|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Here's a quick mockup of the custom gearboxes driving each of the four mecanum wheels on our new drive train. These plates were cut on a Haas CNC milling machine because of the precision required for bearing press fits.
It's obviously missing its motor, which sits inside the largest hole, as well as appropriate spacers.
27-10-2006 03:08
sanddragHaha, quick mockup. It's very prettiful. I less than three the Haas.
27-10-2006 08:59
NitroxextremeThat looks really nice...even before it is completely finished.
What is the final gear ratio for that setup?
27-10-2006 10:02
chris31Look nice. Glad you got your machine working.
27-10-2006 12:09
Madison
|
Originally Posted by Nitroxextreme
That looks really nice...even before it is completely finished.
What is the final gear ratio for that setup? |
27-10-2006 17:48
Scott Morganyour "quick mockup" looks better than anything we have ever made
27-10-2006 18:04
AdamHeard
|
Originally Posted by Scott Morgan
your "quick mockup" looks better than anything we have ever made
|
27-10-2006 18:37
Andrew Blair
Sweet Jesus, you guys are serious about prototyping, huh?
Looks pretty spifferific...
28-10-2006 10:21
Joe Johnson
M,
Looks nice. I have a few questions if you'd be so kind.
What holds the plates in the right positions with respect to each other?
If I have it right, the CIM comes in the largish hole and connects to the middle plate. Is it just the screws and the intermediate shaft that keep this middle plate in place?
How do the outside plates locate with respect to each other? Is it just the motor and the two longish bolts?
As to ratio, I assume the 12:40 is done in gears on the first stage off the motor. The 18:72 is done in #25 chain? Is that right? If so, how are you tensioning the chain? It is okay to say there is no tensioning ability, you just have to know what you are doing and do it on purpose, not by accident -- which is almost always a disaster. If you don't have tensioning, how do you say you can change the ratio by changing the sprockets -- this would almost certainly require you to change the center distance of the middle shaft to the wheel shaft.
Finally, a #25 pitch 72T sprocket is almost 6" in dia. I must have something screwed up in how I think this thing works because I can't see room for this size disk. Help straighten me out.
Joe J.
P.S. I am not picking on M here. I know that she is a pretty smart cookie. I am mostly asking these types of questions in public as a How To for folks to evaluate design concepts. JJ
28-10-2006 11:26
Richard Wallace
|
Originally Posted by Joe Johnson
Looks nice. I have a few questions if you'd be so kind...
|
28-10-2006 14:24
Joe Johnson
|
Originally Posted by Richard
All good questions, Dr. Joe. Like you, I'm interested in how the side plates are going to be spaced and aligned.
Madison has already addressed many of your other questions in an earlier thread. For detail of the gear and sprocket ratios and diameters, look here. |
28-10-2006 15:01
Madison
|
Originally Posted by Joe Johnson
M,
Looks nice. I have a few questions if you'd be so kind. What holds the plates in the right positions with respect to each other? If I have it right, the CIM comes in the largish hole and connects to the middle plate. Is it just the screws and the intermediate shaft that keep this middle plate in place? How do the outside plates locate with respect to each other? Is it just the motor and the two longish bolts? As to ratio, I assume the 12:40 is done in gears on the first stage off the motor. The 18:72 is done in #25 chain? Is that right? If so, how are you tensioning the chain? It is okay to say there is no tensioning ability, you just have to know what you are doing and do it on purpose, not by accident -- which is almost always a disaster. If you don't have tensioning, how do you say you can change the ratio by changing the sprockets -- this would almost certainly require you to change the center distance of the middle shaft to the wheel shaft. Finally, a #25 pitch 72T sprocket is almost 6" in dia. I must have something screwed up in how I think this thing works because I can't see room for this size disk. Help straighten me out. Joe J. P.S. I am not picking on M here. I know that she is a pretty smart cookie. I am mostly asking these types of questions in public as a How To for folks to evaluate design concepts. JJ |
28-10-2006 15:04
efoote868unless you want to make the programmers tweak the code alot, then I'd suggest you'd make sure you have all the cims in the same configuration or else they will deadband in different areas... causing for different motions at slower speads
28-10-2006 15:07
Madison
|
Originally Posted by efoote868
unless you want to make the programmers tweak the code alot, then I'd suggest you'd make sure you have all the cims in the same configuration or else they will deadband in different areas... causing for different motions at slower speads
|
28-10-2006 15:50
Richard Wallace
|
Originally Posted by M. Krass
They'll have optical encoders to play with, so I'm hopeful that'll alleviate some discrepancy between the motors. I prefer symmetry in two planes over making the lives of my programmers easy, anyway.
![]() |
30-10-2006 09:31
Joe Johnson
|
Originally Posted by Richard
Yeah! What she said!
Bits weigh nothing, cost nothing, and are available on zero lead-time. And you only need two tools to work on them -- the one under your fingertips and the one between your ears. ![]() |
30-10-2006 18:33
efoote868haha... then you'd better give them their own mock-up to play with early... (thats what our team did this year... and we didn't have to spend the bus ride to pittsburgh programming, made for better coding, less stress, life is good. Programmers are people too!
)
you'll kill 2 birds with one stone... they'll be able to tweak it better, and they'll also be able to play with the camera, and get the robot moving in the right direction.
Optical encoders --> mecanum wheels scuff. Thats what they're designed to do, so be careful how you approach that.
30-10-2006 18:45
Richard Wallace
|
Originally Posted by efoote868
haha... then you'd better give them their own mock-up to play with early... (thats what our team did this year... and we didn't have to spend the bus ride to pittsburgh programming, made for better coding, less stress, life is good. Programmers are people too!
)you'll kill 2 birds with one stone... they'll be able to tweak it better, and they'll also be able to play with the camera, and get the robot moving in the right direction... |
to adapt to the actual robot's quirks. And of course they could have used more time than they got.
30-10-2006 22:42
yongkimleng|
Originally Posted by Richard
These are the facts of life for software engineers: (1) you will be the last member of the design team to get your hands on the system, and (2) it will be your fault if it doesn't work.
|
04-11-2006 01:02
GMKlenklenIs this the same design featured in another thread? I know the colors on the cad are the same... and it looks like you even kept the suspention idea aswell! I'm interested to see how easely this works out for you.
And did I hear someone say that the CIM motors move slower or give less torque in one direction than the other? Um... a little enlightenment please?
Thanks.
04-11-2006 05:41
Cory
|
Originally Posted by GMKlenklen
Is this the same design featured in another thread? I know the colors on the cad are the same... and it looks like you even kept the suspention idea aswell! I'm interested to see how easely this works out for you.
And did I hear someone say that the CIM motors move slower or give less torque in one direction than the other? Um... a little enlightenment please? Thanks. |
04-11-2006 09:53
Richard Wallace
For more than you probably wanted to know about how motor performance can depend on direction of rotation, read this thread.
05-03-2007 01:05
monty1540|
Good points. Programmers also need a robot to program, which they often don't get until it's about time to put it in the crate!
Our team made a demonstration holonomic drivetrain in the 2005 off-season, and our programmers drove that until we got the competition robot ready. Of course they still needed some time to adapt to the actual robot's quirks. And of course they could have used more time than they got.These are the facts of life for software engineers: (1) you will be the last member of the design team to get your hands on the system, and (2) it will be your fault if it doesn't work. |