A-level designs-added CAD drawings
Moderators: BeligerAnt, petec, administrator
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:25 am
- Location: Loughborough
- Contact:
Think I'll change the subject slightly, and narrow it down. Designs 1 and 3 seem to be most popular, and tbh, with adaptations, 3 could be turned into 1... So basically only choose 3 or 1 if ur voting after reading this...
@ Bouncy-bot. Think Tornado... they managed it. Mite not be as much scope for weapons as design 3, but i reckon I could do a disc module, and maybe a lifter...
@ Bouncy-bot. Think Tornado... they managed it. Mite not be as much scope for weapons as design 3, but i reckon I could do a disc module, and maybe a lifter...
Team 'In Theory'
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:25 am
- Location: Loughborough
- Contact:
- BeligerAnt
- Posts: 1872
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am
- Location: Brighton
- Contact:
Adam, I would question whether some of the designs have enough usable space for control electronics, sensors etc, etc?
I see there is a space below the drive servos. I assume that is for the battery pack, as it's just the right size for 4 x 2/3AAA's (I know, because it's how RONNY and RampAnt were designed!)
The second design seems to allow virtually no space other than on top of the servos. Whilst it may be possible to build a small controller to fit there, it would almost certainly require small surface-mount components. There also doesn't seem to be much room for any sensors?
The other designs seem to have more internal space, but it doesn't look like the last design has much usable space?
Do you have any estimates of the size of the control board(s)? And the sensors? If you are using a commercial board (e.g. Basic Stamp) you are very much stuck with what you get. If you are designing your own board, you have more flexibility, but you still need to have some idea of the feasible overall size. A board that is 50% covered in components is considered quite dense (unless you go to very specialised multi-layer PCBs like PC motherboards). Also don't forget the height of components and the mating halves of connectors!
You might also need to consider cable routing and assembly issues, like space to mate/unmate connectors.
Hope this helps...
I see there is a space below the drive servos. I assume that is for the battery pack, as it's just the right size for 4 x 2/3AAA's (I know, because it's how RONNY and RampAnt were designed!)
The second design seems to allow virtually no space other than on top of the servos. Whilst it may be possible to build a small controller to fit there, it would almost certainly require small surface-mount components. There also doesn't seem to be much room for any sensors?
The other designs seem to have more internal space, but it doesn't look like the last design has much usable space?
Do you have any estimates of the size of the control board(s)? And the sensors? If you are using a commercial board (e.g. Basic Stamp) you are very much stuck with what you get. If you are designing your own board, you have more flexibility, but you still need to have some idea of the feasible overall size. A board that is 50% covered in components is considered quite dense (unless you go to very specialised multi-layer PCBs like PC motherboards). Also don't forget the height of components and the mating halves of connectors!
You might also need to consider cable routing and assembly issues, like space to mate/unmate connectors.
Hope this helps...
Gary, Team BeligerAnt
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:25 am
- Location: Loughborough
- Contact:
design 2 has been rejected for the reasons of getting stuff in...
design 1+3 are essentially the same thing, only without and with the disc module respectively, and I've put battery pack in, so I know there's room for it. PCBs: I'm using a PICAxe 28 pin project board, and making what othre boards I need, which can be stacked on top of servos... It's gonna be tight, but there is enough room
design 1+3 are essentially the same thing, only without and with the disc module respectively, and I've put battery pack in, so I know there's room for it. PCBs: I'm using a PICAxe 28 pin project board, and making what othre boards I need, which can be stacked on top of servos... It's gonna be tight, but there is enough room
Team 'In Theory'
-
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
- Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
- Contact:
I think my level of expertise has been outdone to give any liable comment. I would say though that its an ambitious project, but you knew that when you took it on. I suggest going for the simplest of the CAD desgins to create, simply to lower the work rate on yourself. Less your either so passionate about the project you will work yourself silly on it, or some kind of sadist...
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39
Winner - AWS 39
I'd say go for the one with the lowest wedge. This would make it more difficult to fight against, therefore better to practise against. So working in that logic, I'd go for 2 or 5.
As for the spinner, the idea that anyone would put ther shiny new robot up against a spinner, just for practise, before any event seems a bit silly.
As for the spinner, the idea that anyone would put ther shiny new robot up against a spinner, just for practise, before any event seems a bit silly.
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:25 am
- Location: Loughborough
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
- Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
- Contact: