Subject:
|
Re: Lego Breaks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Aug 2000 22:27:47 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
John Barnes <barnes@sensors.com=NoSpam=>
|
Viewed:
|
1111 times
|
| |
|
|
>Hmmm - so could you mount TWO wheels on the caster - one with a relatively
>wide tyre mounted a large distance from the vertical caster axle - and
another
>(close to the center of the caster axle) with a thin tyre?
>The thin wheel would bear the weight of the robot - without reducing the
wheelbase
>by 'tucking under' the machine.
>The wide wheel (having more friction) would provide the torque to rotate the
>entire mechanism...it would tuck under the robot - but since it's only there
>to rotate the caster, you don't care.
Interesting, but how do you perform the load apportionment between the two
wheels?
Spring loaded? The surface you're riding on may not be that level.
I have seen casters with two parallel wheels on the same axle, one on
either side of
the caster axle. (In fact a lot of office chairs use this technique) This
has the nice effect
of lengthening the torque arm to each wheel while ensuring there's still a
wheel not
too tucked under. (The wheels must be free to rotate relative to each other
of course)
JB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | RE: Lego Breaks
|
| The answer to good casters seems to revolve (excuse the pun) around the caster radius. Using a narrow wheel (to limit turning friction) helps. The real key is the distance from the wheel's axle to the caster's axis of rotation. The bigger the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Aug-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
