Difference between revisions of "Msc2G7:Expert2"
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''drive''' | + | |
| + | == '''drive''' == | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
The most influential decision for the design of the joint is the way the joint is driven. In this document we argue the different drive and the best suitable on for our design needs. | The most influential decision for the design of the joint is the way the joint is driven. In this document we argue the different drive and the best suitable on for our design needs. | ||
| − | '''Criteria for the drive''' | + | |
| + | == '''Criteria for the drive''' == | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
1. Handle high torques/forces (or high speed with a gearbox) | 1. Handle high torques/forces (or high speed with a gearbox) | ||
2. Power/weight ratio | 2. Power/weight ratio | ||
| Line 12: | Line 18: | ||
8. Accessible for testing | 8. Accessible for testing | ||
| − | '''Drives''' | + | |
| + | == '''Drives''' == | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
'''• Mechanical''' | '''• Mechanical''' | ||
| + | |||
1. Powerful or high speed | 1. Powerful or high speed | ||
2. ± 500 W/kg (helicopter engines) | 2. ± 500 W/kg (helicopter engines) | ||
| Line 27: | Line 37: | ||
• Weight mainly in joint | • Weight mainly in joint | ||
• Emissions, not sustainable | • Emissions, not sustainable | ||
| + | |||
'''• Hydraulic (to big)''' | '''• Hydraulic (to big)''' | ||
| + | |||
1. Unlimited high forces/speeds | 1. Unlimited high forces/speeds | ||
2. ± 800 W/kg (SAI, but very heavy) | 2. ± 800 W/kg (SAI, but very heavy) | ||
| Line 45: | Line 57: | ||
'''• Pneumatic (low forces, hard to share engery )''' | '''• Pneumatic (low forces, hard to share engery )''' | ||
| + | |||
1. low forces, high speeds (special gearbox needed) | 1. low forces, high speeds (special gearbox needed) | ||
2. ± 450 W/kg (bosch) | 2. ± 450 W/kg (bosch) | ||
| Line 56: | Line 69: | ||
• No safety problems | • No safety problems | ||
• Noisy | • Noisy | ||
| − | |||
'''• Electrical''' | '''• Electrical''' | ||
| + | |||
1. High forces/speeds | 1. High forces/speeds | ||
2. ± 3780 W/kg (himax, lightest (0.45kg)) | 2. ± 3780 W/kg (himax, lightest (0.45kg)) | ||
Latest revision as of 12:33, 4 March 2015
drive
The most influential decision for the design of the joint is the way the joint is driven. In this document we argue the different drive and the best suitable on for our design needs.
Criteria for the drive
1. Handle high torques/forces (or high speed with a gearbox) 2. Power/weight ratio 3. Accurately controllable 4. Size 5. Sharing energy 6. Maintaining position 7. (Degrees of freedom (+/- 180°) (actually possible for every drive)) 8. Accessible for testing
Drives
• Mechanical
1. Powerful or high speed 2. ± 500 W/kg (helicopter engines) o Fuel weight 3. Not accurate 4. Torque depended 5. Hard: Fuel line through the tubes 6. Hard: changeable gearbox? 7. Accessible (helicopter engines) but expensive Extra’s: • Low efficiency • Safety hazard: explosion possibility • Weight mainly in joint • Emissions, not sustainable
• Hydraulic (to big)
1. Unlimited high forces/speeds 2. ± 800 W/kg (SAI, but very heavy) o Fluids weight 3. Good controllable o Not accurate, speed varies 4. Big (efficient when big) 5. Hard: Fluid line through the tubes 6. Hard (almost not possible) 7. Specially made (expensive) Extra’s: • High efficiency • Safety hazard: high pressure fluids
• Pneumatic (low forces, hard to share engery )
1. low forces, high speeds (special gearbox needed) 2. ± 450 W/kg (bosch) 3. Good controllable, but not constant speeds 4. Low weight, small 5. Light tube of air through tube, but length motor and cyclinder can’t be to large! 6. ? I think: easy but pressure drop? 7. Specially made (expensive, not accessible) Extra’s: • High efficiency • No safety problems • Noisy
• Electrical
1. High forces/speeds 2. ± 3780 W/kg (himax, lightest (0.45kg)) 3. Good controllable and accurate 4. Small and depends on needed torque 5. Easy: wire through tube 6. Easy (but overheating) 7. Broadly accessible (cheaper) Extra’s: • All weight in the joint (scaling problems) • No Safety when electricity loss • Efficient
http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=230452
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-weight_ratio
http://www.rcheliwiki.com/Power_to_weight_ratio
http://www.inmoco.co.uk/electro-mechanical_vs_pneumatic_actuators
