|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Here is another picture of the Ball Drive robot. This robot is currently our backup drivebase that allows us to be defensive on the field instead of on the ramp.
03-03-2003 12:50
etolebVery cool. I was quite shocked to see this because I had a very similar concept last summer, but I never followed through with it.
Those are inflatable balls, right? How reliable is the steering?
It'd be cool to watch that thing run in person.
Greg
03-03-2003 13:04
Aaron LussierWell yet again I am completely wowed by the technoKAts and there out side the box( or should I say ball) thinking, Every year the TechnoKats come up with ingenious designs, that always seem to have some sort of hidden thing about them. I cant wait to see you guys in action, Great Job
Good luck to All
The Wheelman
03-03-2003 13:19
Jeff Waegelin
I can't believe someone actually made a ball-drive system! I have been pulling that idea out for a while, but we always thought it was too complex and not useful enough. It's a really cool concept, though. Is this just a test, or an actual robot feature?
03-03-2003 13:23
khssoccer16
The "Ball Drive" is totally operational and is totally legal by FIRST guidelines. Just have to see in person how it operates. 
03-03-2003 13:33
Jnadke
I thought about such a drive before... I'm curious as to how you adressed a few issues...
Are the balls air-filled or solid rubber? If they are air-filled, how thick is the skin?
I'd imagine the drivetrain is optimized with speed in mind rather than torque. How much torque can you exert on the surface of the ball before it slips?
03-03-2003 13:44
Andy Baker
OK, here is the scoop:
Mark Koors, TechnoKat - Delphi engineer, thought of the idea. We worked together in the fall to come up with a design for this. The team made a prototype during the late fall and had a rough proto working by the time of kickoff (it had bigger balls and only casters to keep it balanced).
Then, kickoff came and we had to decide what to build as a team: a strong track drive that can push really hard, or a quick and agile ball drive that had very limited pushing abilities.
We had a big disagreement. The team was split between the two drive bases, and we could not just pick one.
What we did decide was to make the track drive base our primary design that 95% of the team would focus on. The students and engineers worked together on the track drive base, making gearboxes, pulleys, spare parts, etc. At the same time, one engineer (Mark) worked on the ball drive base with some help from students and other engineers only if there was nothing to do on the track drive.
In the end, the ball drive robot was wired and programmed by the students, only after they got done with the track drive robot.
This was not easy to do... and we may not even get to use the ball drive robot. Unfortuneately (for many reasons) the two drive bases are not modular. Our original plan was to have a "control box" that could be switched between the two bases (similar to 190's control box in 2001). But, that did not work too well due to size, time, weight and money constraints.
So, we can switch between the two robots... but it would take alot of time. I am estimating about 2-4 hours of work to switch over the gearboxes (and re-allocate the CIM motor to another gearbox), move over the electronics (controller, fuse panels, RF transmitter, and victors), and the light. It could be done if we had to do it. Also... both robots come in at $3,473, including the polycarbonate arm on the Mighty Mouse.
So... if our Mighty Auk sucks so bad that it would not do well in the finals, we may offer our Mighty Mouse as a partner to a team who needs a highly-mobile, limboing stack wrecker.
We are not sure if this second robot was the right thing to do. We did not make a practice robot because of this 'bot... but I feel that the inspiration behind this robot is worth it. Time will tell.
Thanks goes out to all of the TechnoKats and a few others who knew about this design and kept quiet. Our management here at Delphi has recommended that we go ahead and file for a US patent on this design (which we did) so that our rights are protected.
This thing is a ball to drive. Please stop by our pit to check it out.
Andy B.
03-03-2003 13:50
Andy Baker
|
Originally posted by Jnadke Are the balls air-filled or solid rubber? If they are air-filled, how thick is the skin? I'd imagine the drivetrain is optimized with speed in mind rather than torque. How much torque can you exert on the surface of the ball before it slips? |
03-03-2003 14:00
Joe Matt
While I think this is great and very cool, I just wonder if this years task was so simple that we can afford such lavash things. What about other teams who can barely move? Were the TechnoCats right to spluge on their drive while many teams still don't move?
Just a question.
03-03-2003 14:07
abeD
How exactly does it work, do the wheels just spin clockwise or counter clockwise and if they are above the ground?? I don't exactly get it and it would be cool to get an explanation
thanks
03-03-2003 14:09
WernerNYK
I dont really see the great advantage of something like this.... Obviously extreme mobility, but not so much more than can be accomplished with other drive systems, or that such mobility would really be necessary, or even that easily controlled.
