Subject:
|
Re: (tentative) new Toronto lego robot contest
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2001 02:27:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
627 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Iain Hendry writes:
> > Then why restrict possible design alternatives? If you're aiming to
> > "challenge our minds" then you shouldn't restrict people to one design
> > possibility-meaning, why restrict people to build a cartesian type robot • or
> > an arm robot only? You've already discounted Iain's design of picking all
> > of the pieces up first if you state the spirit says a robot that has "the
> > smarts to 'see' a problem" since Iain's wouldn't see the problem at all if
> > it grabs ALL the pieces ahead of time.
>
> No no, Chris said it would be okay for me to collect them into a 2by8 nest
> off the main grid.
Correct. But what I'm arguing is Chris' statement of:
> The "spirit of the game" in this case can be defined as: We want to see
> a
> cartesian type robot (or robot arm) with the smarts to "see" a problem
> and change the pattern of blocks to the one specified.
> Always keep in mind that these games are designed to challenge our
> minds and building skills. with no real prize for winning, you would
> gain little by exploiting loop holes in the rules.
Notice he says "with the smarts to "see" a problem and change the pattern of
blocks to the one specified". Your design wouldn't even see it, if you grab
them all first and put them into the nest. You're out of the spirit already
in his definition.
Yet I think it's perfectly fine to grab all the blocks and put them into a
nest and lay them back out again. It's no different than dumping them all
by tipping the board, except yours is in a more controlled, and therefore
easier to control fashion.
What I'm trying to say is that being too strict in the definition of the
spirit stifles peoples solutions.
> I can't think of too many ways besides some sort of gantry to solve this
> problem. I'd love to see totally out-of-the-box thinking.
One could do it with that three arm device you showed at a dinner. Or how
about mounting the tray on a XY table and moving the ENTIRE TRAY-picking and
dropping pieces with a fixed device like an embroidery machine? There's a
lot of solutions. The fact that Chris could only think of a "robot arm" or
a cartesian robot (which I suppose moving the tray is too) doesn't mean
those are the the only ways of doing it.
Some might be better than others. But if Chris wants to DICTATE building a
gantry machine, then that's a boring contest, you might as well say the
thing has to be red, include a 16x16 sculpture of a pumpkin on the top and
say "Chris is great" on the side :)
Calum
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: (tentative) new Toronto lego robot contest
|
| (...) WOW, what a GREAT idea!! Ok, new rule. it would not be in the spirit of the game if your robot did not pay homage to me is some respectful way. :) Wow, I feel this power all of a sudden. very liberating. Excuse me, my people are calling me. I (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | Re: (tentative) new Toronto lego robot contest
|
| "Calum Tsang" <tsangc@mie.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:GLA1H9.6Kq@lugnet.com... (...) of (...) grab (...) already (...) That's why I feel guilty. I was going to have it look at what cells have blocks though, and then pick the blocks out of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: (tentative) new Toronto lego robot contest
|
| "Calum Tsang" <tsangc@mie.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:GL9wCv.Fot@lugnet.com... (...) or (...) No no, Chris said it would be okay for me to collect them into a 2by8 nest off the main grid. (...) limit (...) I can't think of too many ways (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
28 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
|
|
|
|
