Subject:
|
Re: Crate Size
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.smart
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:09:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6113 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.us.smart, Brian B. Alano wrote:
> 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.
Thanks! It has been extremely fun and rewarding to build these. They certainly
attract a lot of attention from crowds.
> 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?
The current crate that we use is this one:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/David/SMART/Samples/current10x10crate.gif The
other one that you see was an old prototype when we first started discussing
amongst ourselves what the standards should be. I probably should have deleted
the picture long ago.
The reason we use the height that we have (5 2/3 bricks high without the feet)
has to do with Lego geometry: this height allows easier and firmer grasping -
look at the forklift, for instance. That's an integer number of studs between
the bottom and top.
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/David/SMART/Samples/crateheight.gif
illustrates how useful this particular height is.
> 2. Why do you use two layers of plates to form the bottom of the crate? Why not
> just one?
The reason for two rows of plates on the bottom is that Lego doesn't make a
10x10 plate! If they did, we'd use that. But most of our crates have 2x10
plates, and occasionally 4x10 or 6x10 plates. Just about however you do it, with
a single row of plates, you end up with an unsupported plate at the bottom of
the crate. After dozens of cycles of having balls dropped onto an unsupported
plate, it shouldn't come as a surprise when the crate is lifted, the plate falls
off, and you have a table full of rolling balls!!
We started with a single row of plates at the top because if you are tipping
back a crate, a single brick will often snap off. To make the height 'right', we
went to our current system of two rows of plates on the top, and a third plate
under the technic beam. We have a row of technic beams where they are because
early on it seemed like a likely way to pick up a crate -- some sort of grasper
that inserted pins into the holes. This hasn't been used in any of our
contraptions yet, mainly because it means that you have to have a very specific
alignment of where the crate is set down, plus a very carefully aligned robot
that can grasp it right. It's possible, but like I said, we've not done that
yet.
> 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.
Actually balls roll out of the crates quite nicely. If you tip the crate even
just a tiny bit past 90-degrees, there won't be any balls left in it after a
second or two. So there was no need for us to complicate it with slopes.
> 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.
As long as you can grasp under the crate, you can lift it to where ever you
might need to. There's one Lego piece that doesn't exist which for the crate
contraption we would all love to have -- something that was a rounded beam,
perhaps seven or nine 'holes' long, tapered along at one end a bit (say three
hole's worth), and rounded on the corners at that end too. This would allow for
a much more forgiving mechanism to reach under the crate. I don't think we'll
ever see that piece, though! :-) So we've been inventive with different
mechanisms to reach under and hold the crate, using all sorts of parts.
> 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?
I guess if you want to design a module standard, the best thing to do is to
build a couple of modules yourself to see how they work, and what things you
wish were different. Even better, get two or three friends to help out, as
they'll all think of different things than you would. The first crate
contraption we did had lots of things change as we discovered different
problems, including interaction problems between robots and crates. That's why
our crate standard changed after only one or two weeks of testing robots
together.
Good luck!
--
David Schilling
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Crate Size
|
| (...) Why 2x2 square bricks for feet, instead of 2x2 round bricks? Having played (only as little!) with the crate on a self-aligning stand (2x2 slopes to help center the feet), the slopes don't seem to need the square edges of the 2x2 feet, and a (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.us.smart)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Crate Size
|
| (...) 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 (URL) is 7 1/3 bricks high. The ones at the Road Show ((URL) appear to be 7 (...) (20 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