I'd like to actually see this thing and evaluate it further.
03-03-2003 14:09
Madison
|
Originally posted by JosephM While I think this is great and very cool, I just wonder if this years task was so simple that we can afford such lavash things. What about other teams who can barely move? Were the TechnoCats right to spluge on their drive while many teams still don't move? Just a question. |
03-03-2003 14:13
David Kelly
|
Originally posted by JosephM While I think this is great and very cool, I just wonder if this years task was so simple that we can afford such lavash things. What about other teams who can barely move? Were the TechnoCats right to spluge on their drive while many teams still don't move? Just a question. |
This is an awesome drive system and it's great that you are using your resources to move it to the next level for everyone. I've seen some video of this in action, and i'd have to say that it is amazing. Nice job guys, cant wait to compete you in Chicago
03-03-2003 14:17
Joe Matt
I never criticized the Tcats at all. I said I like it. I'm just saying that mabey the effort to build another bot or another drive system could have gone to inspiring another team.
03-03-2003 14:17
Andy Baker
|
Originally posted by JosephM Were the TechnoCats right to spluge on their drive while many teams still don't move? Just a question. |
03-03-2003 14:18
ChrisWow.......Just wow.....I'm amazed by this and the other techno Kat robot. I say congratulations....Not only for having two awesome robots, but for being brave enough to try. And to WernerNYK who cares if its an advantage, its just cool that they did it. I mean its a totally revolutionary drive train, its great that it just exists, even if its not an advantage( which I personally think it is).
Chris
Good job, don't listen to negative people
03-03-2003 14:23
David Kelly
|
Originally posted by JosephM I never criticized the Tcats at all. I said I like it. I'm just saying that mabey the effort to build another bot or another drive system could have gone to inspiring another team. |
03-03-2003 14:26
Madison
|
Originally posted by WernerNYK I dont really see the great advantage of something like this.... Obviously extreme mobility, but not so much more than can be accomplished with other drive systems, or that such mobility would really be necessary, or even that easily controlled. I'd like to actually see this thing and evaluate it further. |
03-03-2003 14:41
SuperJakeWhat can I say other than 'Wow'? I mean it is really cool! I'm deffinetly gonna make some time to stop by your pits in Houston! Good luck!
03-03-2003 14:57
Joe Matt
?7?i]Originally posted by David Kelly [/i]
what they did, is inspiring other teams. it can give others new ideas for future competitions.
explain what you meant by "maybe the effort to build another bot or another drive system could have gone to inspiring another team."
that makes no since to me... [/quote]
Why not take some of the money that would have gone to building another bot or a more complicated drive system and give it to a struggling team or a new team?
03-03-2003 15:09
ZACH P.|
Originally posted by David Kelly I've seen some video of this in action, and i'd have to say that it is amazing. |
03-03-2003 15:12
WernerNYK
I wasnt really being negative at all. New ideas and concepts are always great. I'm just a bit skeptical as to what kind of difference this will actually make compared to other traditional drives, which is why I said that I would like to see it in person in closer detail... possibly try moving it around.
I mean, look at team 190... we're always coming up with brand new ideas (translational drive, "wonder wheels," CVTs, INS, amongst other things). I'll never knock an good idea, new engineering concepts... I think it's great. Believe it or not, I know I personally was thinking of a similar type of systems earlier this year, and I know a few of my teamates were as well.
And I think someone else mentioned that it could "stall"... this is entirely true... a more descriptive term would be slipping. When a system lies entirely upon friction, slippage will -- at some point -- occur... even our CVT system will slip under certain circumstances.
03-03-2003 16:02
Madison
|
Originally posted by WernerNYK And I think someone else mentioned that it could "stall"... this is entirely true... a more descriptive term would be slipping. When a system lies entirely upon friction, slippage will -- at some point -- occur... even our CVT system will slip under certain circumstances. |
03-03-2003 16:14
Joe Matt
But the ball system is more suseptable to slipping compared to the traditional motors/gears/wheels system.
03-03-2003 16:17
GopeWHAT?!?!?!
how does this work. I've read the whole thread but noone has taken the time to really explain the system, someone please explain it to me....thanks
Also, I might just be imagining this, but didn't i read somewhere that you had to compete with the robot that you check in? If so then you guys wouldn't have the option of using the second bot, right?
