 | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Russell Nelson
|
| | | Steve Baker writes: > Another thought I had was that the organisers might want to consider > building a stage that has one input hopper and TWO outputs that sends > balls alternately to the two places. Yes! Since the soccer and basket balls are the (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Mark Bellis
|
| | | | | (...) I made a device that sends balls alternately down two chutes. Balls enter through a 2x2 hole in the top, onto the centre of a 7L studless beam, set up as a see-saw. Which ever way a ball goes, it drops onto another, longer, see-saw that tilts (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: TGBC - The Weakest Link? —Chio Siong Soh
|
| | | | | | (...) Any operation involving a long sequence of events as in The Great Ball Contraption (TGBC) is likely to be fouled up by failure of one of the events in the chain - the so called weakest link. Is there allowance for the fact that one of the (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TGBC - The Weakest Link? —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | | | (...) First, test the modules as they are added to the system to make sure they meet the minimum requirement. Second, watch the whole thing like a hawk, being ready to shut it down to fix such problems. Third, there will have to be some (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TGBC - The Weakest Link? —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | | | (...) Not really. :) However, we're not expecting the GBC to run 100% of the time. It's not like letting a train run in a circle for eight hours. There are all kinds of things going on at the same time. In our testing, we seemed to run for about 20 (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —
|
| | | | Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> wrote on 01/09/2005 04:20:10 PM: (...) Or not: leave the standard as it is (except for specifying that the space above the input belongs to the previous module), and have the organizers build (or specificially (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Steve Baker
|
| | | | | (...) Yeah - I agree. You need the 'average builder' to stick to a simple straight-line standard one-size-fits-all module. If you don't then everyone will want to build something esoteric and you'll get hardly any simple modules of the kind that (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | | (...) Or create other "Types" That's the long-term plan. Of course, any GBC that uses some of these other module types will require considerabily more planning prior to set-up, and it will also make the whole contraption less tolerant to the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Steve Baker
|
| | | | | | (...) I think you can handle this with a little care in the design of the rules. If the table you are setting it up on is deep enough to permit it, you could always use four 90 degree pieces in a LEFT/RIGHT/RIGHT/LEFT sequence to keep the overall (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | | | | (...) Actually, it's pretty interesting, if you consider how complex making a pair of turns really is. If you make a 90 degree right hand turn on a 32x32 baseplate, the module must output right next to it's own input. But, bins on a left-hand turn (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Why not universalize the standard so that a module that can turn must be configurable to turn either to the left or the right? A few ways this could be done are movable output stages, EG a sliding or drop-in output that can be placed where (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Is there something that a module builder can not do because the standard is too simple? Steve (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —
|
| | | | | | | | | | news-gateway@lugnet.com wrote on 01/10/2005 10:01:48 AM: (...) thus the (...) module, (...) or 90 (...) That assumes that there is nothing in front of the hopper. There is nothing to say that you are limited to a module 32 studs deep. If you choose (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I completely agree with that assessment. However, the premise is that I'm using a 32x32 baseplate with the hopper in the bottom left hand corner--using that premise, the module can be used either in-line, or 90 degrees. If one does not use the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | | | | | "Steve Hassenplug" <Steve@TeamHassenplug.org> wrote in message (...) Yes. Currently it's not being able to make turns in both directions with the hopper feed setup the way it is. Someone did point out that there would be a lot of wasted space if (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That's really not true. As a module builder, you can make all the turns you want. This one makes a whole bunch: (URL) you can't figure out how to put the output in the correct place, with respect to the input, that's not a problem with the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Russell Nelson
|
| | | | | | Steve Baker writes: > So simply write into the rules that everyone who submits a left hand > turn has to submit a corresponding right hand turn or they won't > be accepted. Excellent idea! But it's even easier than that!! Do NOT change the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Russell Nelson
|
| | | | tmassey@obscorp.com writes: > Or not: leave the standard as it is (except for specifying that the space > above the input belongs to the previous module), and have the organizers > build (or specificially request) out-of-spec modules to accomplish (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
