Difference between revisions of "Msc2G7:Expert3"
From re
(→Motors&Sensors) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ __NOTITLE__ | __NOTOC__ __NOTITLE__ | ||
| − | ==Motors&Sensors== | + | ==Motors & Sensors== |
<div style="height:30px; width: 850px; margin:0px; padding: 0px; padding-top: 20px; border: 0px;"> | <div style="height:30px; width: 850px; margin:0px; padding: 0px; padding-top: 20px; border: 0px;"> | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
</div><br> | </div><br> | ||
| − | == ''' | + | == '''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''' | |
| + | # Handle high torques/forces (or high speed with a gearbox) | ||
| + | # Power/weight ratio | ||
| + | # Accurately controllable | ||
| + | # Size | ||
| + | # Sharing energy | ||
| + | # Maintaining position | ||
| + | # (Degrees of freedom (+/- 180°) (actually possible for every drive)) | ||
| + | # Accessible for testing | ||
| − | + | '''Drives''' | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | '''Mechanical''' | |
| − | + | # Powerful or high speed | |
| − | + | # ± 500 W/kg (helicopter engines) + Fuel weight | |
| − | + | # Not accurate | |
| − | + | # Torque depended | |
| − | + | # Hard: Fuel line through the tubes | |
| − | + | # Hard: changeable gearbox? | |
| − | + | # Accessible (helicopter engines) but expensive | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
Extra’s: | Extra’s: | ||
| + | |||
• Low efficiency | • Low efficiency | ||
| + | |||
• Safety hazard: explosion possibility | • Safety hazard: explosion possibility | ||
| + | |||
• Weight mainly in joint | • Weight mainly in joint | ||
| + | |||
• Emissions, not sustainable | • Emissions, not sustainable | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''Hydraulic (to big)''' |
| − | + | # Unlimited high forces/speeds | |
| − | + | # ± 800 W/kg (SAI, but very heavy) + Fluids weight | |
| − | + | # Good controllable (but not accurate because the speed varies) | |
| − | + | # Big (efficient when big) | |
| − | + | # Hard: Fluid line through the tubes | |
| − | + | # Hard (almost not possible) | |
| − | + | # Specially made (expensive) | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
Extra’s: | Extra’s: | ||
| + | |||
• High efficiency | • High efficiency | ||
| + | |||
• Safety hazard: high pressure fluids | • Safety hazard: high pressure fluids | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''Pneumatic (low forces, hard to share engery )''' |
| − | + | # low forces, high speeds (special gearbox needed) | |
| − | + | # ± 450 W/kg (bosch) | |
| − | + | # Good controllable, but not constant speeds | |
| − | + | # Low weight, small | |
| − | + | # Light tube of air through tube, but length motor and cyclinder can’t be to large! | |
| − | + | # ? I think: easy but pressure drop? | |
| − | + | # Specially made (expensive, not accessible) | |
| − | + | ||
Extra’s: | Extra’s: | ||
| + | |||
• High efficiency | • High efficiency | ||
| + | |||
• No safety problems | • No safety problems | ||
| − | |||
| + | • Noisy | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | '''Electrical''' | |
| − | + | # High forces/speeds | |
| − | + | # ± 3780 W/kg (himax, lightest (0.45kg)) | |
| − | + | # Good controllable and accurate | |
| − | + | # Small and depends on needed torque | |
| − | + | # Easy: wire through tube | |
| − | + | # Easy (but overheating) | |
| + | # Broadly accessible (cheaper) | ||
Extra’s: | Extra’s: | ||
| + | |||
• All weight in the joint (scaling problems) | • All weight in the joint (scaling problems) | ||
| + | |||
• No Safety when electricity loss | • No Safety when electricity loss | ||
| + | |||
• Efficient | • Efficient | ||
| Line 110: | Line 111: | ||
http://www.inmoco.co.uk/electro-mechanical_vs_pneumatic_actuators | http://www.inmoco.co.uk/electro-mechanical_vs_pneumatic_actuators | ||
| − | + | ---- | |
| − | + | ||
Revision as of 23:46, 9 March 2015
Motors & Sensors
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
- Handle high torques/forces (or high speed with a gearbox)
- Power/weight ratio
- Accurately controllable
- Size
- Sharing energy
- Maintaining position
- (Degrees of freedom (+/- 180°) (actually possible for every drive))
- Accessible for testing
Drives
Mechanical
- Powerful or high speed
- ± 500 W/kg (helicopter engines) + Fuel weight
- Not accurate
- Torque depended
- Hard: Fuel line through the tubes
- Hard: changeable gearbox?
- Accessible (helicopter engines) but expensive
Extra’s:
• Low efficiency
• Safety hazard: explosion possibility
• Weight mainly in joint
• Emissions, not sustainable
Hydraulic (to big)
- Unlimited high forces/speeds
- ± 800 W/kg (SAI, but very heavy) + Fluids weight
- Good controllable (but not accurate because the speed varies)
- Big (efficient when big)
- Hard: Fluid line through the tubes
- Hard (almost not possible)
- Specially made (expensive)
Extra’s:
• High efficiency
• Safety hazard: high pressure fluids
Pneumatic (low forces, hard to share engery )
- low forces, high speeds (special gearbox needed)
- ± 450 W/kg (bosch)
- Good controllable, but not constant speeds
- Low weight, small
- Light tube of air through tube, but length motor and cyclinder can’t be to large!
- ? I think: easy but pressure drop?
- Specially made (expensive, not accessible)
Extra’s:
• High efficiency
• No safety problems
• Noisy
Electrical
- High forces/speeds
- ± 3780 W/kg (himax, lightest (0.45kg))
- Good controllable and accurate
- Small and depends on needed torque
- Easy: wire through tube
- Easy (but overheating)
- 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
