12:15- 1:30, 2:00- 3:15
1. Painted Plank (45min)
2. SMD organization (1 hr 15 min)
3. Second coat of paint for plank (30 min)
-------------------------------------
1. Painted wooden plank that will be used for the microwave
2. Organized and began labeling the new SMD parts for the organizational binder.
3. Added a second coat of paint to the side of the board painted yesterday.
November 20, 2007
11/19/07 Gregory Falco
1:00-4:30PM
1.Microwave (3.5 hrs)
------------------------
1. Drilled holes for microwave above sink. Discovered that the brackets for the shelf are just a littttttttle bit different in size than they need to be. We will need to buy different sized brackets or shelving. I also painted one side of the plank that the microwave will rest on.
1.Microwave (3.5 hrs)
------------------------
1. Drilled holes for microwave above sink. Discovered that the brackets for the shelf are just a littttttttle bit different in size than they need to be. We will need to buy different sized brackets or shelving. I also painted one side of the plank that the microwave will rest on.
November 19, 2007
11/19/07 Yingyi Tan
7.00pm - 9.15pm
1. Rewired wires in right hip box.
---------------
1. The wires from the receiver and servo motor had been removed from the board at the bottom of the right hip box. The voltage would now be supplied from the satellite boards in the satellite box under the hip box. Hence the servo motor and receiver wires had to be cut, and resoldered to the wires from the satellite board.
1. Rewired wires in right hip box.
---------------
1. The wires from the receiver and servo motor had been removed from the board at the bottom of the right hip box. The voltage would now be supplied from the satellite boards in the satellite box under the hip box. Hence the servo motor and receiver wires had to be cut, and resoldered to the wires from the satellite board.
11/19 Rohit Hippalgaonkar
hours : Monday 11.15 to 1.15
1. Recommendation on mass distribution for symmetry (2 hours)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussed my solution with Jason - we decided that we should have a battery (split in equal halves) on the outer box, a little further out from the plane of the robot. This would serve to equalize the m*z values of the legs, without adding any more masses that are sticking out of the plane of the robot. One pair of springs that James has been using is really heavy, and given the fact that both pairs have almost the same spring constant we decided that we could do away with the heavier spring. This would also help in reducing the disparity in the inertia of the two legs.
1. Recommendation on mass distribution for symmetry (2 hours)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussed my solution with Jason - we decided that we should have a battery (split in equal halves) on the outer box, a little further out from the plane of the robot. This would serve to equalize the m*z values of the legs, without adding any more masses that are sticking out of the plane of the robot. One pair of springs that James has been using is really heavy, and given the fact that both pairs have almost the same spring constant we decided that we could do away with the heavier spring. This would also help in reducing the disparity in the inertia of the two legs.
11/19 Stephane Constantin
10:30 to 1pm
1) Merging graphs and video
I succeeded in merging the graphing and video playing parts of the project. I can now play frame by frame of video and the graphs cursor simultaneously moves right or left. However, this can only be done (so far) by dropping the arrow keys and using a screen button.
1) Merging graphs and video
I succeeded in merging the graphing and video playing parts of the project. I can now play frame by frame of video and the graphs cursor simultaneously moves right or left. However, this can only be done (so far) by dropping the arrow keys and using a screen button.
11/18 Rohit Hippalgaonkar
Hours:
-------
Sunday - 3.15 to 6.15 pm
- 10 to 2 pm
1. Tried to measure the relevant mass properties of the robot again (~3 hours)
2. Recommendation on mass distribution in new configuration. (~4 hours, from home)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. James' project required the hip spring to be lowered (he lowered the whole assembly by about 31 cm). I set about trying to measure inertia and m*y values again - other than the change above, we also hadn't measured since the computer boxes had been put on. So I thought it'd be better to measure again rather than extrapolate for two big changes, such as those above.
The computer box came in the way of the assembly that was used to clamp the inner leg while measuring outer leg inertia - spent quite a while trying to diassemble this set-up and make it right. When I finally did set it up, the system had much higher damping (I forgot the hip had been coupled with the hip motor and gearbox!) - since the conditions varied in a large way from last time, I thought it best to extrapolate for the new values of inertia, m*y and m*z for each leg based on the new locations of the springs, etc.
2. The inertia of the inner leg now exceeds that of the outer leg (due to the change that James made). I have a possible mass distribution for this, with a second battery added (in two halves on each side of the outer leg), and the old battery being moved in closer to the plane of the box. In the final configuration, with both legs 'equal', the inertia of the inner leg increases only by 60 kg.cm^2 (without adding any masses, it was 4831.4 kg.cm^2).
-------
Sunday - 3.15 to 6.15 pm
- 10 to 2 pm
1. Tried to measure the relevant mass properties of the robot again (~3 hours)
2. Recommendation on mass distribution in new configuration. (~4 hours, from home)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. James' project required the hip spring to be lowered (he lowered the whole assembly by about 31 cm). I set about trying to measure inertia and m*y values again - other than the change above, we also hadn't measured since the computer boxes had been put on. So I thought it'd be better to measure again rather than extrapolate for two big changes, such as those above.
The computer box came in the way of the assembly that was used to clamp the inner leg while measuring outer leg inertia - spent quite a while trying to diassemble this set-up and make it right. When I finally did set it up, the system had much higher damping (I forgot the hip had been coupled with the hip motor and gearbox!) - since the conditions varied in a large way from last time, I thought it best to extrapolate for the new values of inertia, m*y and m*z for each leg based on the new locations of the springs, etc.
2. The inertia of the inner leg now exceeds that of the outer leg (due to the change that James made). I have a possible mass distribution for this, with a second battery added (in two halves on each side of the outer leg), and the old battery being moved in closer to the plane of the box. In the final configuration, with both legs 'equal', the inertia of the inner leg increases only by 60 kg.cm^2 (without adding any masses, it was 4831.4 kg.cm^2).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
