... | ... | @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ Theoretically the fastest possible run for this rigid type of hard coded approac |
|
|
[![image alt text](http://img.youtube.com/vi/k87g1pU_4cc/0.jpg)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k87g1pU_4cc)
|
|
|
##### Fig. 19 - video showing the “proper” run (featuring Rasmus as assistance)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pros | Cons |
|
|
|
| -------- | -------- |
|
|
|
| Quick to build | Inflexible |
|
... | ... | @@ -301,7 +302,7 @@ During this last experiment, we learned that there are many shortcomings of hard |
|
|
|
|
|
## Conclusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Through the four experiments we explored different approaches and methods of obtaining an efficient robot for the Alishan train track. Our findings showed:
|
|
|
Through the four experiments we explored different approaches and methods of obtaining an efficient robot for the Alishan train track. Our findings showed:
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Though speed is an essential component when competing on the Alishan race track, we conclude that gearing the motors is not ideal. Our experiment revealed frictional problems with the wheels lacking the ability to find grip at its maximum speed. To overcome this issue an acceleration method in the program may be feasible. Additionally the robot was very prone to crashing and going into a spin at high speed.
|
|
|
|
... | ... | |