Camillo60
Guest
in doubt I checked the engines I'm using. I confirm 1400 (1350 plate) rpm.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Camillo60
Guest
I confirm that in plane or with very slight slope (about 1 or less) everything goes. to the minimum obstacle (high wooden table 25mm placed under the driving wheels) all goes into suffering until reaching the stall of the engines.
meccanicamg
Guest
but the 25 mm tablet cut to slices of salami as a ramp or the wheel has to do the step to edge?I confirm that in plane or with very slight slope (about 1 or less) everything goes. to the minimum obstacle (high wooden table 25mm placed under the driving wheels) all goes into suffering until reaching the stall of the engines.
Camillo60
Guest
At first with the edge step, then I created a ramp. consider that the two front wheels are rubber "very soft" , like those of the bed, filled inside. the wheel when meeting the tablet assumes almost its shape because it is quite soft. I don't think that's the problem because if it's hard to get up on a tablet, when it's going to have to go up a slope of 15 °, throw the sponge before starting. there are no special additional frictions. the other two wheels turn on bearings.
meccanicamg
Guest
the effort that has to make the wheel to climb on a edge is very different than the force that makes the wheel on a sloped plane.
banally your ground reaction of the weight of the carriage to regime, divided the number of wheels, which is worth about 7600/4=1900kg and if the wheel that travels on the floor has an eccentricity due to the rubber that crushes you about 5 mm, then consumes a pair of 1900*9,81*5/1000=93nm. if you have to climb a step of 25 mm and you say that the wheel takes the shape of the step, it means that eccentricity is 25mm and therefore a pair of 1900*9,81*25/1000=466nm. Actually it could be more than 25 mm because diagonally....25*√2....about 35mm and then a pair 7 times the nominal one on the plane.
to make the carriage go, the drive pairs multiplied by the total reduction ratio must give the total to the ground of 4 times (if they are 4 wheels) the pair that steals the crushed wheel with its eccentricity.....on the floor, uphill or on the step to climb.
So if we do 7 times... I am 6tenm*4 food = 2608nm on the wheel axis. If you look in the post #60 there is the couple you might have 2728nm that, hypothetically it is almost equal to the calculation of the available couple....ergo is not enough 200w.
Does it seem logical that the wheel must find an obstacle so that it deforms the wheel and that it consumes 5 or 7 times the pair?
this will never happen on a slope of some degree.
you are comparing very different phenomena.
It is one thing to go uphill to find an important singular obstacle.
and this is a wrong macro aspect of study of the system.... surely there will be someone else, because the laws of physics and their related formulas work in clear working conditions.
What is trivial but vital is that a small diameter wheel will make it more difficult to pass an obstacle than the large diameter wheel because the effective angle is greater and therefore refuses more advancement.
the thing would be much easier if you put all the gearbox data, including performance, engine features and current management system. Can the engine take how much power over the rated with your power system?
then there are various mechanical details to consider, for bearings (such as) and even wheels if they are the ones from the bedbed or if they behave differently. ...maybe softer and therefore need engineering data.
Soppesare so to casaccio does not allow to reach the solution but to a series of attempts and hypotheses not related.
banally your ground reaction of the weight of the carriage to regime, divided the number of wheels, which is worth about 7600/4=1900kg and if the wheel that travels on the floor has an eccentricity due to the rubber that crushes you about 5 mm, then consumes a pair of 1900*9,81*5/1000=93nm. if you have to climb a step of 25 mm and you say that the wheel takes the shape of the step, it means that eccentricity is 25mm and therefore a pair of 1900*9,81*25/1000=466nm. Actually it could be more than 25 mm because diagonally....25*√2....about 35mm and then a pair 7 times the nominal one on the plane.
to make the carriage go, the drive pairs multiplied by the total reduction ratio must give the total to the ground of 4 times (if they are 4 wheels) the pair that steals the crushed wheel with its eccentricity.....on the floor, uphill or on the step to climb.
So if we do 7 times... I am 6tenm*4 food = 2608nm on the wheel axis. If you look in the post #60 there is the couple you might have 2728nm that, hypothetically it is almost equal to the calculation of the available couple....ergo is not enough 200w.
Does it seem logical that the wheel must find an obstacle so that it deforms the wheel and that it consumes 5 or 7 times the pair?
this will never happen on a slope of some degree.
you are comparing very different phenomena.
It is one thing to go uphill to find an important singular obstacle.
and this is a wrong macro aspect of study of the system.... surely there will be someone else, because the laws of physics and their related formulas work in clear working conditions.
What is trivial but vital is that a small diameter wheel will make it more difficult to pass an obstacle than the large diameter wheel because the effective angle is greater and therefore refuses more advancement.
the thing would be much easier if you put all the gearbox data, including performance, engine features and current management system. Can the engine take how much power over the rated with your power system?
then there are various mechanical details to consider, for bearings (such as) and even wheels if they are the ones from the bedbed or if they behave differently. ...maybe softer and therefore need engineering data.
Soppesare so to casaccio does not allow to reach the solution but to a series of attempts and hypotheses not related.
Camillo60
Guest
I had arrived that 200w not enough
I am preparing a new engine/reducer that should provide >10knm to the wheels. Let's see. .
I am preparing a new engine/reducer that should provide >10knm to the wheels. Let's see. .
meccanicamg
Guest
You're right. But the approach is different. one is practical and at attempts while the atro is theoretical.I had arrived that 200w not enough
I am preparing a new engine/reducer that should provide >10knm to the wheels. Let's see. .
If you told me you wanted to pass the wooden step, I told you it wasn't enough.
Camillo60
Guest
it's a little bit to talk about.... Then I'll come
Camillo60
Guest
So, it's been a while but it finally moves. I oversized the engine leading it to 1.1kw and a reduction of 40 + 50. uphill there are no problems at the moment. Only neo is the slowness I could improve having margin.
the vs indications were valuable. Thank you!
Camillus
the vs indications were valuable. Thank you!
Camillus
TETRASTORE
Guest
Thank you. @camillo60 per il feedback.