Subject:
|
Re: pneumatic cylinder: why not hydraulic ??
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Apr 2004 22:39:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2811 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Mark Bellis wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > In lugnet.technic, Mark Bellis wrote:
> > > One key thing about hydraulics has always been "avoid leaks". To switch the
> > > fluid, just invent something I've wished for for years - the reverser switch.
> > > This switch has four ports, used in opposing pairs. Clockwise in a circle they
> > > would be A, C, B, D. In the middle position all ports are blocked. Pushed one
> > > way and A-C and B-D are connected. Push the other way and A-D and B-C are
> > > connected. The equivalent is to use four switches, with ports A to D being the
> > > middle ports of each switch. Connect the outer ports of the switches so that
> > > you get a crossover of the pipes without any leakage to the atmosphere in any
> > > position, whilst moving all four switch levers together. With ports on a switch
> > > being L, M and R, connect 1L to 3L, 1R to 4R, 2L to 4L and 2R to 3R. Connect
> > > the inputs to 1M and 2M and a cylinder to 3M and 4M.
> >
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > I thought this one through, and I get it. I can see how it works. The
> > solution works equally well as my solution. I don't think mine is any more or
> > less complicated, just different. Less hoses, more T's and other technic parts
> > than yours.
> >
> > The wonderful thing is there are two different solutions, and each have their
> > strengths.
> >
> > I've been working on an advanced hexapod that needs 12 reversors. The
> > geometry of my reversors present some problems because they are so tall, and
> > they have to be out of phase. I'm going to try your reversors and see if they
> > fit better in the geometries I already have. I think your geometry will work
> > better.
> >
> > I'll keep you informed.
> >
> > Kevin
> If you're short of space you can always double the reverser back on itself if
> you're using the new switches from 8455, in a similar way to your picture.
> That's why I like the new switches. A 2x2 switch module is probably easier to
> accomodate than a 1x4, and the tubes might be shorter. You could use flex tubes
> to go underneath the switches and rubber ones only to do the corners, to save on
> wasted air. That's why I want a 100m reel of flex tubing.
>
> If you put switches 1&3 on one side and 2&4 on the other, you only need two
> tubes to go underneath and there are two gaps between switch mounts to put them
> in!
>
> When I have time I'll try to get pictures of the robots and example systems
> online.
Cool, I look forward to it. I ended up adding two 1x4's per leg on my hexapod.
They fit nicely. It looks very burly with all those switches though.
All the structure and pneumatic parts are there, except hoses and T's. Hooking
up all the hoses correctly can be tough on the brain, so I'm going to take it
slowly.
I'll make sure to upload pictures and movies when it walks.
Thanks for sharing your reversor design.
Kevin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: pneumatic cylinder: why not hydraulic ??
|
| (...) If you're short of space you can always double the reverser back on itself if you're using the new switches from 8455, in a similar way to your picture. That's why I like the new switches. A 2x2 switch module is probably easier to accomodate (...) (20 years ago, 9-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
38 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
