History 4

Hop ups arrived, incuding a larger, muffler much like the style of the ryobi two-stack exaust. We can still use the old velocity stack, though the carb needs a mounting plate.

The plate looks great! We are suprised at our sucess. The plate was machined, including a perfect 5 hole pattern and sealed bearing, retained in the most precarious way. The needle bearing from the piston fell apart. How do you hold 28 little rollers down at once to pin onto a shaft??

Working on a new drivetrain...we are worried about the other and the reliability of the reverse. Also, need to find a way to third the gear ratio to have a top speed of 7 mph instead of 21...hypothetically at 3.5 mph, we will be pulling out 400 ft/lbs... Hey did I mention...Band is still worthless.
Geartrain goals:
-Cost effective
-sturdy
-forward and reverse
-possibly 2 speed
-small
Hey, we are back to what we were doing a year ago...

Crankcase plate is being machined by Mark while CJ is struggling with the positoning of the engion in the bot. Band is still worthless.

Engine has been stripped, and we have found the various parts that need to be made...including a bulkhead for the carburator and half of the crankcase. goooood... Also ordered hop up parts, ie muffler.

Hmm, September 29, intrestiing day. The school was amiss due to the up and coming homecoming and quite discombobulated. Meanwhile, we happened to have a fully functional chainsaw in school (this is a first). CJ needed to bring it to the shop at Marks, and the easiest way to give it to him was through school. Nevertheless, we got some looks, including the Principal. He asked "Is that for your battlebot?" CJ's response: "yep" Principal:"OK...have fun...." So much for school safety. After school, Mark immeately ripped the engine apart., to be very impressed... The engine was about the same size as the weed eater engine, with about double the displacement. whee...
(We do not suggest that a chainsaw should be brought to school)

A realzation was made... until this point in time, the IDC 31cc engine, (the main factor how team/idea was formed) was assumed to have more than enough power with 2 hp, for a 120lb bot to compete well... Well, out of sheer boredom, I decided to go and calculate the actual pushing force of the bot:
Orginal Idea:
20mph@8000mph 10mph@4000
Touque=2(hp)*5252/4000(min Rpm)=2.6 torque output of the engine (ft/lb)
2.6*3=15.7 compensation for the gear train(ftlb)
15.7*4=63 (compensation for the whee diameter (ftlb)
Therefore: we had a design that would only push 60 lbs (not too good)
Sigh... We have some ideas...

Later that night.... We talked on the phone. A decision needed to be made about the engion. Well, sad to say it, but the IDC will have to go. CJ has an old Homelite chainsaw from the 1970's *(like the IDC...) that eats through a tank of gas in just over a miniute. Gotta lug it to Marks...

Well, a good start today. We managed to take off, and firmly affix the flywheel (ONLY a keyway this time.) We mounted the engine to our trusty engine mount, the tree, and tried to start it. Nothing. So after fiddling around for an hour or so, it ran. But very poorly. The new clutch was mounted, it engaged, and we couldn't stop it with our hand while idleing (Were not sure if that is a good thing or not.) Then, with a big puff of white smoke, only wittnessed by Mark, the engine sputterd to a stop. It could not be re-started. Our current theroy is the reed valve, after many alterations, is not functioning to its greatest potiential (It was proven that Mark had something against reed valves, for the other engines had dissasmbled reed valves also) Also, messed around with a four stroke, 5 hp Honda lawnmower engine that was being used for the GEET water engine Mark was building before the bot (It does not fit in the bot by any stretch of imagination) The ideas of ditching the IDC engine is a possibility....

Take a close look at the picture below... See that? Click it to see more closely. That part highlighted in blue. Well. Hmm, how can I put this... OK, to start with, CJ took the bot to school and lots of people saw it for the first time. The public loves the bot, thinks its really cool, and can't wait to see it on TV. Well, after an exciting day at school, we came home to start the engine (if you can remember, it wasn't working when we remounted it) and were disappointed to find out that there was no spark. On closer inspection, CJ noticed that the flywheel was mounted upside down. The magnets would be at the top of the alternator to make a spark when the piston was down, and vice-versa. Know wonder it didn't work. We soon realized what this meant. We would have to take off the flywheel again. Sigh.... Mark remembered that he had put a bottle of Loc-Tite on the flywheel and shaft collar. (Yes, thats the shaft collar between the flywheel and the clutch adapter) Well... Oops. That stuff is made to hold stuff on. It does a great job of it. Try as we might, we couldn't pry off the shaft collar. CJ cut a quarter of the collar off and yanked it off, but the flywheel still remains on. Another mistake by Mark... We may have to buy a new engine. (By the way, if anyone has an IDC 520 supreme weedeater engine, e-mail us. We will gladly dump out hoards of cash to use it in the bot.)

