Approaching Pneumatics..once again

[archiver]

Posted by Erin.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Other on team #65, Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 12/11/2000 5:41 AM MST



I previously posted this in the rumor mill. response would be appreciated.

I would like to approach the fluid power subject, once again.
First off- If there were parts in the kit for fluid power, would they be pneumatics or hydraulics (this is the correct spelling, folks!)? I would like to ask, since everyone seems to be confusing them.. I would be leaning towards pneumatics, which actually isn't a new thing to the kit... it just wasn't previously widely used... I suppose this year they are just putting more emphasis on it because not many teams have utilized this in the past.

On my trip to SMC in my senior year, I discovered many things. First, there are more types of DCV's than my mind could have ever possibly previously imagined- second, pneumatics is way better than hydraulics, when properly used. Yes, hydraulics normally push out more power, but I have seen systems where pneumatics did the trick- or at least made something more efficient.
But the real question is...how many people are going to USE pneumatics?
FIRST OFF...there are WHOLE new schematic symbols to learn. Yeah, the connections, air supplies, regulators, valves, and gages are easy enough...but then you get into cylinders (the rod and the cap, etc..), dcv's (2 way 3 pos, etc...), push button dcv's, lever dcv's, motors.. fluid power IS a whole new world (but I gotta say I love it or I wouldnt be remembering all of this stuff).
One other thing, students will have to learn to measure in NEW units. kPa, (Kilopascals), or psi (or possibly psig, if the need be).
So in summary:
Pros: new technology, a greater learning experience for the students, and fluid power in the form of pneumatics is actually a really fun hands-on discovery activity.
Cons: less power, confusion, a whole new ballgame that you can make mistakes in, 'where do i find this in the small parts catalog?'.

Ok, so how many of you think you'll use it?

Just some random thoughts.
-Erin

[archiver]

Posted by Mike Gray.

Engineer on team HOT from Huron Valley Schools sponsored by GM Milford Proving Ground.

Posted on 12/11/2000 8:05 AM MST


In Reply to: Approaching Pneumatics..once again posted by Erin on 12/11/2000 5:41 AM MST:



Fluid power includes pneumatics. I can't imagine FIRST allowing hydraulics, and even if they did, few would choose to use it. Pneumatics, however, has (have?) come a long way in the past 10 years. Valves are smaller, cylinders have less 'stiction'. Some cylinders even have integral position feedback!
Rotary cylinders are really cool.

If FIRST supplies sufficient components (and smaller accumulators), I would consider using air power. In some applications it's better than electric power. Ever wonder why mechanics use air tools rather than electric? How many reasons can you think of?

Mike

[archiver]

Posted by S. Krussell.

Coach on team #349, Robahamas, from International Academy and Ford Motor Co..

Posted on 12/11/2000 8:13 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Approaching Pneumatics..once again posted by Mike Gray on 12/11/2000 8:05 AM MST:



Well, I speak the obvious.....but, SMC and FIRST must deal with the extra weight problem. Raising the weight limit on the robot by 5 or 10 lbs would help. The pneumatics kit was really a very nice package last year, but......weight was an issue. It seemed such a shame to let those parts from SMC just languish in the crate.

I am expecting amps problems this year (too much! ack!), especially from the Kiyangs, and pneumatics could relieve some of the burden.

We would like to use pneumatics, but we'll sacrifice them again if we have weight problems again.