03-03-2003 16:19
Madison
|
Originally posted by JosephM But the ball system is more suseptable to slipping compared to the traditional motors/gears/wheels system. |
03-03-2003 16:35
Jeremy_Mc
You guys keep claiming that this will "inspire other teams". Perhaps to put the extra effort out and raise the bar, yes...but no more than your average joe team would, though.
I don't think they really sparked a new trend in drive trains. They're patenting it anyhow, so it's not like anyone can emulate them.
Personally, (not criticizing) but i think that takes away from the community. Patenting a drive train makes it a little awkward if a team makes a drive system somewhat similar, and then somehow it ends up they sue them over it or something. I'm not saying they would, but if they wouldn't, then why patent?
Odd thoughts yes...but I'm just curious as to why you would do that?
And oh yes...an explanation of the system would be rather cool. I think I have it figured out but it's probably totally off.
[edit] one more question, if someone were to pick that end of the robot up, would the balls fall out? or are they attached?[/edit]
[edit2] has your patent been applied for? or is it pending? there is a difference... [/edit2]
*jeremy
03-03-2003 16:41
Jnadke
|
Originally posted by Gope How does this work. I've read the whole thread but noone has taken the time to really explain the system, someone please explain it to me....thanks |
|
Originally posted by Gope Also, I might just be imagining this, but didn't i read somewhere that you had to compete with the robot that you check in? If so then you guys wouldn't have the option of using the second bot, right? |
|
Originally posted by Jeremy_Mc Personally, (not criticizing) but i think that takes away from the community. Patenting a drive train makes it a little awkward if a team makes a drive system somewhat similar, and then somehow it ends up they sue them over it or something. I'm not saying they would, but if they wouldn't, then why patent? |
03-03-2003 16:42
|
Originally posted by Jeremy_Mc You guys keep claiming that this will "inspire other teams". Perhaps to put the extra effort out and raise the bar, yes...but no more than your average joe team would, though. Like I've said before, every bit counts in the long run Personally, (not criticizing) but i think that takes away from the community. Patenting a drive train makes it a little awkward if a team makes a drive system somewhat similar, and then somehow it ends up they sue them over it or something. I'm not saying they would, but if they wouldn't, then why patent? I'll let someone higher answer that one... Odd thoughts yes...but I'm just curious as to why you would do that? Please refer to previous answer... And oh yes...an explanation of the system would be rather cool. I think I have it figured out but it's probably totally off. You are comming to St Louis, come and see it for yourself [edit] one more question, if someone were to pick that end of the robot up, would the balls fall out? or are they attached?[/edit] They are attached |
03-03-2003 16:51
Joe Matt
|
Originally posted by M. Krass It's no more susceptible to slipping than wheels interfacing with the carpet are. |
03-03-2003 16:53
rees2001
This is what FIRST is all about. I am Inspired. This thread is about Recognizing the Technocats. If you want, I will start another thread where I will recognize the things other teams have done that have inspired me and others like me. Not here. This thread is about 45's moment in the sun. I don't even care if it doesn't work as well as they would like. YOU MADE IT. You may never use it, but you made it. AWESOME. Every year there has been 1 team (sometimes 2) that has done something that really stood out. This year 1 team has done 2 things that stand out.
Thanks guys.
03-03-2003 17:07
Rob Colatutto|
Originally posted by JosephM I never criticized the Tcats at all. I said I like it. I'm just saying that mabey the effort to build another bot or another drive system could have gone to inspiring another team. |
03-03-2003 17:07
Madison
|
Originally posted by JosephM You have the motors using a wheel to rotate the ball, interaction 1 that can slip. Then you have a slick ball that rotates on the ground, interaction 2. There are two of the main problem parts. |
03-03-2003 17:11
Paul CopioliAs always, I am inspired by what the TechnoKitties have done. Their ingenuity will push our team to do something as clever in the future.
About patents: They are intended to fully share an idea with anyone who wants to know about it. They do not stop anyone from using it. What a patent does do is protect the inventor from having his/her idea stolen. It stops a person or company from financially benefiting from another person's idea.
The original intention for the patent was to establish a record of innovative ideas in order to preserve them. It seems silly with today's technology, but if the only person on Earth who knew how to do this one brand new thing that everyone could benefit from died, that technology would be lost. The patent process helped prevent us from having to "reinvent the wheel" so to speak.
