I appreciate your perspective, but I believe you are a bit mistaken on a number of points. I'm interested to hear your take in case I have glossed over something fairly obvious or crucial. 1) As far as I have noted, the purpose of the spring you are looking at is purely for alignment (Possibly aiding in the arm strength?). The spring that is typically failing is the one on the reverse of the mechanism image you are looking at. It fulfils the same role as is seen in any other trigger mechanism whether the adaptive mechanism is engaged or not. The rest of your discussion does have some relevance to that spring so lets consider that one as the focus going forward. 2) You discussed positive and negative tensions in the spring being in excess of what would be present in a typical non-adaptive trigger spring. I do not agree that this is true. Remember to apply Newton's 3rd law. If the user depresses the button and hence tensions the spring to a given position the spring exerts an equal force on the chassis. If the adaptive mechanism pushes back (motor turns wormgear turns spur gear moves arm against levered trigger button) this either results in a reduction in tension in the spring if the motor force is greater than the user force or results in no change if the user increases force to counter the motor force. In the latter case, the excess force is resisted by the motor not the spring. If there was a greater force than is typically seen in trigger spring then surely it would compress further (according to Hookes Law). I'm not certain as to what extent the suddenly applied loading of the motor would have though. Any thoughts there? 3) You are 100% right the issue pertains to fatigue life of the spring, however I'm not convinced by your reasoning. The adaptive trigger does result in a significantly greater number of fluctuations in force and hence cycles, but these are of small amplitude at a higher mean. I personally believe the spring was designed for the larger fully depressed to fully released amplitude according to button press life (lower mean but higher amplitude), but like you are saying, the significantly greater frequency but low amplitude cycles were not considered. From what I understand, the spring itself is of a stiffer metal than previous iterations of their controllers given the increased precision of position that can be read from the controller. A stiffer spring (greater k) results in greater range of force (F) covers the range of spring depression position (x) by the user (Hookes law again). I believe this stiffer material likely compromises fatigue life. If you are interested, I am doing a complete analysis of the mechanism this year and can discuss further with you if you are interested. None the less I do appreciate the perspective you offer here.
I appreciate your perspective, but I believe you are a bit mistaken on a number of points. I'm interested to hear your take in case I have glossed over something fairly obvious or crucial.
1) As far as I have noted, the purpose of the spring you are looking at is purely for alignment (Possibly aiding in the arm strength?). The spring that is typically failing is the one on the reverse of the mechanism image you are looking at. It fulfils the same role as is seen in any other trigger mechanism whether the adaptive mechanism is engaged or not. The rest of your discussion does have some relevance to that spring so lets consider that one as the focus going forward.
2) You discussed positive and negative tensions in the spring being in excess of what would be present in a typical non-adaptive trigger spring. I do not agree that this is true. Remember to apply Newton's 3rd law. If the user depresses the button and hence tensions the spring to a given position the spring exerts an equal force on the chassis. If the adaptive mechanism pushes back (motor turns wormgear turns spur gear moves arm against levered trigger button) this either results in a reduction in tension in the spring if the motor force is greater than the user force or results in no change if the user increases force to counter the motor force. In the latter case, the excess force is resisted by the motor not the spring. If there was a greater force than is typically seen in trigger spring then surely it would compress further (according to Hookes Law). I'm not certain as to what extent the suddenly applied loading of the motor would have though. Any thoughts there?
3) You are 100% right the issue pertains to fatigue life of the spring, however I'm not convinced by your reasoning. The adaptive trigger does result in a significantly greater number of fluctuations in force and hence cycles, but these are of small amplitude at a higher mean. I personally believe the spring was designed for the larger fully depressed to fully released amplitude according to button press life (lower mean but higher amplitude), but like you are saying, the significantly greater frequency but low amplitude cycles were not considered.
From what I understand, the spring itself is of a stiffer metal than previous iterations of their controllers given the increased precision of position that can be read from the controller. A stiffer spring (greater k) results in greater range of force (F) covers the range of spring depression position (x) by the user (Hookes law again). I believe this stiffer material likely compromises fatigue life.
If you are interested, I am doing a complete analysis of the mechanism this year and can discuss further with you if you are interested. None the less I do appreciate the perspective you offer here.
Mine keeps clicking
Without me even touching it and it is making a clicking noise