MagLev C

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