If the TK ball drive is patentable, then I say go for it. If a company sees value in their idea, then they can sell it and use the money for a greater good.
Great job 45.
-Paul
03-03-2003 17:27
NatchezWOW!
Ideas don't drive technology advancement ... it's those who make ideas reality that drive it. Technokats, way to drive technology and thanks for letting us ride along!
Everyone, don't forget math class ... does anyone know the answer to the following equation?
Ball Drive + Segway =
... AWESOME!
03-03-2003 17:33
Jnadke
I think some people are giving the TechnoKats less credit than they deserve...
Essentially, this is a true omnidirectional drivetrain. They can go forward, backward, left, and right at will. They can also change the direction their robot points at will. I haven't seen anything this great since the Kiwi Drive. Unfortuantely, you can't really do this without problems because of no 3rd drill motor this year.
With the exception of the Kiwi Drive last year, I've yet to see a team that has a truly omni-directional drivetrain. Now the TechnoKats are added to this 2 team list. Many teams can create the illusion of an omnidirectional drive but they really can only move in 2 directions in any given instant. Swerve drives have to wait for the wheels to re-align. Teams with a 2nd drivetrain that drops down still can't move in a diagonal path, and have to wait for the drivetrain to lower.
I suggest some people read this:
|
Originally posted by patrickd I think there is some confusion about drive systems... and locomotion in general. On a plane (i.e. the surface of the playing field), describing an object's position at any instant in time requires three coordinates. For example, a robot can have an x-location, y-location, and direction (angle) which the robot is pointing. You can not describe the robot's position correctly with less than three coordinates. It is also possible to describe position with polar coordinates and other coordinate systems. Now, over time, a robot can alter these coordinates. Typically, a robot can move forward and backwards. In other words, it can translate along one axis (move in the direction of the front of the robot). Most robots can also turn at the same time (adjust the angle which their robot is pointing). These two "degrees of freedom" are what you get out of a tank-drive system, which most teams choose to use. The number of degrees of freedom your robot has is defined as the number of coordinates (x-translation, y-translation, and z-rotation) that your robot can adjust simultaneously. A tank drive might be able to turn and translate in another direction, but it can not translate sideways, thus it does not have the third degree of freedom. Typically, an omni-directional drive system is defined as a drive system with three degrees of freedom. Very few (I can only think of one last year) teams ever have three degrees of freedom. Tank drive only has two. In fact, even if you can turn all your wheels in any direction you like (i.e. swerve drive) you still have only two degrees of freedom, because at any instant in time your wheels are pointed in a given direction, and your robot is restricted to that linear and angular movement, giving you only two degrees of freedom. However, the advantage of the swerve is that you have the ability to change the direction of your prismatic (translational) degree of freedom with respect to your robot. If you can change wheel angles almost instantaneously, your robot is almost as good as one that can go accelerate in any direction at any angle, thus you virtually have three degrees of freedom. Robots that have a set of wheels that drop down perpendicular to your main set also only have two degrees of freedom, since at a given instant in time they can only move in one translational direction and rotate. Now, a crab-walking robot could be built such that it has three degrees of freedom, but it would be difficult and almost certainly very very slow. The efficiency of an electric motor is far better than the efficiency of a crab-walking mechanism. There only two mechanical ways I know of to get three degrees of freedom... meaning at any time, you can have any x-acceleration, any y-acceleration, and any angular acceleration. One of these I have posted a brief paper on how to get started on applying it to a FIRST robot (in the white papers) and the other is a little bit abstract and not too likely to work on a FIRST robot. One team had omnidirectional last year, and I forget the number, but I think it was a first or second year team. Basically it entails having three or four omniwheels perpendicular to the center of the robot. With three wheels, each unique combination of independent torques to the three wheels results in a unique direction and angular velocity of the robot. |
03-03-2003 17:56
Katy|
Originally posted by Andy Baker The balls are 8" steel "gazing balls" (hollow) that you can buy from a home deco store (we got them for $6 per ball at Homier.com). These balls have urethane molded over them at about a 1/4" thickness. They are about +/- 0.003" out of round. They dent if dropped, and weigh about 3-4 lbs each. They are not inflatable. |
03-03-2003 17:58
Jnadke
|
Originally posted by Katy So if they dent when dropped what happens if you go up the ramp? Could the rows of dents be a problem eventually? |
03-03-2003 18:21
Rickertsen2
Hmm i have played with an idea like that in my head before. Its kinda like the opposite of a mouse. What is the exact status of ur patent. Are u sure this hasn't already been patented. What type of patent are you applying for?
