Ball Holder

[Sunny]

I think that we may be able to reimplement the roller. If we put a limit switch on the backing so that when the ball pushes back on it, the roller stops, and when me move and the ball stops pushing back on the backing, the roller starts up immediately to keep the ball in. This is better than nothing. We really should consider this option.

That might work. Or the limit switch might get annihilated.

If we do decide to try it again, I think trying to replicate the circumstances with the old wooden frame and having the wood bar. Though we might need to identify the problem a bit more. I'm probably repeating something I asked today, but what is our problem?

Is our problem...

• ...the roller?
• ...the backing?
• ...the speed?
• ...the torque?

-Tanner

I think the impeller would be much neater than what we have now. I believe the central issue was a stronger backing.

If we feel that we need the roller for scrimmage, then we can do so, but I strongly believe that the suction method is the way to go. It's much stronger and much more sure fire.

- Sunny

[Michael Kapp]

So why did we never try to improve the backing? It might be that we could do that, and then the roller works like a dream.

[Tanner]

So why did we never try to improve the backing? It might be that we could do that, and then the roller works like a dream.

Well, we were improving it, but then this whole impeller thing got exciting and we called it off.

-Tanner

[Sunny]

Yep, excitement got the best of us. Things just weren't churning, and the impeller showed immediate promise.

For the sake of practice/scrimmage, we can probably put the roller back on with some Secure backing. I can only imagine how happy Hanna/Spartan/Tyler will be.

- Sunny

[freds]

Sunny, you asked the question yesterday about 2 cups. My initial thoughts were that it would not work. I was thinking that one cup by itself would not get vacuum unless both were in contact with the ball. i think this was flawed thinking. I think we could used two cups. We could possibly test with the two new real vacuum cups we have or test with two small yellow funnels.

[Sunny]

Sunny, you asked the question yesterday about 2 cups. My initial thoughts were that it would not work. I was thinking that one cup by itself would not get vacuum unless both were in contact with the ball. i think this was flawed thinking. I think we could used two cups. We could possibly test with the two new real vacuum cups we have or test with two small yellow funnels.

What you said, makes sense, in that the one suction cup alone would not have a seal, but the goal of the two suction cups is so that the ball sits centered on *both* cups. I think a couple of things will help prevent the ball from staying on one cup.

1. If we angle the two cups in a manner that when the ball is sitting in, both of the cups form a seal, then there should be no way for only one cup to contact the ball.

2. If it happens that one cup is covered while the other cup draws air, the other cup will draw more air, and should help to form a seal over the second cup.

Another plus is that two cups put in a an angle would help to form a "V" in the front of the robot, and would ultimately help with not having to be exactly in the right place in order to acquire a ball.

[Tanner]

If the other cup does not get a seal, then the first cup will remain useless until a closed system is achieved.

I think having a "V" intake like Sunny said would be the best way to acquire the ball repeatedly.

-Tanner