|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mecanum Drive Killing Battery
I think what it really boils down to is how you are running for CIMs. obviously if you are stalling 4 CIMs you are at something like 428 amps, WAY over the breaker. If you can run all four at 15 amps each then you should fine from the graph we were looking at earlier.
I am still interested in hearing about other teams experiences with running 4 CIMs on drive preferably on a mecanum chassis but if not that is fine as well. |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Mecanum Drive Killing Battery
Quote:
330 ran a 4-CIM drive between 2005 and 2008; I'm not sure about last year. No issues whatsoever with batteries (other than keeping them all charged during hours-long practice sessions in '07 and '08). All the robots were 6WD. But, in 2005, the competition robot was designed to accept a mecanum drive. The Kitbot was equipped with that system for testing purposes; it didn't make it onto the competition robot. There were no battery issues on that robot. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mecanum Drive Killing Battery
Quote:
|
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Mecanum Drive Killing Battery
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mecanum Drive Killing Battery
as an off season project my team built a t-shirt cannon. the cannon and assembly is mounted on a mechanism drive base. we have driven the drive base over 30 minutes on one charged battery. We've never had issues with battery life with 4 CIMS
|
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mecanum Drive Killing Battery
My former team (team 935) has made many robots that use a mecanum drive, and we have never ran into any problems with running out of power. during testing of our robots before competition we could run our robot for a good 5 minutes at full speed before we started having power loss issues. One charged battery should easily last one round, and be able to run your mecanum drive along with your other motors as well.
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mecanum Drive Killing Battery
As others have said, running 4 CIM's shouldn't be a problem for a battery. The key is to monitor your current draw in testing, and any areas where it looks high at full speed you need to take a second look at - It means you probably have some unnecessary friction in your drive train somewhere (aka something is out of alignment).
Last year, we used two CIM's for a shooter. After the initial test and some adjustments, the current draw for those CIM's was cut in half! |
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Mecanum Drive Killing Battery
Diner,
The are a variety of reasons that can cause high current in a mecanum drive. 1. The gear ratio you have chosen is too low and so the motors are not developing enough torque to drive. That puts the motor in near stall conditions. 2. Something is binding in the drive system. You may have left out a required spacer or something else is causing the wheels to bind. 3. Your design produces a lot of side load on the CIM motor shafts. These motors cannot handle side loads so any loading will cause high friction on the output shaft and eventual wearing of the motor bearings. 4. One or two of the motors are running in the wrong direction. This is especially evident if everything (current and speed) seems normal if you lift the robot off the floor. While it is off the floor note the direction each wheel is turning. If coupled in a two motor transmission, try disconnecting one motor on each side and see if the current is still high. Without seeing your design it is hard to determine exactly what might be the problem. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| crab drive vs. mecanum drive system | superbotman | Technical Discussion | 33 | 06-01-2010 03:09 |
| Mecanum Drive - Help | Smoking_Gun | Programming | 22 | 04-12-2007 20:51 |
| Mecanum Drive Technique | Dan Petrovic | Technical Discussion | 9 | 16-08-2006 20:42 |
| pic: Jester Drive:Mecanum Wheel Drive Train | Ken Delaney 357 | Technical Discussion | 64 | 29-03-2006 22:16 |