AWESOME WORK!!!
03-03-2003 18:39
Clark Gilbert
Prototype: Here is the prototype Andy talked about. This picture was taken the night of kickoff.
http://www.pictars.com/032003/DSCF1676.JPG
| While I think this is great and very cool, I just wonder if this years task was so simple that we can afford such lavash things. What about other teams who can barely move? Were the TechnoCats right to spluge on their drive while many teams still don't move? |

03-03-2003 18:43
Austin
| I think he means dropped from a significant height. The 1/4" thick urethane coating, which he mentioned, would absorb any small forces acting on the balls. |
03-03-2003 19:11
Beast314Well done. This will give me another thing to check out in the pits at St. Louis. I have also worked on a similar idea in the past along with a few classmates, using a much smaller wheel though. The idea was lost in the wind when we saw no use for that type of system last year, but I'm glad to see a workable variation of it.
03-03-2003 19:28
Mimi Brown
wow. thats all i have to say. oh yeah...and i cant wait to see it in pittsburgh! 
03-03-2003 20:03
abeD
i remember someone in the thread saying that they saw a video of that, is there any way we can get a link to some type of video?(especially for those of us that won't get to see it in person)
03-03-2003 20:25
Cory
|
Originally posted by JosephM Why not take some of the money that would have gone to building another bot or a more complicated drive system and give it to a struggling team or a new team? [/b] |
03-03-2003 21:18
Ricky Q.Andy, Clark, DJ and all the TKats
Sweet! I had everyone around me in my History class (when we we're typing an essay test
) just amazed, I think it made some of them consider joining the team
....Excellent job, as we've all come to expect...I'm looking forward to looking it over and seeing you all in Evanston....
We all tip our cheeseheads to you 
03-03-2003 21:24
ClanatCongratulations on a very innovative design! I want to see this thing in action now 
03-03-2003 21:50
Clark Gilbert
I'm not personally going to post any video of the ball drive till after the Pittsburgh regional. Having 2 regionals in the next 2 weeks makes me very busy, along w/ various school work. There is video, and there will be video. For now you will just have to enjoy the pictures. Sorry
03-03-2003 21:51
Joe Matt
|
Originally posted by Cory How far would 700 bucks really get you towards helping another team? TechnoKats: super cool. Im amazed that you could pull that off. I hope I end up at Nats and can see that baby work. My Hat is off to you =) Cory |
03-03-2003 21:57
Ellery
Andy and Team #45,
My hat goes off to you guys once more being the drives fanatics that you guys tend to be year after year! It's definitely an interesting design that's worth investing extra resources if available. Especially this year's game definitely pushed our team to chose the extreme end of simplicity compared to our extreme complexity we had last year. As long as it keeps students involved and free from boredom it's a great excuse to make.
See you guys soon!
Ellery W.
03-03-2003 22:21
Dimawell actually this is probably the BEST soluction to this years game: Have two robots each one optimized best for what its supposed to do!
Technokats i think it Will be woth it for you to buy another controll system and a set of motors so that before any given match you can have a choice of what to bring to your alliance!
Imagine being paired with another good kind of the hill robot. Obviosly your alliance need to have a box stacking bot to make that optimal stack. so you just put your other bot in that match!
now that you have both bots if i were you i would do just that!
Oh thats aside from the point that you win the Xerox Creativity Award! (or at least have very high chanses to do so)
03-03-2003 22:45
Andy Baker
OK... I'll try to answer some questions and explain some things further.
First of all... the patent.
Our management here at Delphi saw the prototype of this design and strongly suggested that we patent this design... not to protect us from other FIRST teams to use, but rather future companies. This will be a Delphi patent, once it goes through it's process. Currently, it is a "record of invention", and we are protected to show it to the public.
Natchez is wise. The biggest reason we are looking to protect ourselves is for the use of something like the Segway. Imagine a one-ball balancing Segway. This is exactly why our management wants us to protect it. We currently have an agreement with Segway (of the details, I have no idea) that encourages Delphi to help develop technology for the Segway... so this is a good thing (every Segway has about $400 of Delphi electronics in it).
Rickersen2 - you are exactly right... it is the opposite of a mouse. This is the easiest way to explain it.
