paper: 2014 HOT Tech Notes

[Adam Freeman]

Thread created automatically to discuss a document in CD-Media.

2014 HOT Tech Notes by Adam Freeman

Back after a one year hiatus is the 2014 version of the Heroes of Tomorrow Tech Notes.

Describes our game analysis, design, and robot features for our 2014 robot HOTBot SS.

For further details on the robot see: http://www.hotteam67.org/WordPressTest/2014-hotbot-ss/

CAD models coming soon...

Any questions feel free to ask in the thread or PM me.

[AdamHeard]

Whoa. Pneumatics.

[Bryce Paputa]

Love the design (and the pneumatics), but why only 50 pounds on the springs? Our design uses the same spring style, but 160 pounds which gives us a larger range and a flatter trajectory. Pretty much the same displacement as well. Also, how are your bearings set up? We tested with 80 pounds of springs and had no where near 15 ft of range.

[Pranit T]

A really well thought-out design based off your priority list. Beautiful integration of the sub-systems. Good luck, Adam.

(The catcher arms remind me of 2056's robot arms from 2008)

[Mark Sheridan]

Nice tech paper, i love the physic details.

[RonnieS]

Great robot as usual Adam. You guys always manage to put together one hell of a robot and this year isn't looking any different. Can't wait to play with it at Lansing and MSC!

[Travis Hoffman]

See, 2415? HOT already has cupholders on their bot.

Great job Adam and Team 67!

[TD78]

Adam, fantastic document. I shared with my team...hoping they read it cover to cover like I have.

I am interested in that projectile motion spreadsheet. The document said it was posted on CD...but I'm not sure where (and I searched to the best of my ability!). Any way to share a link to it?

[JesseK]

Interesting design analyses.

I thought 254's '08 bot was a much better bot to emulate for this year's game than 1114's '08 bot. Simple lift, softer launches and a similar roller intake/outake - much more controllable than a punch. I suppose c.g. would be an issue, but with the ball in the 'up' position c.g. is an issue with 1114's design too.

Turns out either would work for specific robots, but 1114's probably better for the high goal. Yet I was more biased towards being the best ball handler than the best high goal shooter.

Tom, here you go:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...2&postcount=12

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Turns out either would work for specific robots, but 1114's probably better for the high goal. Yet I was more biased towards being the best ball handler than the best high goal shooter.

I can't speak for HOT, but oddly enough this exact same logic is why we went with an 1114 claw. Building a bulletproof claw intake was way easier for us, and the rest of our design was driven around the claw.

Beautiful machine HOT. That backwards fire is so clutch, can't wait to see that win you some matches. Squeezing every second out of a cycle is key and it looks like you guys have it

[Ether]

Originally Posted by TD78

I am interested in that projectile motion spreadsheet. The document said it was posted on CD...but I'm not sure where (and I searched to the best of my ability!). Any way to share a link to it?

Here's another one:

Parabolic vs Air Drag Trajectory revC

[Ether]

FWIW: Using the launch numbers in your paper:

28.5 ft/sec launch speed
46.8 degrees launch elevation angle
3.69 ft launch height

... and running an air-drag simulation assuming a 37.5 ft/sec terminal velocity for the ball resulted in very nearly the same ball height at 12.5 feet from the launcher.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh....php?p=1353376

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Bryce Paputa

Love the design (and the pneumatics), but why only 50 pounds on the springs? Our design uses the same spring style, but 160 pounds which gives us a larger range and a flatter trajectory. Pretty much the same displacement as well. Also, how are your bearings set up? We tested with 80 pounds of springs and had no where near 15 ft of range.

We don't have any reason to shoot from farther out. Our shot gives us a range from about 8-18 feet. We focused on keeping the plunger super light so more of the energy can go into accelerating the ball and is not wasted accelerating the plunger. I'll get a better picture of our bearing setup for you when I'm in the shop, but you can see our outside bearings in the picture on pg 14. They capture the plunger on top and bottom.

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Interesting design analyses.

I thought 254's '08 bot was a much better bot to emulate for this year's game than 1114's '08 bot. Simple lift, softer launches and a similar roller intake/outake - much more controllable than a punch. I suppose c.g. would be an issue, but with the ball in the 'up' position c.g. is an issue with 1114's design too.

Turns out either would work for specific robots, but 1114's probably better for the high goal. Yet I was more biased towards being the best ball handler than the best high goal shooter.

Tom, here you go:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...2&postcount=12

We like both designs as concepts to work from. But we felt that the 1114 design was superior (atleast in 2008) for both ball collecting and high goal scoring.

As Chris mentioned, we basically started with the claw concept and designed around that.

One of the biggest benefits we saw in the 1114 design was the ability to get balls out of tight spaces. It's still pretty true....but the top roller with out side bars does require a higher level of driver precision than the Bombsquad (top roller and side bars design). 1114 had one of the best drivers EVER in 2008. Teams should take that into account when they are evaluating designs from past games.

We will probably need to add something to our design to assist with ball centering to make it easier to collect the ball. Right now that is one of the areas we can improve on greatly.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Great read. I always love looking at any robot 67 builds. You guys have made some great marvels of engineering and this year is certainly up to that standard.