
I live for the details.
FRC #3620 (Average Joes)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Southwestern Michigan
Posts: 3,667
Richard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond repute
Re: <R08> Section M

Thanks, Karthik.

I am glad that the GDC addressed this issue with a specific example. To me, their response makes it clear that "structure/frame" is intended to mean "the strong part of your robot at bumper level"; i.e., the part that carries the load, not something you added in an attempt to satisfy <R08-M>.
__________________
Richard Wallace

Mentor since 2011 for FRC 3620 Average Joes (St. Joseph, Michigan)
Mentor 2002-10 for FRC 931 Perpetual Chaos (St. Louis, Missouri)
since 2003

I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.
(Cosmic Religion : With Other Opinions and Aphorisms (1931) by Albert Einstein, p. 97)
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-01-2009, 22:28
eugenebrooks eugenebrooks is offline
Team Role: Engineer
AKA: Dr. Brooks
no team (WRRF)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 601
eugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond repute
Re: <R08> Section M

Perhaps it is time to think inside the box.

Cantilever wheels pointed in from the frame, instead of out?

Eugene
  #23   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-01-2009, 23:58
BJT's Avatar
BJT BJT is offline
uh, should that be smoking?
AKA: Ben Thorsgard
FRC #0876 (Thunder Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Northwood ND
Posts: 250
BJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond repute
Re: <R08> Section M

So now we know that 1/8 inch flat aluminum isn't enough to support bumpers. It would seem difficult for the GDC to make that decision without knowing a few more things about the setup in question. How far does it span between other support, how wide is it?
We have been building a west coast style frame with 2 standoffs between each wheel leaving about 7 inches between each. I'm not sure what to do with it now. Is 3/16 plate between them enough to satisfy the rule?
__________________


2016 Central Illinois Winner. Curie Division finalist
  #24   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2009, 01:01
eugenebrooks eugenebrooks is offline
Team Role: Engineer
AKA: Dr. Brooks
no team (WRRF)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 601
eugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond repute
Re: <R08> Section M

One could ask the GDC how thick an aluminum plate needs to be,
mounted on standoffs shown, to satisfy the letter and intent of the
rules. Do that and carry a copy of the QandA to the inspectors at
the regional just in case.

One could also make the backing plate from stacked aluminum tubing,
stacked 4130 tubing that is available as small as 3/8 square, or laminated
carbon fiber panels. The tubing would certainly be considered structural,
and the carbon fiber would also be if it were laminated thick enough.

Eugene
  #25   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2009, 02:05
dtengineering's Avatar
dtengineering dtengineering is offline
Teaching Teachers to Teach Tech
AKA: Jason Brett
no team (British Columbia FRC teams)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,833
dtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond repute
Re: <R08> Section M

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery View Post
/edit/I just ran a few numbers out of curiosity. In a "perfect collision" situation (two full weight 151 pound robots hitting head-on at 9 fps, with one of the robots skewed so it impacts the other "corner first") the impact forces get pretty impressive. As the robots collide, they compress the pool noodles down to 20% of their original thickness in about 0.009259 seconds. At a closure velocity of 18 fps, this is a peak change in velocity of 1944 ft/sec/sec, or a 60.75-G impact. Since I said the robot impacted "corner first" I will posit an impact area of 1.5 square inches. Assuming the pool noodles absorb about 18% of the impact energy during compression (not too bad for material of this type), that still means that the localized impact pressure is right around 10,000 pounds per square inch. I haven't looked at the bending moment of 3/4-inch plywood on 12-inch support centers yet. But I am now really not surprised by what happened to the bumpers. /edit/

There is a reason for that rule. Don't count on it changing.

-dave




.
Okay... seeing as how my other car is still on this planet, I'm a bit hesitant to question these numbers, but I was doing some calculations with our programmers this evening to figure out peak velocities and such and have to question the assumed closure velocity cited here.

We used the published value of static coefficient (.06) of friction to determine that a 150 lb (68kg) robot would have a normal force of 668n and a peak forward force of 40N. The mass of the robot, plus trailer, is 186lb, or 84kg, giving a peak accelleration of 0.47 m/s/s

Next we assumed that the effective length of the playing field was 15m. Although 54 feet works out to be 16.5m, or thereabouts, the length of the robot and trailer, as well as the driver station bumpers must be subtracted from the space available for picking up speed.

Assuming constant acelleration, of .47m/s/s over 15m, it should take a minimum of 8 seconds to cross the playing field from one end to the other, with a peak impact velocity of 3.76 m/s or... 12.3 feet per second.