JosephM - you are right also. Your concern about the 2nd level of friction loss is very valid. This is really the biggest hurdle of this design. The fact that the small drive wheel has friction losses to the ball and the ball has friction losses to the floor is not trivial. This makes the "ball drive" definitely not a very efficient mechanism. Our prototype would stop and start because of these losses (and an out of round ball). JosephM - your questions are valid, and you have good points. I appreciate your comments.
Katy - the balls dent if we drop them from about waist high, but they have not dented while driving up the ramp. If we ran into a 4x4 at full speed, they might dent... but we have not tried that yet.
Ricky - it is great to hear that other people might get on your team by seeing this. If find that suprising, but if it is true, then our goal for this drive base has been achieved.... it's all gravy from here.
M.Krass and others - I am not sure what you mean by the stall issue. This device works REALLY well when both small drive wheels are moving. The urethane ball drives nicely at a 45 degree angle, but it drives less efficiently at 0 degrees or 90 degrees. It works, but has less power. Also, at straight forward or backward, the lateral drive wheel does not spin. The main reason we decided to do this was to use the shifting gearbox for the front & back drive direction. Optimally, we would rather use 4 gearboxes (one on each aluminum drive wheel) and have each drive wheel positioned at a 45 degree angle. That way, if both wheels are turning, the robot will go straight forward and backward. But, we could not afford (weight, cost, time, etc.) 4 gearboxes. Thanks for your comments.
Dima - good ideas... but FIRST has alot of rules against this. Update #4 was a killer. It really set us back. There is actually a post on the FIRST Q+A forums that says a team should not re-deploy a motor to another subassembly, even if it is the same motor (and not a spare). This ruling is ridiculus, in my opinion. We will abide by the rules, but we will need explainations.
For the rest of you: thank you. Come by our pit, and I will introduce you to the guy who came up with the main part of this design: Mark Koors. He told me of this idea last summer and I simply laughed at him. My first concern was the same as JosephM's (the 2 levels of friction issue). But... the more Mark and I worked the issues, the more they cleared up and the simpler the design got.
Simplicity - Krass is right... this omnidrive is extremely simple, not only in the mechanics, but especially in the software. No chain linked axis turns, no lookup tables... simple. You who are wrestling with crab drive software/hardware would cry to see how simple this is (yet another reason to patent it).
More to come... sorry about rambling. I surely did not heed my own words to be concise.
Andy B.
03-03-2003 23:04
Ryan Albright
how does the balls work ont he ramp are you shure the ramp wont puncture them caust he ramp ripped apart are wheels from last year
03-03-2003 23:10
Madison
|
Originally posted by Andy Baker M.Krass and others - I am not sure what you mean by the stall issue. This device works REALLY well when both small drive wheels are moving. The urethane ball drives nicely at a 45 degree angle, but it drives less efficiently at 0 degrees or 90 degrees. It works, but has less power. Also, at straight forward or backward, the lateral drive wheel does not spin. The main reason we decided to do this was to use the shifting gearbox for the front & back drive direction. Optimally, we would rather use 4 gearboxes (one on each aluminum drive wheel) and have each drive wheel positioned at a 45 degree angle. That way, if both wheels are turning, the robot will go straight forward and backward. But, we could not afford (weight, cost, time, etc.) 4 gearboxes. Thanks for your comments. Andy B. |

03-03-2003 23:12
Dimaandy!
i look at update 4 and it seems to me that those rules apply only to the robot currently on the field.
...meh doesn't matter if the need is there you can always swap stuff.
P.S. if there a chanse you could come by Silicone Valley Regional with that robot?
03-03-2003 23:19
nickmaThanks to you guys my plans for getting work today went out the window. My afternoon plans where to complete the 3 days of school work I would be missing in order to attend BAE but that went out the window when I saw the new 45 drive. I just had to stare at it for sometime to get an idea on what it was and appreciate what it did.
Again my hat goes off to you, as another big stride in drive systems is achieved this year.
Congrates.
03-03-2003 23:27
Andy Baker
|
Originally posted by M. Krass As the ball's forward rotation is tied to the omniwheels rotation since they're in powered by the same gearbox, I was wondering how you accounted for any imbalance in losses that might exist. After all, if there are more losses on the ball than there are in the omnwheel, wouldn't it spin slower? ...and then, wouldn't it just be dragging and do nothing to "power" the robot? Does that make more sense? |
04-03-2003 03:09
Tony
Words do not do the TechnoKats justice.
