Figure 2.4 (Horeinstein)
Peak
performance design competition: vehicle climbing a ramp, able to sustain
against an opposing vehicle.
Figure 2.5
(Horenstein)
-Autonomous
-Powered by: batteries of up to 9V; or
rubber band (0.4cm x 10cm max size); or mouse strap (spring size 1cm x 3cm
max.)
-Speed
-Defensive/Offensive
-Adaptability
-Durability
-Simplicity
-Power source
-Propulsion
mechanism
-Stopping
device
-Starting
device
Figure 2.6 (Horeinstein)
-Battery powered
-Defensive
strategy –slower moving (higher torque), wedge-shaped vehicle (destructive or
helping a ride-over)
-Plan
to use plastic gears (reduce speed of wheels relative to motor shaft speed
providing mechanical torque) and axles
-One
motor to both rear wheels: differential capability good for curved paths only;
front-wheel drive a disadvantage in this application.
Figure 2.8 (Horeinstein)
-You and your teammates have decided, among
competing possibilities, on one you think will have the best chance of winning
the competition. A preliminary sketch is:
figure 2.9 (Horeinstein)
-Run
your vehicle, by hand first, up the ramp. Bottom of vehicle hits ramp at top of
hill:
figure 2.10 (Horeinstein)
· Larger
wheels: redo calculation on force required from motor
· Shorter
vehicle: steeper shape, not effective for helping a ride-over.
· Move rear wheels forward, you claim success. Can topple
backwards with a ride-over.
Figure 2.12 (Horeinstein)
· Learning
from failure is a normal part of the design process.
· Decide
that best option is bigger wheels. Change gear box, OK.
-Motors: no 9-V motors, lower-than-rated voltage
->torque reduced, higher-than-rated voltage -> motor damaged, but 15s OK.
-Try
motors rates with 3V and 6V. Measure mechanical power delivered by these
motors.
Figure 2.13 (Horeinstein)
-Records
all characteristics of unused motors in case you need to reconsider one of the
rejected motors.
-Records
all calculations, specifications, sketches, to have ready by the time of the
competition.