To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.roboticsOpen lugnet.robotics in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / 26292
26291  |  26293
Subject: 
Re: Almost 300! And another Mindstorms Challenge! And more!
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:20:53 GMT
Viewed: 
3427 times
  
In lugnet.robotics, steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
bobcrean wrote:
I read the entire thread, and the rules and ask the question:  Why must it
ROLL at all? If friction is the name of the game, and if the wheels (tires)
are the parts that have the "stickiest" qualities, then why not maximize the
surface area of those. To do that, you lay them on there side and inch the
robot along, barely lifting half of them alternatively, inching them
forward.

So you have (in essence) a walking robot - but you wouldn't want to
halve your traction by having only half of your feet on the ground at
any one time - you'd want to have a robot with LOTS of feet and pick
up just some tiny fraction of them at any one time. Something with a
hundred little feet which only lifted one of them at a time would have
almost twice as much surface on the ground as a biped.

However, surface area on the ground isn't everything.  The pressure
exerted onto the ground matters too.  With more area but the same weight
of robot, you have less pressure at each point.  Whether this is a
terrible thing or not depends on the nature of the surfaces in contact.

For some surfaces, it's almost irrelevent what the surface area is - the
amount of friction depends only on the weight of the object and the
coefficient of friction.  For other surfaces, both the weight and the
surface area matter.   That's one of the things that makes this tricky.

In this arrangement, "speed" becomes irrelevant, in that you are not relying
on the torqe of the motors to do anything but lift the "pads", scooch them
forward and put them down and drag them backwards.

That's not true.  There are two parts to walking - one is the trivial
act of lifting an unloaded foot and moving it forwards - but the power
is required in pushing down on that foot such that it propels the body
of the creature forwards.

So - no - you are completely incorrect.  The torque of the motors still
matters a lot.

Wouldn't this approach "walk away" with the prize vs. any rolling robot
using the same wheels?

Not necessarily.

I see a high amount of torque required on the Lego motors also.  In general, and
if done poorly, all you have is a bot with a stalled motor for one minute
running at full power.  Clutch gears could help, but it would have to be done in
such a way as to not severely hamper the pulling force. This can be heavy wear
and tear on Lego hardware and be expensive!


Dave H.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Almost 300! And another Mindstorms Challenge! And more!
 
OK. Let's start over again: What I should have said is that I believe that if you have two vehicles each weighing 2 lbs (the maximum allowed by the rules), one rolling, one "walking", the probablity of making a "stronger" forwardly mobile unit is (...) (18 years ago, 22-Jul-06, to lugnet.robotics)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Almost 300! And another Mindstorms Challenge! And more!
 
(...) So you have (in essence) a walking robot - but you wouldn't want to halve your traction by having only half of your feet on the ground at any one time - you'd want to have a robot with LOTS of feet and pick up just some tiny fraction of them (...) (18 years ago, 22-Jul-06, to lugnet.robotics)

6 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR