 | | | | | | |
| |
|
<SNIP>
>
> Not to oversimplify, but I mean if the 'standard' for the
> ball contraption is 32 studs from the front of the hopper to
> the back edge of the baseplate, and thus I personally would
> probably grab a 32 x 32 stud baseplate to build on, thus the
> 'in' hopper would be in the bottom left hand corner anyway,
> wouldn't my module, by its very nature, be able to be placed
> 'in line' with the other ones, or 90 degrees, placing the
> hopper in the same location?
>
> I think that making 90 degree turns (only to the right) would
> be able to be done on many modules, just the way they
> are--phenominal ASCII graphix below!
>
> XXXXXXXXXXYYYYYYYYYY
> X XY Y
> X XY Y
> X XY Y
> X XY Y
> OOO XOOO YOOO
> O O XO O YO O
> OOOXXXXXXXOOOYYYYYYYOOO
>
>
> XXXXXXXXXX
> X X
> X X
> X X
> X X
> OOO XOOOYYYYYYY
> O O XO O Y
> OOOXXXXXXXOOO Y
> Y Y
> Y Y
> Y Y
> Y Y
> YYYYYYYYYY
> OOO
> O O
> OOO
>
>
> X-Module 1
> Y-Module 2
> O-Input/Output Bin
>
> See, if you leave both 'outer edges' of the bin open, both
> orientations work
>
> But maybe I'm missing something.
>
> Dave K
Personally, I think something similar to the moonbase concept should be
applied--an input bin with opening or edge at a given heighth and width
and placed in a specifica location on a standard footprint size, or
perhaps by allowing different categories of footprints.
In this way, anyone's module can fit to another persons and event
organizers can plan layouts for events and request the appropriate
amount of space.
- Rob
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, "Rob Limbaugh" <RLimbaugh@greenfieldgroup.com> wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>
>
> Personally, I think something similar to the moonbase concept should be
> applied--an input bin with opening or edge at a given heighth and width
> and placed in a specifica location on a standard footprint size, or
> perhaps by allowing different categories of footprints.
>
> In this way, anyone's module can fit to another persons and event
> organizers can plan layouts for events and request the appropriate
> amount of space.
>
> - Rob
I love standards, but I also like the 'variedness' of the GBC modules--trying to
get somethign specific hammered down, like 'only 32x32 baseplates with the bin
in the bottom left corner' might be a little difficult.
As it is, Steve's details is the front of the bin must be within 32 studs from
the back edge of the baseplate, to allow modules to run along a wall.
Maybe in the future Steve and Co. will get more specific, but this is a good
start
We shall see what transpires.
Dave K
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message
news:IA3zL9.xKJ@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.robotics, "Rob Limbaugh" <RLimbaugh@greenfieldgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >
> > Personally, I think something similar to the moonbase concept should be
> > applied--an input bin with opening or edge at a given heighth and width
> > and placed in a specifica location on a standard footprint size, or
> > perhaps by allowing different categories of footprints.
> >
> > In this way, anyone's module can fit to another persons and event
> > organizers can plan layouts for events and request the appropriate
> > amount of space.
> >
> > - Rob
>
> I love standards, but I also like the 'variedness' of the GBC
> modules--trying to
> get somethign specific hammered down, like 'only 32x32 baseplates with the
> bin
> in the bottom left corner' might be a little difficult.
>
> As it is, Steve's details is the front of the bin must be within 32 studs
> from
> the back edge of the baseplate, to allow modules to run along a wall.
>
> Maybe in the future Steve and Co. will get more specific, but this is a
> good
> start
>
> We shall see what transpires.
>
> Dave K
What's the big deal? Either you can make a module to comply with simple
specs, or you can't. If you need more space and can't fit everything inside
1 - 32x32 module, then make a multiplate module that will still make the
little toy LEGO balls go from point A to point B per the specs. I see no
reason to bicker about where the balls come from and go when we're not
dealing with NASA building rockets or making pianos...
-Ya, I'm having a Monday...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
>
> "David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:IA3zL9.xKJ@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.robotics, "Rob Limbaugh" <RLimbaugh@greenfieldgroup.com> wrote:
> > > Personally, I think something similar to the moonbase concept should be
> > > applied--
> >
> > I love standards, but I also like the 'variedness' of the GBC
> > modules--trying to
> > get somethign specific hammered down, like 'only 32x32 baseplates with the
> > bin
> > in the bottom left corner' might be a little difficult.
