Subject:
|
Re: Crate Size
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.smart
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:21:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5260 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.us.smart, David Schilling wrote:
> Back to crates, I think the only reason we would redesign the crates would be if
> there were a better set of sensors and/or a better RCX available...
If I haven't said this already, let me first express how impressed and
fascinated I am with your Contraptions.
Three questions about the SMART crate.
1. The one at http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=455309 is 7 1/3
bricks high. The ones at the Road Show
(http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=529188) appear to be 7 bricks
high, and the Technic beams are 1 plate lower from the top. Which crate do you
prefer and why?
2. Why do you use two layers of plates to form the bottom of the crate? Why not
just one?
3. Have you experimented with sloping the inside of the crate to help control
bouncing? For example:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ALittleSlow/Robotics/GBC/crate1.jpg
It seems like it might make the crates easier to dump, too.
Some thoughts about the interface height:
Suppose I would like my input interface to be a train motor with a crate mounted
on it, like the one in the Road Show link above. With a crate size like this
one: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=455309 the top of the crate
would be at minimum 10 2/3 bricks high. This allows 3 1/3 bricks of clearance
between the boat plates on the feet of the crate and the baseplate. This also is
enough to accomodate a gear train, limited pneumatics, or a conveyor belt.
That's enough options to keep me busy for a while. However, I wonder if it's
enough height for an elevator lift, which will be an essential mechanism. Maybe
5 bricks of clearance would be better for that. I defer to the experience of the
SMART guys here.
In terms of the support structure required, your module will always have to lift
balls from the bottom of your input crate to the top of your neighbor's input
crate. There's no getting around that. Adding another three to five bricks of
height doesn't seem that bad.
So I would propose a minimum input height from the top of the crate to the
baseplate of 10 bricks, and a maximum of 13 bricks. I would propose a minimum
output clearance of 13 1/3 bricks and a maximum of 16 bricks. This makes the
maximum distance a ball would fall from the output to the bottom of the input
crate um, 16 - 10 + 5 1/3 = 11 1/3 bricks. Thoughts?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Crate Size
|
| (...) Thanks! It has been extremely fun and rewarding to build these. They certainly attract a lot of attention from crowds. (...) The current crate that we use is this one: (URL) The other one that you see was an old prototype when we first started (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.us.smart)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Crate Size
|
| (...) Usually we aim for around 30 balls per crate. That gives enough leeway that if a robot is out of commission for a few minutes (changing batteries, say) that a 'filling' robot still can run without being stopped. More than around 60 balls and (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.us.smart)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
