|
|
|
 I want to see the [game] animation robot with the plunger to pick up balls and the boots that spin to kick them. Could you do that please. It would be very awesome. :D - the man [more] |
 |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
By: Daniel Morse
New: 07-02-2006 21:50
Updated: 07-02-2006 21:50
Views: 834 times
This is our nearly finished design. There are still a few bugs to be worked out; however, this is what the machine is going to look like.
Discussion
view entire thread
07-02-2006 23:42
Billfred
Re: pic: 213 Design
Looks nice--the best one-point robot I've seen yet.
Good luck this season!
07-02-2006 23:52
sanddrag
Re: pic: 213 Design
I want to see how the power gets from the motor to the wheel.
08-02-2006 07:59
Peter Matteson
Re: pic: 213 Design
I hate to be "that guy" but doesn't that ramp violate <S03> based on update 6? It also may violate <R04>.
See this thread:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...9&page=1&pp=15
08-02-2006 08:10
Greg Perkins
Re: pic: 213 Design
seems like its outside of the allowed footprint. you guys may want to rethink this !
08-02-2006 10:02
DjAlamose
Re: pic: 213 Design
You can extend outside of the footprint! The only time that this cannot happen is for mechanism that throw or expel balls at a high rate. As long as the door does not move too fast there shouldn't be a problem as long as it is a low energy devise that does not exceed 3 m/s
Other than that...
How do you plan on getting to the goals? Is your robot powerful enough to push robots out of your way? Or is it fast enough to beat them there. From my experience Omni drive isn’t that fast or that powerful but highly maneuverable. I would also suggest adding side panels to the door to ensure that the balls don’t slide off the edge. Great conveyor design!
08-02-2006 10:20
Ryan Foley
Re: pic: 213 Design
I'm pretty sure this robot follows the rules.
1) that fold down ramp isnt launching balls, just letting them roll into the corner goal, so it doesnt count as a launcher that has to stay in the foot print
2) as far as the wedge rule, so long as the ramp is mounted above 8.5inches (the top of the bumper zone) they are not breaking any rules. <R04> states that parts of the robot between 0 and 8.5 inches off the floor must be 10degrees from vertical. Other parts should be designed to avoid wedging, so as long as they dont go using it to push against other robots they will be fine.
Sanddrag: this picture shows their prototype drive, you can see the belts they use to drive the wheels.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pi...&quiet=Verbose
To Team 213, my only suggestion (which you may have already thought of) is add something tall to the bottom of that unloading ramp, that stops your ramp from crossing through the opening of the corner goal, so you dont risk interefering with the scoring system. My old team had to do something very similar in 2004 to keep our ball collector from breaking the plane of the alliance station wall.
08-02-2006 10:25
Elgin Clock
Re: pic: 213 Design
Are you going for the ramp, cause if you are, I would drive up your chute and score points for myself as well. lol
Horray for piggy-back bots.
08-02-2006 11:19
Courtneyb1023
Re: pic: 213 Design
I've read all of the rules and Q&A's pertaining to this issue, but there are conflicting opinions. ok, so what's the final word. Is this design legal or illegal?
*assuming there are no obvious violations and that the distance between all points of the "ramp" and the ground exceeds 8.5 inches.
08-02-2006 11:43
Peter Matteson
Re: pic: 213 Design
The problem is based on answers like the this:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=424
And this:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=439
Many of us have argued whether or not a ramp is a shooter. It depends on how you define the interaction of gravity in the situation.
When you look at question like this:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=327
It gets muddier because the ramp is delivering the final impulse on the ball in a ball ejection system.
While in another series of posts based on <R04> is sounds perfectly legal.
I know I'm going off a little off the point here but this was a "Devil's Advocate thing". I mentioned it so that team 213 would feel comfortable that they are within the rules and be ready to argue the situation with the proper Q&A in hand if necessary. With all the discussion on this board I think preparation for talking to the inspectors needs to be made for such a device.
Such as:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=552
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=547
08-02-2006 15:06
GaryVoshol
Re: pic: 213 Design
Hopefully this Q&A is still in effect: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...hlight=gravity
|
Originally Posted by Q
Is a ramp which would allow balls to roll off the robot (and hopefully toward the corner goals) considered a shooter? The only force causing the balls to move would be gravity.
|
|
Originally Posted by A
This ramp would not be considered a shooter, but be sure it complies with <R04>.
|
Although in our case it may turn out to be a moot point, as we may be too close to the weight limit to install a fold-down door.
08-02-2006 15:43
ChuckDickerson
Re: pic: 213 Design
|
Originally Posted by DjAlamose
The only time that this cannot happen is for mechanism that throw or expel balls at a high rate. As long as the door does not move too fast there shouldn't be a problem as long as it is a low energy devise that does not exceed 3 m/s
|
08-02-2006 15:52
Zoheb N
Re: pic: 213 Design
sweet robot.. how are the omniwheels working for you guys
08-02-2006 17:41
pyroslev
Re: pic: 213 Design
Simple idea. Love it. Gravity drops the balls in so no rule breaking, to my knowledge.
Just nice
15-02-2006 22:05
Daniel Morse
Re: pic: 213 Design
Everybody, thank you very much for your input. First off, I did not actually see that this photo had generated discussion (I'm rather new to CD) so I am seeing this long after you guys wrote your posts. Basically, I designed the dumping mechanism, a friend of mine designed the intake, and his father and another student headed up the wheels. Let me say, as the dump group designer, that post about violating the rules scared the living daylights out of me (less than a week left now). It was not until I continued down the posts that I realized that this would be a legal machine (and yes, we meet all of the general requirements in this drawing). As for the omni wheels, we actually ran into trouble with those trucks you see. The reduction was not high enough, and as a result, we kept drawing way too much current, hence blowing our 120 amp bus and draining our battery in about 2 minutes. We redesigned the mechanism, adapting the drive shafts to fit in the KOP gearboxes, and re-attached the gearboxes in the same configuration shown, and the drive works very well. Thank you for all your comments.
view entire thread
Tags
loading ...