Thanks all for your comments. I’ll respond to them below todays design update, which is …
The Strategic driving plan using the QC (Quad Carrier) concept:
Autonomous:
[INDENT]score the nearest wall goal,
moves to pick up nearest stack of own tubes at store them on the QC corner posts
moves to pick up the nearest 4 (college) goals
While moving and after, the center turntabled manipulator acts to
- moves opponents tubes from carried goals to the QC corner posts,
- and moves our stored tubes from the corner posts to the carried goals.[/INDENT]
Driver-control:
[INDENT]Finish tasks described in autonomous
Park in front of ladder or wall goal.
Continue sorting tubes on carried goals while parked.[/INDENT]
In proto-drive-frame testing shows that it moves slower once carrying the 4th goal. Fortunately, the game plan does not require driving far with 4 goals.
It is not just a platform. The circle in the middle is a turntable with a manipulator, so there is no need for interactive teamwork. My tubes are kept safe from other robots by a polycarb guard arc that blocks access to all goal tips, except the one facing my own manipulator. The driving plan described above is greedy-passive-aggressive: ie carry/control 4 of the mobile goals. If opponents are aggressive-aggressive and are willing to risk entangling me by reaching into my 18" cube, I can use defensive rotation (unless I am trying to align on the next goal).
Interesting that we came to opposite conclusions from the same data.
Can you elaborate on your train of thought?
Mine thought is to defend all scored goals by carrying them with me. If opponents score the goals before I get there, I’ll carry it away and de/rescore as I go on to the next. The inital preload and first stack of 4 are enough to own the local wall, and the 4 goals I carry.
As for weight, Prototyping shows that the weight is just another engineering tradeoff that can be designed for by using lots of wheels and axle bearings.
Max weight at any time is one of R, R+13, R+26, R+39, up to a maximum of R+52 pounds. I have added up any spreadsheets of R component weights yet.
And a similar idea from murdomeek:
I’ll admit that funny/implausible is part of my attraction to this idea, in addition to the engineering challenges.
It is basic to the QC concept to never leave a goal unattended and descore-able.
I’d rather pull a heavy cargo on wheels, than PUSH it along the ground.
Initial prototyping show 1:1 drive for X holo is probably sufficient with 8 wheels and 12 bearings, but they may need more torque yet for reliability.
Dean’s battery tests show that the new 3000mAH batteries will last multiple matches, even at a 12A rate. And of course, the point of gearing for torque on the wheel motors would be to use less current, not more.
Next post will be a list of functional requirements to meet the driving plan shown at the top.