DPRG
DPRG List  



[DPRG] Another option to time Quick Trip robots

Subject: [DPRG] Another option to time Quick Trip robots
From: chrisbrenizer chrisbrenizer at yahoo.com
Date: Tue Feb 12 12:46:00 CST 2002

concerning how to trip automatic timers, don't forgot this option.

you can always state that next event, summer, or year robots must be able to
depress a switch, break a light beam, bump a taut string, etc...or whatever
start/stop mechanism you come up with.  as long as you provide dimensions
and details. these don't have to change the contest much if at all.

the same could go for autosensing a turn around.  figure out a great way to
sense it and then require builders to be able to trip the sensor as part of
the contest (like a mini swinging gate that must be rotated 270 degrees or
whatever, etc...)

that allows you more freedom in coming up with a 'best solution', and a lead
time allows builders time to prepare.

you'll be able to come up with a scheme that works better and not be
hampered by the existing limitations.


----- Original Message -----
>From: Karim Virani <karim at yadallas.org>
To: 'dprglist (E-mail)' <dprglist at dprg.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 7:25 PM
Subject: RE: [DPRG] Another option to time Quick Trip robots


> Rick,
>
> Yup, you're right.  The fastest 3 finishers (not identical to top 3
winners)
> were .9 and .8 seconds apart.  Somehow it felt longer when I was watching
> it.  We even had 2 slower bots with identical times at 77.0 seconds each -
> neat fluke.  I wonder how close the total point spread was, but the
website
> doesn't tell.  You're right again, though, some day, maybe soon, the
> difference will pass beyond human resolution [and] the time will be the
> deciding factor.
>
> My bet is that we can muddle through a couple more ramas if the solution
> doesn't come together right away.  I'm not trying to dissuade or
de-energize
> those good folks who are ready to implement the thing, just pointing out
> that some think we still have a safety net.  Nuff said by me.
>
> Karim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dprglist-admin at dprg.org [mailto:dprglist-admin at dprg.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 2:59 PM
> To: dprglist-admin at dprg.org; 'dprglist (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [DPRG] Another option to time Quick Trip robots
>
>
> Karim,
>
> Yes, at the last Robo-Rama, they were certainly within a second of each
> other. All of the lego racers broke the previously held quick trip times
by
> a wide margin. I suspect that this is only going to get closer, which is
> what gave me the idea for converting my board into a timer in the first
> place.
>
> Rick
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dprglist-admin at dprg.org [mailto:dprglist-admin at dprg.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 11:19 AM
> To: 'dprglist (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [DPRG] Another option to time Quick Trip robots
>
>
> Flags need poles.  What if someone shows up with a 4' tall robot.  (Are
> there any height restrictions).  The flag needs to be set at a uniform
> height, but if a tall bot increases that height, the pole could begin to
> affect performance of smaller/lighter bots.  Minimizing the mass of the
pole
> can be difficult if it's very long since it probably has to be rigid.
Then
> of course, somebody's flag-n-pole is going to fall off due to a poor
> attachment scheme coupled with rapid accellerations and a long lever-arm.
>
> Not that it couldn't happen, but have we ever had 2 bots finish within
even
> a second of each other?  I'd trust a human with a stopwatch down to a
> resolution of 1/10 second.  Typically you only get very close results in
> races between highly similar "designs". (Thorobreds, Formula1, etc.)  That
> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> Not that I'll have an entry anyway ;)
>
> Karim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dprglist-admin at dprg.org [mailto:dprglist-admin at dprg.org]On Behalf
> Of Clay Timmons
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 3:50 AM
> To: dprglist (E-mail)
> Subject: [DPRG] Another option to time Quick Trip robots
>
>
> After all the discussion of drilling holes in
> the course I thought of another option.
>
> We could have the light beam above the side walls
> and require all robots to have a flag.  A little
> flag is easy to attach to any robot and makes it
> easier for spectators to see where the robot is.
> The timing system beam could detect the flag rather
> than the robot since the flag would be standard
> while robots are not.
>
> -Clay Timmons-
> _______________________________________________
> DPRGlist mailing list
> DPRGlist at dprg.org
> http://nimon.ncc.com/mailman/listinfo/dprglist
>


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


More information about the DPRG mailing list