|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
(Sorry this description didn't post until now)
Here's the next phase of the design I've been working on.
Thank again for all of the input on the previous iterations.
Explanation for the piston mount:
Several key things drove this design. I wanted to have as many components of the module be done off the same sheet of aluminum in one run of a CNC laser. Thus, eliminating the need for time on a mill or other piece of machinery.
This is why all the parts on the piston mount are either COTS, or 0.25" Aluminum.
I also want this system to be as "plug-and-play" as possible since my team doesn't have consistent access to a machine shop. Because of this, I added the aluminum support "tabs" above and below the chassis rail which act as a positioning aid for drilling and bolting the vertical part of the piston assembly to the chassis.
This should make using handtools more accurate and prevent slop that could mess with the module actuation. They obviously also add structural support, but aren't completely necessary.
I put the piston support on the front side of the chassis because it allows the overall assembly to be shorter. It's a 0.75" stroke and it makes contact with the ground somewhere around 0.25"-0.35" through the stroke.
A few other comments:
-The actual module hasn't changed much. I still need to add retaining clips to the axles.
-To answer a few of the comments I had previously, I want to stick with belts/pulleys (I'm probably never designing anything with chain again...) because of the ability to rely on COTS components and again, so we do as little machining as possible. Plus, I want the ease of using a hex to drive everything. I'm just not a big fan of using keyways to drive components.
-I don't plan on using the axles as added standoffs again because of the necessity of the hex to drive the components for the module.
21-07-2015 10:06
Ryan_ToddLooks pretty solid!
21-07-2015 10:49
wilsonmw04might be nit picking here, but isn't a butterfly drive omni wheels as opposed to mecanum wheels?
21-07-2015 11:27
AlexanderTheOKIf you put omnis on it then you're not going to get much utility out of it. Really, what do you gain from switching between traction and omni? You turn a bit better. That's about it.
However, if you have mecanum wheels, you can switch between having insane push power, to having a fast and holonomic drive. You get more utility out of it this way.
21-07-2015 11:35
notmattlythgoe
|
If you put omnis on it then you're not going to get much utility out of it. Really, what do you gain from switching between traction and omni? You turn a bit better. That's about it.
However, if you have mecanum wheels, you can switch between having insane push power, to having a fast and holonomic drive. You get more utility out of it this way. |
21-07-2015 11:35
bkahl|
If you put omnis on it then you're not going to get much utility out of it. Really, what do you gain from switching between traction and omni? You turn a bit better. That's about it.
|
21-07-2015 11:39
pmangels17I'm not going to claim to be an expert on butterfly drive, but I wouldn't feel comfortable cantilevering that module out like it's a WCD, I'd rather support from both sides here. But then again I'm from the east coast...
21-07-2015 11:41
orangemoore|
If you put omnis on it then you're not going to get much utility out of it. Really, what do you gain from switching between traction and omni? You turn a bit better. That's about it.
However, if you have mecanum wheels, you can switch between having insane push power, to having a fast and holonomic drive. You get more utility out of it this way. |
21-07-2015 11:44
Kevin Leonard
Back on topic and not debating the pros/cons of butterfly vs. mecanum, I have to agree with pmangels somewhat that cantilevering the module sounds quite risky.
I think this would have to be paired with some bulletproof bumpers or an outside rail in order to work super well.
That being said, I love what you're trying to do, and I really wanna see it work.
21-07-2015 11:48
wilsonmw04How are you going to manufacture the bracket for the cylinder? it looks dove tail joint I would use for wood drawers.
21-07-2015 12:01
bkahl|
How are you going to manufacture the bracket for the cylinder? it looks dove tail joint I would use for wood drawers.
|
21-07-2015 15:24
asid61That piston mount plate might bend over time, particularly if there are bumpers contacting it (shoving can get them). We had a similar issue with bumpers in 2014, but it depends on where your bumpers are vertically.
21-07-2015 16:44
IndySam
<Grumpy Old Man Rant>
It's a cylinder, not a piston!
<end Rant>
21-07-2015 17:32
Michael Hill
21-07-2015 18:58
DekeSome items to ponder on this design, but it looks like you are making progress!

Pic 1:
-The black arrows show close proximity of the standoff bolts, the stiffness gain is minimal, you may consider spreading them around to increase the stiffness or eliminating a bolt from the pairs.
-The blue arrow shows the force applied through the module into the cylinder, and the red arrows are the resulting vectors. This places a moment indicated by the second red arrow and creates a high stress area. Whether the .25" plate will yield or not would have to be determined for the application, but the long mounting point increases deflection and reduces stiffness. This would be unwanted for turning in a tank drive with traction wheels as less stiffness will increase bounce during turning. Stiffness is required to allow the wheels to break traction to scrub smoothly. There are many ways to increase stiffness, Skywalker gave one good solution:
|
[*]I agree that 1/4" thickness on the piston mounting plate (assuming aluminum?) is pretty much necessary the way you've mounted it, but consider what would happen if you switched the mounting plate to the inside of the chassis rail. This would of course require the mounting plate to bend maybe 10-15 degrees outwards to give enough clearance for the piston, but would place it roughly parallel with the piston's stroke; the result would therefore reduce the bending moment on the mounting plate, and let you switch to a thinner material or carve more weight out of it.
|
|
I'm not going to claim to be an expert on butterfly drive, but I wouldn't feel comfortable cantilevering that module out like it's a WCD, I'd rather support from both sides here. But then again I'm from the east coast...
|
|
I have to agree with pmangels somewhat that cantilevering the module sounds quite risky.
I think this would have to be paired with some bulletproof bumpers or an outside rail in order to work super well. |
21-07-2015 19:20
Kevin Leonard
|
Do you guys have more information to support these feelings?
|
21-07-2015 20:35
Darkseer54|
I have to agree with pmangels somewhat that cantilevering the module sounds quite risky.
|
22-07-2015 08:36
fargus111111111Two things,
First, I too am skeptical of cantilevering the module for stability. I have no doubt that the plates would be fine structurally but I could see where your wheels may want to bend the module and possibly loosen some of the bolts as well as not turn smoothly.
Second, I assume the traction wheels are 3 in, am I right?
I am certainly no expert on this kind of drive and the cantilever may perform wonderfully, I would just have to see in running to be in full support of cantilevering the module. I love the idea behind this sort of drive train and I would love to see a video and real life weight once you actually have it working.
22-07-2015 12:09
Madison
|
To go against this, I believe 624 said that they cantilevered their grasshopper modules in 2014 without difficulty. Whether the fact that that was a grasshopper rather than full *Octocanum* played into that, I am not sure.
|