Now this is the peak velocity of a robot hitting the end... but it is also the maximum impact velocity that any two robots could sustain. If each started out at one end of the playing field, they would meet in the middle, and would each only have reached 6.15 fps each, for a closing velocity of 12.3 fps, which is just 2/3 of the assumed 18 fps velocity impact. (Actually it would be lower than 12.3fps, as the effective length of the playing field would again be diminished by the length of the second robot/trailer combo unit.)

That isn't to say that some robots might not exceed the published coefficient of friction as the playing field wears, or that a 12 fps impact is something to be laughed off without concern... we'll be building a solid robot and strapping solid bumpers on it... we agree with the point of the post and if this were anything but FRC would probably just say "close enough, good enough" on the calculations, but the peak closure speed and resulting extreme G-forces didn't mesh with our calculations and we were wondering if we had somehow missed something.

Or, perhaps, if the 18fps impact velocity is based on actual testing of robots on regolith, then the published coefficients of friction don't provide an accurate estimation of robot performance. I know a few teams have posted suggesting that their experimental results for coefficients of friction are much higher than the published values.

Any suggestions?

Jason

<Edit> first assumption... that is not quite right. We assumed all of the weight of the trailer would be over the trailer wheels. Some of it will contribute to the normal force of the robot and thus improve traction and accelleration. Even assuming 100% of the trailer weight does so, however, peak accelleration is just .6 m/s/s and it takes 7 seconds to make the trip with a peak velocity of 14 fps. We're getting closer...

second assumption... we were assuming a straight line path from one end to the other... it may be possible to achieve a slightly higher peak velocity by taking a curved path along the playing surface... </edit>

<edit 2> third assumption in these calculations is that accelleration will take place on the regolith. Maybe, just maybe, if everything is right and teams are driving at least partly on the carpet, an 18 fps impact speed is a theoretically possible event </edit>

Last edited by dtengineering : 20-01-2009 at 03:04.
  #26   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2009, 02:49
eugenebrooks eugenebrooks is offline
Team Role: Engineer
AKA: Dr. Brooks
no team (WRRF)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 601
eugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond repute
Re: <R08> Section M

Use the measured figures for the coefficient of friction and you will be closer to reality with your estimates. Several teams have posted measured figures on CD, and their measurements are roughly twice the inline published values.

I would also like to say that a driver who accelerates all the way down the field and then crashes into the back wall, or into another robot near the back wall, is not engaging in an accident. A reasonable expectation is that drivers will be required to attempt to maintain control of their robots, and will be expected to plan their acceleration and braking so that they arrive at their destination without a high speed crash. I would at least hope that this will be the case, although I have not yet run across this expectation spelled out as I read the rules. I will have to read the rules a little more closely, I guess...

Eugene


Quote:
Originally Posted by dtengineering View Post
Okay... seeing as how my other car is still on this planet, I'm a bit hesitant to question these numbers, but I was doing some calculations with our programmers this evening to figure out peak velocities and such and have to question the assumed closure velocity cited here.

We used the published value of static coefficient (.06) of friction to determine that a 150 lb (68kg) robot would have a normal force of 668n and a peak forward force of 40N. The mass of the robot, plus trailer, is 186lb, or 84kg, giving a peak accelleration of 0.47 m/s/s

Next we assumed that the effective length of the playing field was 15m. Although 54 feet works out to be 16.5m, or thereabouts, the length of the robot and trailer, as well as the driver station bumpers must be subtracted from the space available for picking up speed.

Assuming constant acelleration, of .47m/s/s over 15m, it should take a minimum of 8 seconds to cross the playing field from one end to the other, with a peak impact velocity of 3.76 m/s or... 12.3 feet per second.

Now this is the peak velocity of a robot hitting the end... but it is also the maximum impact velocity that any two robots could sustain. If each started out at one end of the playing field, they would meet in the middle, and would each only have reached 6.15 fps each, for a closing velocity of 12.3 fps, which is just 2/3 of the assumed 18 fps velocity impact. (Actually it would be lower than 12.3fps, as the effective length of the playing field would again be diminished by the length of the second robot/trailer combo unit.)

That isn't to say that some robots might not exceed the published coefficient of friction as the playing field wears, or that a 12 fps impact is something to be laughed off without concern... we'll be building a solid robot and strapping solid bumpers on it... but the peak closure speed and resulting extreme G-forces didn't mesh with our calculations and we were wondering if we had somehow missed something.

Or, perhaps, if the 18fps impact velocity is based on actual testing of robots on regolith, then the published coefficients of friction don't provide an accurate estimation of robot performance. I know a few teams have posted suggesting that their experimental results for coefficients of friction are much higher than the published values.

Any suggestions?

