Period 2 Documentation

2 replies [Last post]
MillburnHigh
Title: NooBot
Joined: 04/08/2013
Posts:
BotPoints: 8
User offline. Last seen 4 years 35 weeks ago.

In regards to the mechanical documentation for period 2, all of the sections require a comparison of our drivetrain, effector, and sensor mount, to another design. Are we supposed to compare these sections with our other robot? Or are we supposed to compare it to another rejected design idea?

Thanks

dgoree
Title: NooBot
Joined: 02/13/2012
Posts:
BotPoints: 130
User offline. Last seen 1 year 6 weeks ago.

We compared it to another possible design idea. We talked about our paralleling arm on our booster bot for our effector section, and this is what we wrote for the comparison and why we chose this design. (rubric sections 11 and 12)

The paralleling nature of the arm allows the claw on the end to hold the boosters directly over the launch poles, and not at an angle. A nonparalleling arm would have to drop the boosters at a sharp angle to the pole, severely limiting margin of error. We chose a paralleling arm because we wanted a larger margin of error.

We received all 8 points for those two sections.

-Daniel Goree
Former...
Senior Project Manager
President
Norman Advanced Robotics (13-0113)

MillburnHigh
Title: NooBot
Joined: 04/08/2013
Posts:
BotPoints: 8
User offline. Last seen 4 years 35 weeks ago.

Thanks