Falling bins are like dice

Falling bins are like dice. Well, weighted dice. Has anyone figured out through experiment what the probability is of which side coming up is? It’s only useful if you simulate real match events (having them fall down a ramp for instance). Any numbers would be helpful :slight_smile:

My guess is
face up - .2
face down - .4
“long” side - .3
“short” side - .1

But I would like real stats (mean probability and SD or varience would be good).

Thanks :slight_smile:

Oh my goodness, 10th grade math!!!

/me dies

i would guess the face dow (upsidedown) would be about 60% as most of the weight is there. You could cacluate the center of gravity and then based on what angle it land you could predict how it will land. GAHHH!!! lets just say it prolly wont be pretty.

Trashed makes a point, and I realized that I didn’t learn how to do probability equations for uneven sides, trajectories and whatnot in 10th grade

Probability is a horrible horrible subject.

What’s the chances of them breaking?

My guess is like one box will only last 3 matches.

depends too much on how you hit at and what you hit it with how hard.

however, thats a good point about them being topheavy. you also have to consider that its hader to balance on the handle ends. the top face is also larger so it would be less likely to continue tubling. same goes for the sides because of the lip.

I have found that most fall on their side, the long way. this is the side that has the most room for them to fall on to. Also when you push over a high stack they fall together in a line, preventing them from landing any other way than on their side.

Joes right on this one .We tested it out more than once and every time the fell the same way. Without anything underneath!

to our surprise, once in a while they land on their side, the tall way…
but yes, most of the time, it’s the long way side.

i suppose when u have the tall way, u can just run the robot at the bin, changing it into the long way.

I think the reason they don’t end up on thier lids more often is the way they are stacked when they fall. The tend to act as anti roll devices to each other as the come down.
We also noticed most were on thier long side after a wall was hit (all done without a ramp yet)

Certainly creates a new level of complexity. “righting” a side ways box.

heh… or in that case, maybe our robot should go out with duct tape fixing up all the broken boxes… maybe then we’ll get bonus points. :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:

Also you have to take into account how high the boxes are when they are dropped to see which side lands face up because the lower it is in the air, the less the center of gravity would matter because the less time the box would have to turn.

You also have to take into account the fact that a lot of them aregoing to be landing onthe ramp, which is NOT a flat surface, and just going to mess up all those calculations again… sigh

The Pathfinder landed on Mars inside a pyramid that would always be with the robot’s base side on the floor after bouncing.
Maybe its creator didn’t want us to have such an easy solution for this problem. :wink:

*Originally posted by Digo *
**The Pathfinder landed on Mars inside a pyramid that would always be with the robot’s base side on the floor after bouncing.
Maybe its creator didn’t want us to have such an easy solution for this problem. :wink: **

Actually, Pathfinder wasn’t guaranteed to land base down after the bounce. It was self righting, though. If the base didn’t start out on the bottom, then when the pyramid opened like a flower, it was guaranteed to end up that way.

well all, I think it’s time for someone to do a scientific test. Drop a box from 10 feet 100 times and let us know how it turns out!

A statistician can have his head in an oven and his feet in ice, and
he will say that on the average he feels fine.

that would only test from 10 feet up. This would be a stack of 7 high, each with a different velocity, trajectory, and rotation. The whole thing comes down to where the force is applied and how hard it is. It also includes friction cause by the interlocking bin design. Remember: you are pushing on the short side of the box! Many people are forgetting this, my team included. this causes a greater footprint for he box i nthe dirrection you are pushing, plus a greater distance from the center of gravity, which means you need more torque applied on the box (either more distance from the point of rotation, or more force applied). you would also have to account for the angle of the force, and how that would create rotational torque on the boxes which would cause them to go a wierd angles, and most likely hit other boxes, and then, the angle, speed, and surface at which it lands, and then bounces, and then comes to rest.

This is not a simple problem…

I know a team in my area that got a stack 12 high and when it fell one boxd like STATTERED:ahh: So be careful and don’t stack them to high!