|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Legality of third party fans
Quote:
The really attractive thing about this rule (IF I AM CORRECT about not having to use them for their original purpose) is that they can be used in unlimited numbers and they can be powered directly via a 20A breaker per Table 4-2 in R48. That is, you don't have to be able to turn them off when you are disabled. Turn on the main breaker and your fans go on. The way I read this, you could make a hovercraft with hundreds of these guys if you wanted to as long as you powered them all via the 20A breaker. Am I wrong? Dr. Joe J. Last edited by Joe Johnson : 16-02-2016 at 11:58. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Legality of third party fans
Joe, until you run out of amps, and barring the other physics limitations of making hovercrafts that are FRC legal, I agree with your rule interpretation here.
Also, in terms of Q&A, Q844 is useful to this discussion. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Legality of third party fans
Quote:
Rules wise, if you spliced it correctly and took care to avoid potential pinch points, it would *probably* be legal, although as propulsion devices, one might need to hook them to some sort of motor control (spike, victor, talon, etc.) to meet the intent of the rules (meaning the GDC would be likely to change the rules to bar such if one tried it). (I know you were probably joking...) Last edited by ratdude747 : 16-02-2016 at 17:46. |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Legality of third party fans
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Legality of third party fans
Yes, but the issue still stands. Even with a proper skirt, I don't think these fans could generate enough air pressure to sustain a cushion under their own weight. All they are meant to do is provide some cooling breeze... the fan shrouds are too loose and the motors too wimpy. Vacuum cleaners are meant to flow a lot more air; they're more or less hovercrafts in reverse. Hence why they can be made into hovercrafts.
|
|
#6
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Legality of third party fans
Quote:
...don't make me do this... Dr. Joe J. |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Legality of third party fans
A couple of TechnoKats students did it about five years ago. They used a piece of styrofoam (from a modem box) as a rigid skirt with four tall Victor fans embedded in the flat top. It floated across the concrete floor just fine. It couldn't carry a battery, though.
|
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Legality of third party fans
I would say from a power distribution perspective (R48) you are correct. If the fans caused any significant robot movement, then R9 Robot safety could be applied.
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legality of third party fans
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
If it doesn't look like a duck, then you've got some 'splainin to do. That said, your RI may not look closely enough to see if it looks like a duck vs a goose. Last edited by rich2202 : 15-02-2016 at 08:06. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|