Numbers for thought: Are 10 black balls worth 30 seconds?

[archiver]

Posted by Carlos Rodriguez at 1/10/2001 11:32 PM EST


Engineer on team #537, Domo ARIGATO, from Sussex Hamilton HS and GE Medical Systems.




Joe Balint and Team #537 would like a scoring check on the following:

Doing some quick numbers comparing the cost of 30 seconds to 10 black balls.

Scenario: 2 goals on balanced bridge, 4 large balls on goals, 4 robots in endzone.

Points:
a)
w/ 31sec left 80x4x2=640

b1)
add 10 balls and subtract 30 second to/from a)
w/ 1 sec left 90x4x1.5=540

In this scenario it would take 27 total black balls to offset the 30 second loss.

b2)
add 27 balls and subtract 30 seconds to/from a)
w/ 1 sec left 107x4x1.5=642

+10% to all scores
Any comments from the Teams?

[archiver]

Posted by Justin at 1/11/2001 11:32 AM EST


Other on team Blue Lightning Alumni Association from RWU sponsored by FIRST-A-holics Anonymous.


In Reply to: Numbers for thought: Are 10 black balls worth 30 seconds?
Posted by Carlos Rodriguez on 1/10/2001 11:32 PM EST:



My Question is....

I love the idea of putting the goals on thier side and then putting all 4 big balls on them. But has any one confirmed the ablity to do this. I've heard various comments to the effect of the goals being constructed in a manner that makes this near impossbile. I've also heard that while it might be done it would keep the balls on there while pushing the the goal around to balance it. Has anyone done any testing w/this scoring configuration to confirm it's feasiablity??

-Justin

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson at 1/11/2001 8:29 PM EST


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.


In Reply to: Goals on thier side and 4 big balls
Posted by Justin on 1/11/2001 11:32 AM EST:



MANY folks have confirmed this (beginning with Raul the
Magnificent).

More than that, it is in update #3.

Look it up.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Justin at 1/11/2001 8:51 PM EST


Other on team Blue Lightning Alumni Association from RWU sponsored by FIRST-A-holics Anonymous.


In Reply to: see update #3
Posted by Joe Johnson on 1/11/2001 8:29 PM EST:



Joe,

Maybe I was unclear...I wasn't asking if it is aloud...but rather has anyone actually tested it...to see if infact the construction of the goal permits it. There have been some conflicting opinions about whether, even though this feat is allowed, it would be possible to execute.

-Justin

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson at 1/11/2001 9:10 PM EST


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.


In Reply to: Re: see update #3
Posted by Justin on 1/11/2001 8:51 PM EST:



Justin,

Sorry, I am reading 100 mph in order to get through all
the new messages.

As to trying this, we have after a fashion. Our ramp
is not 100% complete, so the results are preliminary.

Here goes: On the floor the base determines the
orientation of the PVC pipes. In the natural resting
position on its side, a pipe is at 12 o'clock so a big
ball cannot really balance effectly.

BUT... if the goal can be supported on the ramp so that
the wood base is hanging in the air their are pipes at
approx. 11 and 1 o'clock. This allows 2 balls to be
put on the goal, though they are not what I would call
stable.

If two goals are placed cross wise to the bridge (one
on each side for balance), it seems possible in theory
to hold all 4 balls on top. We initial thought that
the "valley" between these cross wise goals would make
a nice place to put balls, but then we remembered that
we don't have the weight poles on the goal yet. I
guess that the balls would rest against one of these
poles negating the 10 points.

Teams are welcome to try this method, but on balance,
it doesn't seem to promising imho.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by rebecca at 1/12/2001 2:10 AM EST


Student on team #192, gunn robotics team, from gunn high school.


In Reply to: My bad...
Posted by Joe Johnson on 1/11/2001 9:10 PM EST:



We tried this stuff out today, with a finished ramp, goals, ect. With the goal on the floor, it you balance it just right so that the "grab bar" on the bottom works to prop up the goal, balls can stay. also your robot could just hold the goal in the correct position.
as for balancing a goal on its side...its seems hard to even get it on there due to the weight of the goal, but i bet some teams will do it. after its on, a big bal can theoretically balance

becca

: Justin,

: Sorry, I am reading 100 mph in order to get through all
: the new messages.

: As to trying this, we have after a fashion. Our ramp
: is not 100% complete, so the results are preliminary.

: Here goes: On the floor the base determines the
: orientation of the PVC pipes. In the natural resting
: position on its side, a pipe is at 12 o'clock so a big
: ball cannot really balance effectly.

: BUT... if the goal can be supported on the ramp so that
: the wood base is hanging in the air their are pipes at
: approx. 11 and 1 o'clock. This allows 2 balls to be
: put on the goal, though they are not what I would call
: stable.

: If two goals are placed cross wise to the bridge (one
: on each side for balance), it seems possible in theory
: to hold all 4 balls on top. We initial thought that
: the "valley" between these cross wise goals would make
: a nice place to put balls, but then we remembered that
: we don't have the weight poles on the goal yet. I
: guess that the balls would rest against one of these
: poles negating the 10 points.

: Teams are welcome to try this method, but on balance,
: it doesn't seem to promising imho.

: Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by EddieMcD at 03/09/2001 6:43 PM EST


Student on team #121, Islanders, from Middletown High School and NUWC.


In Reply to: Re: Well...
Posted by Jessica Boucher on 03/09/2001 6:25 AM EST:



It will be the biggest national yet. So, who's in the band?

-Ed "Looking forward to the 2002 nationals" McDonnell