MagLev C

erikb
Member
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: January 31st, 2013, 2:04 pm
Division: C
State: CO

Re: MagLev C

Postby erikb » May 24th, 2013, 5:44 am

I will start off saying that the third place robot arm team spent less then $350 total on the arm. Many pieces were scavenged from goodwill buys sush as the thrust bearings from an old drill.

On top of that the biggest expense was having to purchase the transmitters and receivers this year be ause they came up missing from last year. It could have been done this year with less then $100 out of pocket.

So two of the top three robotic arms were not purchased but built with hard work and inginiuty. I am not saying that anyone else did. I am just pointing out that two did not. So don't nit pick

Next, after testing the magnets the kids found that 6 ceramic magnets on a sled and the same type on the track could easily hold 6k. They did not build it because they could not solve the propeller problem

Can their be instances of money buying a win. Sure, it can happen but this year I can assure you it was not the case.

Also, be mindful that not every team that wins purchased their win. Some spent 100 of hours and worked as hard as they could to find the best solution
--
Poudre High School, Fort Collins CO.

plaid suit guy2
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: May 19th, 2013, 6:45 pm
Division: C
State: CO

Re: MagLev C

Postby plaid suit guy2 » May 24th, 2013, 7:01 pm

if the vex parts hadn't been vex quality, we wouldn't have blown up those motors, and the robot would have been like $100
the bulk of the cost was in the zip ties, the duct tape, and the rivets, everything else was scavenged or borrowed.
blue and yellow plaid suit
Nationals 2012:
Sound of Music: 8th

Nationals 2013:
Remote Sensing: 1st
ELG: 1st
MagLev: 6th

State 2014:
Boomi: 1st (scored 1824)
Circuits: 1st
Compound: 3rd
Malgev: 1st
MP: 2nd

total gold: 18
total silver: 10
total bronze: 5
6th: 1
Poudre High School class of '15

gorf250
Member
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: November 6th, 2011, 4:09 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA

Re: MagLev C

Postby gorf250 » May 29th, 2013, 8:29 pm

@jdog:
where did you get those propellers? like no one sells them
gws propellers glued together, so it's a 6 bladed prop.
Jdogg, why did you choose to make your rear prop so small?
#AllSevenYears

hmcginny
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: February 28th, 2011, 6:27 pm
Division: Grad
State: PA
Location: Penn

Re: MagLev C

Postby hmcginny » May 29th, 2013, 9:32 pm

@jdog:
where did you get those propellers? like no one sells them
gws propellers glued together, so it's a 6 bladed prop.
Jdogg, why did you choose to make your rear prop so small?
Space concerns (needed to use as much space as possible for weight), and trying to generate more thrust in the area close to the rotational axis, where the large prop wasn't creating much. Also partially because we had the small propeller already attached from an older design.
Harriton 2013 (Captain 2012-2013)
Penn 2017

2014 PA State Compound Machines Supervisor

Past Events: Fermi, Thermo, WIDI, Maglev, TPS, Chem Lab, Mission, Sounds, Trajectory, Mousetrap, etc.

Jdogg
Member
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: May 19th, 2011, 6:00 pm
Division: Grad
State: PA
Location: Harriton > PSU

Re: MagLev C

Postby Jdogg » May 29th, 2013, 9:42 pm


Space concerns (needed to use as much space as possible for weight), and trying to generate more thrust in the area close to the rotational axis, where the large prop wasn't creating much. Also partially because we had the small propeller already attached from an older design.
yeah, what he said :)
Harriton Class of 2013
Vice-Deputy of Avionics and Control for Lunar Lion
Assistant Coach of State College High School

GeoChamp96
Member
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: April 16th, 2013, 7:38 pm
Division: C
State: TX
Location: Austin

Re: MagLev C

Postby GeoChamp96 » June 2nd, 2013, 12:34 pm


Space concerns (needed to use as much space as possible for weight), and trying to generate more thrust in the area close to the rotational axis, where the large prop wasn't creating much. Also partially because we had the small propeller already attached from an older design.
What advantage would having more thrust closer to the rotational axis give you (as opposed to farther out)? More stability?

Jdogg
Member
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: May 19th, 2011, 6:00 pm
Division: Grad
State: PA
Location: Harriton > PSU

Re: MagLev C

Postby Jdogg » June 2nd, 2013, 3:08 pm


Space concerns (needed to use as much space as possible for weight), and trying to generate more thrust in the area close to the rotational axis, where the large prop wasn't creating much. Also partially because we had the small propeller already attached from an older design.
What advantage would having more thrust closer to the rotational axis give you (as opposed to farther out)? More stability?
What hmcginny was getting at is that the front propeller produces some thrust over the 6inch propeller's diameter let's call this it's thrust density. The smaller prop produces a larger thrust density than the larger prop even though the larger prop produces more overall thrust. So with that specific combination we had, we were able to get the front's propeller's thrust for the area that is outside the smaller propeller's thrust but still maximize the overall amount of thrust for the maglev.
Common misconception is having two propellers behind each other will produce more thrust, that is not necessarily correct. Due to the fact that the air behind the front propeller is already moving at some speed relative to the maglev.
So all in all, we tried to produce the greatest thrust behind the entire maglev and since the smaller blades had a larger thrust density than that of the larger blade we put the motor behind the front motor. This also kept the aerodynamic properties of our maglev as close to intact as possible.
Harriton Class of 2013
Vice-Deputy of Avionics and Control for Lunar Lion
Assistant Coach of State College High School

cantthinkofausername
Member
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: June 2nd, 2013, 9:44 pm
Division: C
State: KY

Re: MagLev C

Postby cantthinkofausername » June 2nd, 2013, 9:51 pm

In response to anyone who is concerned about a stopping mechanism, you can always reverse the polarity of magnets at the very end of the track you're using it would make the Mag Lev just stick down and stopping immediately instead of flying dangerously off of the track or into a barrier that may damage it. Unless your propellers are huge that, than I don't know how to make this work without breaking the propellers.

GeoChamp96
Member
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: April 16th, 2013, 7:38 pm
Division: C
State: TX
Location: Austin

Re: MagLev C

Postby GeoChamp96 » June 5th, 2013, 11:56 am

In response to anyone who is concerned about a stopping mechanism, you can always reverse the polarity of magnets at the very end of the track you're using it would make the Mag Lev just stick down and stopping immediately instead of flying dangerously off of the track or into a barrier that may damage it. Unless your propellers are huge that, than I don't know how to make this work without breaking the propellers.
It's also possible that next year's rules will include a defined way to stop the car at the end of the track as part of those "significant adjustments" the Chalkers were talking about. It could be anything from a physical barrier to reversed magnets to a kill switch at the front of the vehicle. Or maybe a combination of several methods.


Return to “2013 Build Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest