Boomilever B/C
-
- Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: October 31st, 2019, 8:33 pm
- Division: C
- State: IL
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Boomilever B/C
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?
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?
- Unome
- 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
The increased difficulty of building is probably the biggest challenge imo.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?
-
- 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
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.
- MadCow2357
- 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
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.
-
- 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
I meant I was using 1/16 square for the vertical members not the compression.MadCow2357 wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2019, 11:09 am1/16" 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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 13
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 3:35 pm
- Division: C
- State: IA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Boomilever B/C
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
2018 - Optics, Thermodynamics, Towers.
In memory of Len Joeris (Balsa Man)
2018 Towers - 4th
- MadCow2357
- 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
I brace both top and bottom, works for me.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 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.123445 wrote:I meant I was using 1/16 square for the vertical members not the compression.MadCow2357 wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2019, 11:09 am1/16" 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.
- sciolyperson1
- 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
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
WW-P HSN '22, Community MS '18
Sciolyperson1's Userpage
-
- 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
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.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.
I build. A lot.
Boca Raton High School.
Events: Boomi, Gravity Vehicle, Wright Stuff.
Incomplete Userpage
Boca Raton High School.
Events: Boomi, Gravity Vehicle, Wright Stuff.
Incomplete Userpage
- sciolyperson1
- 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
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.Lorant wrote: ↑November 4th, 2019, 7:26 pmEffective 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.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.
SoCal Planning Team & BirdSO Tournament Director
WW-P HSN '22, Community MS '18
Sciolyperson1's Userpage
WW-P HSN '22, Community MS '18
Sciolyperson1's Userpage
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests