Realistic high goal scoring rate

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I am in complete agreement with this, actually. The important shooter metric is balls scored per second, not accuracy or balls fired per second. Erring on the side of volume is almost certainly preferred because it's probably easier to increase accuracy for a high volume system than to increase volume for a high accuracy system. I think it IS interesting that if you're pursuing a single stream shooter*, at some point you have to start backing away from the goal to increase your rate of fire without running balls into each other.

*How long do you think until the first joke about crossing the streams?

[Eric Scheuing]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

*How long do you think until the first joke about crossing the streams?

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

Ghostbusters!

14:06-14:13, so ~7 minutes

Longer than I expected actually.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Eric Scheuing

14:06-14:13, so ~7 minutes

Longer than I expected actually.

He has to have some kind of intelligent filter that notifies him of joke opportunities, I swear.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

He has to have some kind of intelligent filter that notifies him of joke opportunities, I swear.

That's the first time I've ever heard him referred to as "intelligent"

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

That's the first time I've ever heard him referred to as "intelligent"

[Andrew_L]

97.1 balls per second.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Originally Posted by Andrew_L

97.1 balls per second.

next thing you know 254 does better than that

[rick.oliver]

So, check my math, but assuming a single Fuel leaving the shooter wheel which is located at the top of a tall robot parked in the key against the boiler wall. My trajectory model calculates about 86 degree launch angle at about 5.7 m/s muzzle velocity. At a 5" pitch, that is 40 to 45 Fuels per second.

So that would be the max; of course, there would be a gap as you wouldn't be feeding the shooter as fast, so something less than that.

Am I missing something?

[Andrew_L]

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

next thing you know 254 does better than that

I can't hear you over my ACTUAL TRANSFORMER ROBOT*



*Whose design I didn't contribute to in the slightest

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Andrew_L

97.1 balls per second.

At 25 ft/s, that's about 12 lbs of thrust. I don't think you'll be going to space today with that engine.

[AcidWombat]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

At 25 ft/s, that's about 12 lbs of thrust. I don't think you'll be going to space today with that engine.

Nah. We'll just fix it in code

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Originally Posted by Eric Scheuing

Very cool! How to you plan on implementing that hopper in a 36" (or 24") tall robot

it seems possible for now to stay under 24", that would allow for a larger drive base, and a larger intake

[D_Price]

We are looking at about 12 balls per second at the moment with our protoype with consistency.

[Lil' Lavery]

Peak rate or sustained rate? I could see some team with peak rates well above 30 balls/second.
Flywheel shooters are the only way to launch a ball

[NathanStro]

I would take a bet and say 3 balls a second will be the average scoring rate. Just a thought though.