[eagleengineering] Re: Ballast
- From: "Karen Hillblom" <KandNplace@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <eagleengineering@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 06:20:12 -0700
lets bring some
you never know if we might need it
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Kane
To: eagleengineering@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 9:48 PM
Subject: [eagleengineering] Re: Ballast
Oh and we're not changing the thread at Atlanta. The old stuff is staying on
the wheels, so we don't need to bring any new thread.
-Jeff
Michael Montazeri <chaoticprout@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, and taking into account what happened at So Cal, we don't want to
look bad at qualifiers because we totally changed our drive train.
On Apr 10, 2005 8:50 PM, Jeff Kane wrote:
> Ya, the drive train is alright. We should just add weight to the back like
> Mr. Mitchell had said. Changing the drive train in Atlanta on Thursday
will
> be somewhat of a big task and chances are, we will have many problems. One
> will be having drive wheels in the front on the bent chassis. The drive
> wheels are bigger and that will also not affect the robot rocking over the
> front wheels. We have about 10 spare pounds on the robot that we can use
> for adding extra weight, so we should see to adding some weights in the
> battery box, or on the chassis. Oh and Nick...most of the weight is in the
> back. The b attery, gearboxes, and the two posts holding up the arm are
> closer to the back of the chassis. Only when the arm is extended over the
> front of the chassis does it seem like the weight is out there because of
> how the center of gravity changes and the robot rocks on the front
wheels.
> Turning will also be durastically changed too because the turning radius
> will be around the front of the robot where the arm is rather than the
back
> of the robot, where all of the weight is.
>
> -Jeff
>
>
> Michael Montazeri wrote:
> I'd rather not change a working drive train at Atlanta....
>
> On Apr 10, 2005 6:43 PM, Karen Hillblom wrote:
> > that is an issue that we were discusing befor we shiped the robot
> > that problem can be fixed by puting the 4 driven wheels to the front
> insted
> > of the back and have the omni wheels in the back
& gt; > because most of the weight is in the front
> > that way there is no added weight and turning should be about the same.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Nancy
> > To: eagleengineering@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 5:00 PM
> > Subject: [eagleengineering] Ballast
> >
> >
> >
> > I had a thought today about the robot rocking onto the front wheels, and
> > loosing traction.
> >
> > You may want to look at your remaining weight bud get, and add some dead
> > weight under the battery.
> >
> > Five to seven pounds would be good.
> >
> > This would lower the center of gravity and keep better traction.
> >
> >
> >
> > The down side may be more difficult turning, due to better traction.
> >
> >
> >
> &g t; The video I shot of the semi finals shows the robot clearly rocking
onto
> the
> > front wheels, and the traction wheels freely spinning.
> >
> > This started the robot rocking back and forth almost wildly as it
> approached
> > the scoring tetra.
> >
> >
> >
> > Let me know what you think!
> >
> >
> >
> > J. Ray Mitchell Jr.
> >
> > Director of Engineering
> >
> > Cinesite Digital Studios, Hollywood.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