> >
> > As it is, Steve's details is the front of the bin must be within 32 studs
> > from
> > the back edge of the baseplate, to allow modules to run along a wall.
> >
> > Maybe in the future Steve and Co. will get more specific, but this is a
> > good
> > start
> >
> > We shall see what transpires.
> >
> > Dave K
>
> What's the big deal? Either you can make a module to comply with simple
> specs, or you can't. If you need more space and can't fit everything inside
> 1 - 32x32 module, then make a multiplate module
Why impose more limits than necessary? Of the 10 modules in our (very successful)
test GBC, these 4 would have to be eliminated for being out-of-spec: (not a multiple
of 32)
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1049771
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1049777
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1049778
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1049781
oops, I forgot, you can't use 48x48 baseplates. Add this:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1049768
Come to think of it, exactly one of the ten were legal modules that fit in one
standard 32x32 module.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1049770
And, because of the spec, when Chad's module (
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1049771 ) stopped working, we took
it out, slid the other together, and kept running.
I just don't see how adding more rules will improve anything.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Rob Hendrix wrote:
>
> "David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:IA3zL9.xKJ@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.robotics, "Rob Limbaugh" <RLimbaugh@greenfieldgroup.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Personally, I think something similar to the moonbase concept should be
> > > applied--an input bin with opening or edge at a given heighth and width
> > > and placed in a specifica location on a standard footprint size, or
> > > perhaps by allowing different categories of footprints.
> > >
> > > In this way, anyone's module can fit to another persons and event
> > > organizers can plan layouts for events and request the appropriate
> > > amount of space.
> > >
> > > - Rob
> >
> > I love standards, but I also like the 'variedness' of the GBC
> > modules--trying to
> > get somethign specific hammered down, like 'only 32x32 baseplates with the
> > bin
> > in the bottom left corner' might be a little difficult.
> >
> > As it is, Steve's details is the front of the bin must be within 32 studs
> > from
> > the back edge of the baseplate, to allow modules to run along a wall.
> >
> > Maybe in the future Steve and Co. will get more specific, but this is a
> > good
> > start
> >
> > We shall see what transpires.
> >
> > Dave K
>
> What's the big deal? Either you can make a module to comply with simple
> specs, or you can't. If you need more space and can't fit everything inside
> 1 - 32x32 module, then make a multiplate module that will still make the
> little toy LEGO balls go from point A to point B per the specs. I see no
> reason to bicker about where the balls come from and go when we're not
> dealing with NASA building rockets or making pianos...
>
> -Ya, I'm having a Monday...
Wow. Mondayness for me as well.
I agree with you, Rob. That said, to start, Steve and Co. have their little
thing goin' on, and I just wanted to point out that, within the parameters as
layed out by them, one has toe potential to make a module that would work both
as a straight thru as well as a 90 degree turn to the right.
That's all I wanted to do.
If this was an rtl event, we might further specify that modules have to be built
on a 32x32 baseplate with a 10x10 input bin in the lower left hand
corner (snivving setup rulz from Steve ;) ), or one could add 32x32 baseplates
in a line to the right from that--
XXXXXXXXXXYYYYYYYYYY
X XY Y
X XY Y
X XY Y
X XY Y
OOO XOOO Y
O O XO O Y
OOOXXXXXXXOOOYYYYYYY
Standard GBC module layout
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXYYYYYYYYYY
X XX XX XY Y
X XX XX XY Y
X XX XX XY Y
X XX XX XY Y
OOO XX XX XOOO Y
O O XX XX XO O Y
OOOXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOOOYYYYYYY
Extended GBC Module Layout
In this way, any module submetted would have the ability to be put in-line with
the rest, or turned 90 degrees to the right.
But this isn't an rtl event, so I'll work within the parameters as laid out by
the GBC team :)
Dave K
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> I agree with you, Rob. That said, to start, Steve and Co. have their little
> thing goin' on, and I just wanted to point out that, within the parameters as
> layed out by them, one has toe potential to make a module that would work both
> as a straight thru as well as a 90 degree turn to the right.