Jason

<Edit> first assumption... that is not quite right. We assumed all of the weight of the trailer would be over the trailer wheels. Some of it will contribute to the normal force of the robot and thus improve traction and accelleration. Even assuming 100% of the trailer weight does so, however, peak accelleration is just .6 m/s/s and it takes 7 seconds to make the trip with a peak velocity of 14 fps. We're getting closer...

second assumption... we were assuming a straight line path from one end to the other... it may be possible to achieve a slightly higher peak velocity by taking a curved path along the playing surface... </edit>
  #27   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2009, 03:07
dtengineering's Avatar
dtengineering dtengineering is offline
Teaching Teachers to Teach Tech
AKA: Jason Brett
no team (British Columbia FRC teams)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,833
dtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond repute
Re: <R08> Section M

I'm not counting on drivers being expected to do anything... in fact I would suggest that from the laissez-faire attitude of the head ref at kickoff to the repeated "build for impact" rules and recommendations that we should be ready for a full contact, full-bore, game.

Jason
  #28   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2009, 09:43
Daniel_LaFleur's Avatar
Daniel_LaFleur Daniel_LaFleur is offline
Mad Scientist
AKA: Me
FRC #2040 (DERT)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 1,976
Daniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond reputeDaniel_LaFleur has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to Daniel_LaFleur
Re: <R08> Section M

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtengineering View Post
I'm not counting on drivers being expected to do anything... in fact I would suggest that from the laissez-faire attitude of the head ref at kickoff to the repeated "build for impact" rules and recommendations that we should be ready for a full contact, full-bore, game.

Jason
I agree with Jason here. I fully expect very high speed collisions this year. FIRST seems to be taking off the gloves this year and actually encouraging vigorous robot to robot interaction. Build it to withstand this contact or play at your own peril.

And, Jason, I expect impacts that will be far higher than both you and Dave have calculated
__________________
___________________
"We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. "
- Tennyson, Ulysses
  #29   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2009, 10:12
johnr johnr is offline
Registered User
FRC #0910
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: michigan
Posts: 567
johnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond repute
Re: <R08> Section M

Where and when is this perfect collision going to happen. Everyone seems to agree that every robot should at least move forward at the beginning. So in auto five bots would have to be dead and one runs across the field and hits the one in the oppisite corner. Even then it would be a head on hit. That might cause the dead bot to jack knife or worse case to form an upside down v and snap trailer hitch. During regular play you would need another bot dead in a coner,sideways to fueling station,and all the other bots out of the way. This collision would be head-to-side, maybe causing bot to tip over that bar. Never mind ,this game is starting to sound like fun.
  #30   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-01-2009, 10:52
dlavery's Avatar
dlavery dlavery is offline
Curmudgeon
FRC #0116 (Epsilon Delta)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 3,176
dlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond repute
Re: <R08> Section M

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtengineering View Post
Okay... seeing as how my other car is still on this planet, I'm a bit hesitant to question these numbers, but I was doing some calculations with our programmers this evening to figure out peak velocities and such and have to question the assumed closure velocity cited here.

We used the published value of static coefficient (.06) of friction to determine that a 150 lb (68kg) robot would have a normal force of 668n and a peak forward force of 40N. The mass of the robot, plus trailer, is 186lb, or 84kg, giving a peak accelleration of 0.47 m/s/s...
Jason-

Some of my numbers are based on empirical observations rather than theoretical values. During early development, we used standard kit-bots with prototype trailers for concept testing. We were regularly able to make the robots accelerate from the end of the field to reach top speed (9-11 fps, depending on the gearing installed) well before reaching the mid-field line. I understand that these observations may not agree with the theoretical performance calculated with the given COF. But the observed results were consistent and repeatable. So I am going to go with those.

There is one mistake in my calculations. I forgot to add the mass of the trailer into the impact calculations. With the trailer included, the localized instantaneous impact pressure is in the range of 12,300 psi.

-dave



.
__________________
"I know what you're thinking, punk," hissed Wordy Harry to his new editor, "you're thinking, 'Did he use six superfluous adjectives or only five?' - and to tell the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement; but being as this is English, the most powerful language in the world, whose subtle nuances will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' - well do you, punk?"
- Stuart Vasepuru, 2006 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest



My OTHER CAR is still on Mars!!!
Closed Thread


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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
R08 Clarification Andy L Rules/Strategy 10 06-01-2009 18:42
complie error can not fit the section. Section xxxx Doug Leppard Programming 5 12-02-2008 09:44
Error - section 'UTIL_LIB' can not fit the section. Section 'UTIL_LIB' length=0x00000 BookerT Programming 13 27-01-2005 09:49
Error - section 'UTIL_LIB' can not fit the section. Section 'UTIL_LIB' length=0x00000 BookerT Programming 0 25-01-2005 19:17
Linking Errors: "section '????' can not fit the section. ..." Astronouth7303 Programming 3 16-01-2005 21:36


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:37.

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