 | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Brian Davis
|
| | | (...) Really, the only thing defining a "module space" is a flat L & R edge, and no part of the module extending more than 32 studs from the front edge of the input bin "zone" - the footprint need not be remotely rectangular, nor is there a set (...) (19 years ago, 7-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Brass Tilde
|
| | | | | (...) I'll point out that the standard as it's defined pictorially allows for a non-linear layout just as it stands. As long as the input in in the correct place relative to the previous block's output, and the output is placed correctly relative to (...) (19 years ago, 7-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —
|
| | | | | | "Brass Tilde" <brasstilde@insightbb.com> wrote on 01/07/2005 01:52:19 PM: (...) edge, (...) participate. (...) a (...) correct (...) and (...) While what you're saying will work fine, the standard does say: Each module should have an "in" basket, (...) (19 years ago, 7-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | | (...) In addition, there's an actual *reason* why that is set up that way. Can you picture trying to set up a large scale GBC if we need a certain number of "turns" and "straights"? There could also be interference issues if the rear of the GBC line (...) (19 years ago, 7-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —
|
| | | | | | news-gateway@lugnet.com wrote on 01/07/2005 04:11:02 PM: (...) one (...) the (...) This was my *exact* reason for asking: tipping containers. If the tip left to right (from their space to the next module's space), there is no need for extra width: (...) (19 years ago, 7-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | | | (...) In our test, when people dump, they usually dump onto a ramp in their own module, that drains onto the next module. Like on John's back hoe: (URL) you can see, it hangs over it's neighbor a bit. Of course, if you ass-u-me anything about the (...) (19 years ago, 8-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Russell Nelson
|
| | | | | | Steve Hassenplug writes: > As you can see, it hangs over it's neighbor a bit. > > Of course, if you ass-u-me anything about the neighboring modules > you could run into problems. You can assume anything that's in the specification! Speaking of (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | | (...) Instead of that, just make sure that your module delivers through the "side" of the downstream module's territory. In other words, using a chute (even a very short one) is a pretty easy solution. And that way the standard isn't further (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Russell Nelson
|
| | | | | | Brian Davis writes: > Instead of that, just make sure that your module delivers through > the "side" of the downstream module's territory. Then the spec should say that the ball should go through a vertical plane, and specify the size of the (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | (...) The standard doesn't explain this very well, because I'm really not sure how to write it. A module can be any size, but the input and output should be on opposite sides, with the front of the input being no more than 32 studs from the back of (...) (19 years ago, 7-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | Do you have any better photos (particularly a top-down view) of that particular module? I don't quite understand how his module managed to fling the ball out instead of pushing or dropping it. I'd also like to see more photos of the individual (...) (19 years ago, 8-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Brian Davis
|
| | | | (...) As I recall (I was not present, but talked with Steve about it) that module had problems with jamming - I think what you see in the video is a single ball partially jamming the mechanism and being kicked out hard. That particular module used (...) (19 years ago, 8-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | | "Brian Davis" <brdavis@iusb.edu> wrote in message news:IA02Dv.1DH7@lugnet.com... (...) Hmm I must have missed that list post. I am kind of working on a contraption, but it's main aim is to sort LEGO bricks, which are a lot less likely to slide than (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | | (...) The list is on Steve's GBC page, below the Type I standard - just scroll down. (19 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Rick Clark
|
| | | | In lugnet.robotics, Brian Davis wrote: (snip) (...) (snip) (...) Another awesome source which you may want to link the main page to is: (URL) While not in English, it does contain animations of nearly every idea on the list. Wow! You can get a rough (...) (19 years ago, 12-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Brian Davis
|
| | | | (...) Thank you! I found this page ages ago when trying to find an easy way to build a step feeder (I've wanted to build one ever since a certain Playful Penguin thread in rtlToronto), and it inspired me to start a list, but I couldn't relocate it! (...) (19 years ago, 12-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
