Subject:
|
Re: [rtlToronto] rtlToronto20 Draft Rules Posted
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:45:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
747 times
|
| |
|
|
On 23-Nov-05, at 6:22 AM, Chris Magno wrote:
> Hi Derek, if I understand what you are asking, the answer would be 16.
>
> The easiest way to visualize how to build multiple Transfer
> Openings (TO) would be to build several stand alone TO's and then
> place them around your robot.
>
> We feel, that should a designer choose to use the 4 stud width from
> Outside dimension to Inside Dimension, as a way to locate the
> opening then there should be that dimension on each TO.
>
> Now, an argument could be made that that same 4 studs are there in
> the second example you gave re: 12 Center to Center measurement.
>
> Other than being able to cram more TO's into the same linear plane,
> are there other reasons why we should re-think this??
No, I just wanted clarification. 16 studs on centre is fine with me.
> I would like to see this section in read and up for debate as well.
> I personally think that colour should be irrelevant.
I'm happy with that.
> > Why is the transfer opening so deep? I was expect it to be 1 stud
> > deep. What's the reasoning for making it 4 studs deep?
>
>
> Derek, I am not sure if there is a miscommunication. The rule
> text says:
>
> "There should be at least four dots of depth into the Transfer
> Opening."
>
> The key word is "into." The block depth itself is 2 studs deep.
> a 4 stud depth was chosen, to allow for the block, and 2 studs for
> any potential transfer End of Arm Tool (EOAT) to fit.
>
> IF you are thinking that we are mandating that your bot T.O. must
> be a SOLID 4 studs deep, then thats just a miss understanding and I
> would like your suggestion on how to better re-word the rule.
So you are saying there should be clearance for a EOAT to enter to at
least 4 studs into the TO. But as long as my TO opening is 8 studs
by 7 bricks on the outer surface it can expand to any size I want on
the inside.
Basically it doesn't have to be a 8 stud by 7 brick by 4 stud tunnel.
> > Can you explain this line in more detail, I'm not sure what you're
> > getting at:
> >
> > "No assemblies (eg. sensors) should permanently obstruct the Wall
> > Surface."
>
>
> Your going to have to wait for Calum on this. I think he is trying
> to convey the idea that a flat TO is a base line to allow other
> bots to use offset whisker depth as a way to feel for the opening.
> Any protruding bricks might interfere with those whiskers.
Ah, is he saying I can have a tool that hangs over the front of the
TO as long as it's a moveable tool. For example a sensor on an arm
could move around the outside of my robot, but I couldn't permanently
mount one in a way the would obstruct the TO.
Derek
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
30 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
|
|
|
|