Today is CJ's birthday. What better way to celebrate than to build a BattleBot. We received new taps in the mail, mounted back the frame, with some very special screws (look at the pictures closely, try and figure their origin... hehe). The diameter adapter to mount the go-cart clutch to our engine is completed with keyway and set screw. Machining the 18-8 stainless steel has proved to be challenging. By the way, BattleBots rules have been updated, and they are quite preposterous. So much for Nitrous oxide boosts, and what about the idle speed which has to be 1/4 of max operating speed? Are they doing this in ignorance or was there some sort of serious problem, of every aspect of bot building? This is getting quite ridiculous. BattleBots will become two fighting bricks controlled through telemetry... but wait, what about that pinch hazard? I'm sorry, I mean fighting pennies. Seems to me, some of the hazards do not apply to the rules...

Began to mount the back supports for the axle and brake assembly. Plans were made and will turn out to be very strong. Funny how things just come together just by physically playing with them, not designing and planning. Also, a McMaster order was placed for a tap to mount the machined clutch adapter to the engine and some grade 8 1/4-28 socket head cap screws that cost us 1.20 each.

The tap for the engine did not match so we have a 3/8-23 extra fine thread tap that we have no use for. On to plan B for mounting the clutch to the engine, of which we have little idea. Otherwise, we machined the stainless (very painful, ask CJ) for the adapter on the engine. Mark tried to work on the side supports but did not get far...

In light of the events of today, (watch the news) we got out of school two hours early. Well, more bot-working time. The back was mounted in accordance of the plans made yesterday. The 1/2" aluminum was cut and the first wedge shape came to the bot. The edges were datoed and a 3/8 x2.5" bar tied both together. ( It is much easier to see in the pictures than explain) Then Mark came back to his ways and broke our only 10-32 tap. Another McMaster order...

Mark worked further on the diff, and the machining involved with it. We have two halves machined and working on fitting gears. So far, it looks good, and not bad for my first lathing project. Also, the flywheel broke yet again, but it was due to error in running it without a clutch assembly. Fortunately, no damage was done to the flywheel and crankshaft, just the poor woodruff key. It was reduced to fine black dust. Well, we are down to 48 of the 50 woodruff keys from McMaster...

We devised a way to test the diamond coating. We cut a new 12" x 12" sheet of 1/8" aluminum, obviously not coated and decided that we would do the exact thing to the coated that we did to uncoated. Though the tests had no sophiscatoted measuring instruments, we tried to simulate the impacts, jolts and hits of a robot fight. We tested the untreated aluminum first in each test. Here are the following tests/results: 1. Supported the sheets with 2x4's along the periphery leaving an unsupported 9" square. We struck a 32oz ( 1.76in^2 head) hammer in the unsupported area with all our power 5 times. Aluminum results: Large round dents about .375 deep. Resulted in a very large bulge in the center. The diamond coating: dents, resulted in a bulge, (not as prominent as the untreated) and crazing of the coating. 2. Supported the sheets with 2x4's along the periphery leaving an unsupported 9" square. We struck the unsupported square with a spike (.01in^2 tip) made of hardened tool steel. Aluminum: The spike went clean through the aluminum, leaving a 3/8" hole. Diamond: Spike made a nice 3/8" dent, severe crazing of the coating, did not go through the aluminum. 3. Used old carbide sawblade to try to cut pieces in half. Aluminum: Saw easily cut, as we had cut the pieces with the saw. 2" deep cut" Diamond: could not break the edge of the plate, lots of noise and shifting of the piece. Only scratched the the edge of the piece. 4. Simulated the killsaws, allowed top surface rest on the top of the carbide bit blade. Aluminum: Tendency to dig into the aluminum, very deep gashes, griped to the blade. Diamond: bounced off the blade, made individual scratches, could not cut into piece. *The sawblade was so dull by the end, that it hardly cut cut through a 1/4 piece of plywood, I wonder what caused that? The verdict: Not bad for a coating that is only .02" thick. Impact damage was less with the coating, but we were still able to dent it. We believe that is the fault of the aluminum, and not the coating, due to its malleability and overall weakness. The coating is not meant of impact resistance as much as it is for hardness an rigidity. Imagine the surface area of the piece compared to the thickness (144in^2 surface area is 7600 times greater than the coating ) If steel was coated, the impact resistance would be much better. As for the scratching and saw test, the coating was unreal. We absolutely could not cut through it, and completely disabled a blade in doing so. The straightness and rigidity of the piece was the most impressive aspect of the coating. The coating when just carried, felt much like a plate of slate. It was very difficult to bend, and could not be warped. After the tests, the aluminum was a flat plane was severely warped and bent. It could not be put on a flat surface with out rocking or shifting. The coated piece remained a flat, straight plane, (less the dents) All of the impacts were absorbed, and whatever damage was to be caused to the piece was only caused where struck. This would put much less stress on the frame, for if the warped aluminum piece was bolted to it, the energy from each impact in a fight, would be transferred to the frame. The coating is an amazing product that could change how BattleBots are protected. Surface Technologies and the services they provide has become a valuable asset to team Siege and cannot wait to be known as the first diamond-coated BattleBot.

Sept 4, 2001- Oct 18, 2001