Years past, you've ALWAYS been one of my favorite robots. My favorite robot of **ALL** time was your Huge Freakin' Arm of 99 (TKO). That thing could destroy anything in its path.
Now you throw TWO beauties at me to choose from.
Question: My memory is hazy, but the arm on Mighty Mouse brings back memories of the Huge Freakin' Arm of 99. Are there many//any similarities there?
And since there are a number of people that seem to be confused and seem to believe that this is the post where you go to shamelessly plug yourself and your team and your personal 'wondrous' ideas you didn't have the balls to run with (like the TechnoKats did) :
This thread belongs to the TechnoKats.
Fear them.
EXAMPLE OF WHAT DOES BELONG HERE:
TechnoKats, you guys are astounding. I will spend as much time as possible in your pit at Midwest gaping in dumb awe.
You guys and what you've done this year is everything FIRST is supposed to be about.
I can only pray to once again see the wonderful sight of 45 and 111 side by side.
See you at Midwest.
Rock on.
04-03-2003 04:45
FotoPlasma
Mad props to 45.
This has to be the most interesting concept turned into reality that I have ever seen.
I'm going to need to see video of this thing in action.
Keep up the great work. And that goes for everyone.

<edit>
Oh, one more thing... I want to see the code for driving this thing...

</edit>
04-03-2003 13:38
Steven CarmainThe program was thrown together at the last minute. The program is just a simple tank drive code with 2 sticks, and if you move the right stick left and right, it gives you sideways movement
04-03-2003 17:41
Dr. BobSo as everyone has said. The Ball drive system is real impressive. Must be awsome on the feild. But thats just the base. How much can that little claw really do?
04-03-2003 18:54
Clark Gilbert
The arm operates just like any other arm (it's similar to the 1999 arm with less joints). It's meant to be a stack destroyer and that's it. I'm guessing it could try to remove 1 tote to lower the multiplier or it can swing and wipe out 1/2 or all of the stack. For a sure method of removing the whole stack it can grab under the lip of the bottom tote with the lexan attachment at the end. Once it's under the lip it lifts and topples the stack.
04-03-2003 20:43
gsenselAs a past member in the team I am impressed with what I see in this and the other parts of the team.
05-03-2003 14:48
soezggi agree, very cool system, even if you dont get to use it.
my question: why would you patent it, and what purpose would that serve?
05-03-2003 15:19
Steven Carmain|
Originally posted by soezgg my question: why would you patent it, and what purpose would that serve? |
05-03-2003 15:24
Beast314I must say I don't know if we'll see a ball driven Segway, but it's never a bad idea to patent ideas. I only wish I would have done that with ideas I've had. I can't wait the less than 24 hours to check out you're bots.
30-03-2003 10:23
Gadget470Sorry to bring up a dead thread but I think it's appropriate.
|
Originally posted by JosephM While I think this is great and very cool, I just wonder if this years task was so simple that we can afford such lavash things. What about other teams who can barely move? Were the TechnoCats right to spluge on their drive while many teams still don't move? Just a question. |
30-03-2003 11:48
Austin
|
Originally posted by Gadget470 Well Joseph, as was witnessed this weekend at the Midwest Regional. The technokats splurging provided another team which couldn't move a chance to play. The technokats would have done it anyways, as they already had prototypes made. They just needed to start it's build post-kickoff if they were to want to compete with it. I feel that if a team can afford it and it's of use to someone less fortunate, they should definitly build or use whatever it may be. The teams who blow thousands just so they have something neat.. well I don't like seeing those. The technokat's once again showed the meaning of FIRST. An Ispiring new development in the Science and Technology field, and backing it with Gracious Professionalism. |
30-03-2003 12:41
OneAngryDaisyI'm dying to see this in action- what team did you Technokats lend this drivetrain to? You sure did deserve that judges award!
30-03-2003 13:22
sanddrag|
Originally posted by OneAngryDaisy I'm dying to see this in action- what team did you Technokats lend this drivetrain to? You sure did deserve that judges award! |
30-03-2003 13:27
Gadget470http://www.soap108.com/2003/movies/il/
Matches: 3, 15, 31, 42, 56, 68, 81, and 93
(Match 31 was vs technokat's)
30-03-2003 16:27
ComBBAT_Amy
|
Originally posted by David Kelly its sad to see people criticize other teams for doing something good. |