Uncategorized

Engineering Notebook Template

This is from Mr. Chesnais:

PHS ROBOTICS ENGINEERING NOTEBOOK TEMPLATE

Title Page

2013-2014

Phoenix Talent Robotaneers

Team Members

list

Vex Challenge: Toss-Up

summarize

Table of Contents

make

Team Description

Why do we care about robotics?  Technology, Engineering, Science, Math & Design?

  • fun to learn on own without distractions of classroom
  • want to be an engineer- high paying job
  • way to be competitive
  • process and challenge of problem solving

Team Scoring Strategy

TEAM SUCCESS STRATEGY

  • move as many small balls as possible into the scoring zone
    • how?
  • move as many competitor balls out of the scoring zone
    • how?
  • What won’t we do
    • we decided we didn’t have the time to design for other scoring strategies (hanging, balls into cylinders, move large balls) given our February 17 competition

Design features that will be needed to score

  • magazine ball loader
  • fast drive train
  • very maneuverable,  good steering
  • high center concerns

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS for design features

PRIORITIZATION OF TASKS- value to team scoring/success vs team capacity to achieve

Describe our Design Process (explain how we go from idea to final product)

Brainstorm/Small Group Develop/Evaluate/Revise…..and repeat until satisfied

  • goals set
  • subsystem tasks assigned to small groups to develop independently
  • weekly large group meet to discuss  subsystems ideas and prototypes
  • merged subystems into robot to test as whole
  • test, note problems, break into solution groups and refine robot

Subsystems & Necessary abilities- phase 1.0

Chassis

  • “U” shaped chassis for best front loading of small balls

Drive system

  • one motor for each wheel- direct drive
  • front wheels omni-directional for best steering/control

Ball handling

  • front loading wheels with flaps to draw balls in without needing to be exactly in front of it
  • hold and shoot out small balls accurately
  • track/magazine to hold 3 balls max (per rules)

Programming

  • only autonomous
  • lift arms, drive forward specific distance to tip large balls into scoring zone
  • switch quickly to driver mode

Lift mechanism

no lift mechanism for 1.0

Hanging mechanism

  • not within 1.0 timeframe

Electrical system

  • no strategy 1.0

Sensors

  • no sensors used 1.0

Driver Evaluations (graph)

  • test designed to challenge drivers for speed, manipulation and tactics to determine best candidates for competition

Practice(s) Performance Analyses

Evaluate/Realizations/Troubleshoot/Revisions

  • maneuverability- turning was hindered by rubber front wheels
  • flap size on ball loader
  • high centering robot chassis on 2” bump
  • programming- perfecting autonomous, time vs. distance

Competition(s) Performance Analyses

Evaluate/Realizations/Troubleshoot/Revisions

  • S.Oregon District Competition 2.17.14
    • finished in the top 2 during preliminary rounds
    • noted high centering still occurring over bump
    • robot stalls when heavily loaded (too many motors on same fuse/side of cortex)
    • lifting ball loader to score in cylinders would be good
    • autonomous scoring was inconsistent (make arms better)

Supporting Documents

Early sketches

Math analyses : Power, Energy, Force, Friction, Torque, Mass, Gear ratios

CAD drawings

Photos/Videos