I didn't think about this until lunch, but you'll note this little yellow modules
conforms to the spec, and works very well as an 90 degree turn to the left, and
could also turn right:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1049778
In fact, it may be interesting to see someone build a "splitter" that handles balls
different, until it fees them into the next output bin (where they are again
combined)
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
news-gateway@lugnet.com wrote on 01/10/2005 01:03:08 PM:
> > I agree with you, Rob. That said, to start, Steve and Co. have their • little
> > thing goin' on, and I just wanted to point out that, within the • parameters as
> > layed out by them, one has toe potential to make a module that • would work both
> > as a straight thru as well as a 90 degree turn to the right.
>
> I didn't think about this until lunch, but you'll note this little
> yellow modules
> conforms to the spec, and works very well as an 90 degree turn to
> the left, and
> could also turn right:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1049778
That's an excellent point. It's obvious that modules that do not extend
beyond 32 studs can be used as right-turns. It's just as obvious (once
Steve points it out, that is) that modules that do *not* extend into the
first 32 studs (besides the input bin, of course), and place the output
bin properly can function as left-turn modules while *still* being
in-spec. There is nothing that says that a module must use the first 32
studs space. It just *must* be able to place the bin there. So move the
module out: you're done!
Perfect. Right turns and left turns, and we stay in-spec. Beautiful.
And, of course, Y-modules are *already* in-spec: they can have an in bin
and out bin according to spec. If they choose to have a second out-bin at
some location that is not counter to the spec, if you could disable it. In
that case, you'd have a normal straight-through module. If you want to
use it, you enable it.
And *that* is the beauty of a spec that specifies as *little* as possible.
Tim Massey
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
tmassey@obscorp.com writes:
> Perfect. Right turns and left turns, and we stay in-spec. Beautiful.
There should also be an appendix to the spec pointing this out,
though. Something like this should go into the Building Notes:
Turning modules: You should always design your module as if it will be
used in a long straight line of modules. You can, however, easily
create a module which can also turn 90 degrees right or left. A
right-turning module needs to keep the area in front of the In basket
clear. This area needs to be the width of the In basket, or 10 studs.
The depth of this clear area should be without limit. A left-turning
module needs to keep the area behind the In basket clear. This area
is accurately described by four points: the Back Left corner, the Back
Right corner, the Back Left of the output, and the Back Left of the In
basket. This area will be exactly 22 studs deep and must be least 32
studs wide. Nothing prevents a module from being designed as both
left-turning and right-turning.
--
--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Freedom means allowing
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | people to do things the
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 cell | majority thinks are
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 212-202-2318 VOIP | stupid, e.g. take drugs.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> wrote:
> tmassey@obscorp.com writes:
> > Perfect. Right turns and left turns, and we stay in-spec. Beautiful.
Thank you Tim! You point out the strengths of the "loose spec" far better
than I have been. And based on that, I'll now have a module that will adhere to
the Type I spec, but allow left or right 90-deg turns (with 32x32 or smaller
neighboring modules, but I suspect there will be plenty of those), and with a
little more work that same (still in spec!) module can be quickly adjusted to
break spec and allow two left turns (turning the line 180-deg) and/or spliting.
The secret is 10xn modules. Beautiful!
> There should also be an appendix to the spec pointing this out,
> though.
Yes, I really need to update my list (like, make it a readable format) and
add a "tips & tricks" section. In my copious free time...
--
Brian Davis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > > Perfect. Right turns and left turns, and we stay in-spec. Beautiful.
>
> Thank you Tim! You point out the strengths of the "loose spec" far better
> than I have been. And based on that, I'll now have a module that will adhere to
> the Type I spec, but allow left or right 90-deg turns (with 32x32 or smaller
> neighboring modules, but I suspect there will be plenty of those), • ...
> The secret is 10xn modules. Beautiful!
So, I'm at home with a sick boy, today, which has given me time to rebuild my
stepper module (already 10 studs wide) and it's now 32 studs long. It will turn the
stream right or left, go straight, it runs right at 1 bps (actually 4 balls/4sec),
and it holds a large number of balls. It works well, and it fits the spec.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
<snip>
> Steve
As a tangent (and to give those of you more inspiration than needed...)
Here's some nifty mechanisms that just might help inspire noew and creative ways
of moving dem dar soccer balls around--
http://www.brockeng.com/mechanism/index.htm
-Muse, thy name is
Dave K
| | | | | | |
