Boomilever B/C

Locked
tsingh
Member
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: October 31st, 2019, 8:33 pm
Division: C
State: IL
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Boomilever B/C

Post by tsingh »

I noticed that everyone was making a huge deal about rule 5a.v (the contact width lines). However while designing by boomi for this year I found that the angle that the diagonal compression members made with the perpendicular line from the testing apparatus is only about 2.12 degrees which increases the load on the compression members from 43.29 kg (boomi constructed according to last year's rules) to 43.32 kg, if carrying max weight. (This is all for a basic tension boomilever).
This is why I don't really see this rule change as that significant to the event, besides of course the fact the it will be a little more difficult to build. Am I missing something here?
User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4323
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Has thanked: 229 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Boomilever B/C

Post by Unome »

tsingh wrote: November 1st, 2019, 1:19 pm I noticed that everyone was making a huge deal about rule 5a.v (the contact width lines). However while designing by boomi for this year I found that the angle that the diagonal compression members made with the perpendicular line from the testing apparatus is only about 2.12 degrees which increases the load on the compression members from 43.29 kg (boomi constructed according to last year's rules) to 43.32 kg, if carrying max weight. (This is all for a basic tension boomilever).
This is why I don't really see this rule change as that significant to the event, besides of course the fact the it will be a little more difficult to build. Am I missing something here?
The increased difficulty of building is probably the biggest challenge imo.
Userpage

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.
123445
Member
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: May 12th, 2019, 4:13 pm
Division: Grad
State: DE
Pronouns: Ask My Pronouns
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Boomilever B/C

Post by 123445 »

What are some good vertical members I should try. Right now I'm use 1/16x1/16 balsa, and my vertical members are bending/breaking at ~7-8kg.
User avatar
MadCow2357
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 774
Joined: November 19th, 2017, 9:09 am
Division: C
State: RI
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 56 times
Contact:

Re: Boomilever B/C

Post by MadCow2357 »

123445 wrote: November 1st, 2019, 7:50 pm What are some good vertical members I should try. Right now I'm use 1/16x1/16 balsa, and my vertical members are bending/breaking at ~7-8kg.
1/16" square for main compression beams? That's kinda thin. I'd use at least 1/8" square for a modified tower chimney design, or 1/2" by 1/8" for a regular one.
MadCow2357's Userpage
Gallagher MS '19
Barrington HS '23
123445
Member
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: May 12th, 2019, 4:13 pm
Division: Grad
State: DE
Pronouns: Ask My Pronouns
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Boomilever B/C

Post by 123445 »

MadCow2357 wrote: November 2nd, 2019, 11:09 am
123445 wrote: November 1st, 2019, 7:50 pm What are some good vertical members I should try. Right now I'm use 1/16x1/16 balsa, and my vertical members are bending/breaking at ~7-8kg.
1/16" square for main compression beams? That's kinda thin. I'd use at least 1/8" square for a modified tower chimney design, or 1/2" by 1/8" for a regular one.
I meant I was using 1/16 square for the vertical members not the compression.
stevepilot
Member
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 3:35 pm
Division: C
State: IA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Boomilever B/C

Post by stevepilot »

Does anyone know if it would be beneficial to brace both the top and bottom sides of the compression beam? Currently we only brace the top, however it is clear from testing that this results in a twisting motion between the two compression beams. Would bracing both sides be worth the extra weight, and is anyone doing so right now? Or does anyone have any experience with bracing only the bottoms?
ST
2018 - Optics, Thermodynamics, Towers.

In memory of Len Joeris (Balsa Man)

2018 Towers - 4th
User avatar
MadCow2357
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 774
Joined: November 19th, 2017, 9:09 am
Division: C
State: RI
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 56 times
Contact:

Re: Boomilever B/C

Post by MadCow2357 »

stevepilot wrote: November 2nd, 2019, 1:21 pm Does anyone know if it would be beneficial to brace both the top and bottom sides of the compression beam? Currently we only brace the top, however it is clear from testing that this results in a twisting motion between the two compression beams. Would bracing both sides be worth the extra weight, and is anyone doing so right now? Or does anyone have any experience with bracing only the bottoms?
I brace both top and bottom, works for me.
123445 wrote:
MadCow2357 wrote: November 2nd, 2019, 11:09 am
123445 wrote: November 1st, 2019, 7:50 pm What are some good vertical members I should try. Right now I'm use 1/16x1/16 balsa, and my vertical members are bending/breaking at ~7-8kg.
1/16" square for main compression beams? That's kinda thin. I'd use at least 1/8" square for a modified tower chimney design, or 1/2" by 1/8" for a regular one.
I meant I was using 1/16 square for the vertical members not the compression.
I assumed you meant "main compression beams" when you said "vertical members". If you mean bracing, I've been getting by with 1/16" by 1/32" strips.
MadCow2357's Userpage
Gallagher MS '19
Barrington HS '23
User avatar
sciolyperson1
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 1074
Joined: April 23rd, 2018, 7:13 pm
Division: C
State: NJ
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 529 times
Been thanked: 601 times
Contact:

Re: Boomilever B/C

Post by sciolyperson1 »

By vertical bracing, I assume they mean bracings that connect the main tensions and main compressions; try going for 1/8 x 1/16 or 1/8 x 3/32 instead of 1/16 x 1/16.
SoCal Planning Team & BirdSO Tournament Director
WW-P HSN '22, Community MS '18
Sciolyperson1's Userpage
Lorant
Member
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: February 18th, 2019, 2:18 pm
Division: C
State: FL
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Boomilever B/C

Post by Lorant »

sciolyperson1 wrote: November 3rd, 2019, 6:09 am By vertical bracing, I assume they mean bracings that connect the main tensions and main compressions; try going for 1/8 x 1/16 or 1/8 x 3/32 instead of 1/16 x 1/16.
Effective arrangement of 1/16 x 1/16 will cut weight and should yield equal if not better results, it really all depends on the arrangement of the vertical bracings.
I build. A lot.
Boca Raton High School.
Events: Boomi, Gravity Vehicle, Wright Stuff.
Incomplete Userpage
User avatar
sciolyperson1
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 1074
Joined: April 23rd, 2018, 7:13 pm
Division: C
State: NJ
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 529 times
Been thanked: 601 times
Contact:

Re: Boomilever B/C

Post by sciolyperson1 »

Lorant wrote: November 4th, 2019, 7:26 pm
sciolyperson1 wrote: November 3rd, 2019, 6:09 am By vertical bracing, I assume they mean bracings that connect the main tensions and main compressions; try going for 1/8 x 1/16 or 1/8 x 3/32 instead of 1/16 x 1/16.
Effective arrangement of 1/16 x 1/16 will cut weight and should yield equal if not better results, it really all depends on the arrangement of the vertical bracings.
1/16 x 1/16, under both tension and compression, can support minimal weight. 1/8 x 1/16 or even 1/4 x 1/16 balsa under tension would be far more optimal.
SoCal Planning Team & BirdSO Tournament Director
WW-P HSN '22, Community MS '18
Sciolyperson1's Userpage
Locked

Return to “Boomilever B/C”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests