Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #05952
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Bumper314@aol.com
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 22:41:45 EDT
Subject: [alt-beam] alright....im out
well its been about 6 months since ive been able to make a bot, and i still
just cant build...so im going to start selling some stuff...sigh...quick list
of stuff i have, contact me with a fair price if you are interested
(privately).
Solar cells, all 4 solarbotics sizes
gear motors, bg micro, 40:1 ratio and 1024:1 ratio escaps, even an OTU =)
ICs...all you need, 244s, 245s, 240s, 14s, 139s, 157s
caps, many many caps...
resistors...same here...all the good beam values
photodiodes, LEDs, 1381s, (3906 and 3904s in the 100s), trim pots, plenty of
walkman motors.....
all this crap together cost me about $3000....i tried really hard to make a
come back but i just dont have it in me...dont konw why, oh well
steve
5953 Fri, Sep 3, 1999, 1:38 AM Re: hUFO goes online! "Ben Hitchcock" Jacob Booth
At 09:56 PM 9/2/99 +1000, you wrote:
>
>
>>From: Senior
>
>>I'd like to clear things up, I was a bit unorganized in this email.
>>Ben argues that you feel a larger force when in a car when you make
>>a tight turn with a short radius than when you make a large, sweeping
>>turn with a large radius. This is correct. So he says, how does a larger
>>diameter result in a larger force (The principle of hUFO), when I have
>>just shown that a smaller diameter results in a larger force when I'm
>>racing?
>
>*chuckle* I KNEW this would set the cat amongst the pigeons. The last time
>this topic was aired, it brought such a huge flame war that I dared not
>reply after my initial few postings. As the list has been pretty quiet
>lately, I thought I might liven things up a little bit ... :-)
>
>>My answer:
>>When you make a tight turn at 120mph, your going to feel a much larger
>>force than a nice, easy sweeping turn. However, when you're dealing with
>>rotating circles, it's different. On hUFO, his motor mantains a constant
>>speed. Therefore, anything attached to that motor with a small radius
>>will travel slower linearly than something with a larger radius, because
>>the shorter radius results in less ground to cover. Follow me? The
>>radial
>>speed is constant, but the linear speed increases as the radius
>>increases,
>>resulting in a larger force. (Taking a wide turn at 10mph is a lot
>>easier
>>than at 100mph).
>
>I'm very glad that your physics is up to the task of describing the motion.
>Last time, we tended to go around in circles (excuse me, couldn't help that
>one!).
>
>>Hope that clears it up ;)
>>Happy beaming,
>>Kyle
>
>I really don't want to get into a flame war here. I also don't want to
>debate the possibility that newton et. al. were wrong, just because the
>person doing the arguing doesn't have enough physics to argue the point
>properly. What I would like to see is a lighthearted discussion on why
>this
>particular form of motion will/will not work. It seems that some people
>believe this engine will produce a net force - and I am sceptical.
>
>Last time the discussion aired, I offered anyone who could send me a
>working
>prototype the money to buy patents. No-one came forth.
>
>What the list eventually settled at was a form of motion called "scooching"
>I think it was called.
>
... I guess you could also suspend the device from a string. If it were
creating a net force it would then 'hang' at an angle (as slight as it may
be) compared to having a pendulum motion. Or possibly it would have a
pendulum motion, but if you measured the angles, one would have to be
larger than any opposite one to have any net force. Or maybe not? What a
can of worms... I was just thinking about when you are on a swing, and how
you can make yourself swing higher just by swinging your legs. Dammit there
is too much friction in the world... it buggers up all those nice neat
equations we get taught...
ps maybe you could forward this onto the list for me... I get it forwarded
from an old address so I don't have the mailing list address... ta.
Cheers
Jacob.
ps I like the idea of scooch drives... something different and always a
talking point!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Booth BIS, MCP Web http://www.its.mary.acu.edu.au/
IT Services Email j.booth@mary.acu.edu.au
Phone (02) 97392235 Fax (02) 97392924
5954 Thu, 02 Sep 1999 20:39:03 -0700 [alt-beam] Re: hUFO goes online! beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Darrell Johnson heh.. yeah I guess I can see what you're talking about now.. I guess
that's why I get paid to be an artist and not a physicist.. :)
watching the videos of the device though, it seems like the weight slows
down during the inside part of its revolution.. would this produce the
directional force?
Darrell
Bob Shannon wrote:
>
> But this is backwards! The G force goes up on the inner lane, not the
> the outside lane, assuming a constant speed.
>
> The same is true for an airplane, the tighter the turn, the higher the G
> force.
--
_______________________________
BICOREEOS..they're BEAMtastic!!
http://home.pacbell.net/wundoba
5955 Fri, 3 Sep 1999 00:13:52 EDT [alt-beam] How do I subscribe? alt-beam@egroups.com TurtleTek@aol.com Greetings list!
It's been a long time. As you probably haven't noticed, I've been taking
a break from BEAM for the summer.
Anyway, long story short:
I was out of town all summer long so I unsubscribed be for I left. I get back
home and go to Fang's site to check out those subscribe instructions again. I
try them but the server claims there is no such list name "beam" there.
Confused, I go to the beam archive at eGroups and I subscribe there. This
worked just fine except for one little thing, I don't recieve any emails from
the list without the [alt-beam] thing on them (of course). Now, I know that
when I left I recieved both with and without the "alt..." thing on them. How
do I subscribe so I get both? If you don't know, who do I contact to find out?
Thanks a lot and nice to be back,
-Brien S. Martinez, "TurtleTek"
5956 Sat, 04 Sep 1999 02:48:28 +1200 [alt-beam] DIfferent approach to locomotion beam@corp.sgi.com Justin Perhaps I should have posted this before the "most innovative form of
locomotion" competition, but because it highlights a current weak area
of BEAM affairs, it's probably unlikely to grab hearts anyway. Hopefully
it's occurred to a lot of BEAMers already anyway.
Simply put - why move under your own power when you can move under
someone else's?
It's obviously a reasonably successful means of travel in nature
(hook-grass, berries, pollen, parasites, etc.), and it's more energy
efficient than motors :-)
Unfortunately, once you come up with a design to successfully harness
the locomotion of the environment (eg, your robot looks like a $2 coin -
leave it pretty much anywhere, and it will rapidly go walking...) you
run into the problem of "well, ok, it's got locomotion, now what should
it _do_?".
Since most bots are recursively-justified (eg, it has to move in order
to get light so that it can move...), an approach which breaks that
leaves me with not much idea of where to go...
The approach can be well suited for monitoring or exploring things - the
old radio tag for example, but that's _done_ (and it's not as much fun
as a photovore anyway :-)
For different reasons again, I don't foresee NASA adopting such a system
for Mars surface exploration, but it could make a good joke :-)
Some wind-power designs could also have (small amounts of) potential,
though probably work best as only a supplemental feature on a bot that
utilises air fans or something.
5957 Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:31:49 -0400 DIfferent approach to locomotion Justin
> Perhaps I should have posted this before the "most innovative form of
> locomotion" competition, but because it highlights a current weak area
> of BEAM affairs, it's probably unlikely to grab hearts anyway. Hopefully
> it's occurred to a lot of BEAMers already anyway.
>
> Simply put - why move under your own power when you can move under
> someone else's?
> It's obviously a reasonably successful means of travel in nature
> (hook-grass, berries, pollen, parasites, etc.), and it's more energy
> efficient than motors :-)
> Unfortunately, once you come up with a design to successfully harness
> the locomotion of the environment (eg, your robot looks like a $2 coin -
> leave it pretty much anywhere, and it will rapidly go walking...) you
> run into the problem of "well, ok, it's got locomotion, now what should
> it _do_?".
> Since most bots are recursively-justified (eg, it has to move in order
> to get light so that it can move...), an approach which breaks that
> leaves me with not much idea of where to go...
> The approach can be well suited for monitoring or exploring things - the
> old radio tag for example, but that's _done_ (and it's not as much fun
> as a photovore anyway :-)
>
> For different reasons again, I don't foresee NASA adopting such a system
> for Mars surface exploration, but it could make a good joke :-)
>
> Some wind-power designs could also have (small amounts of) potential,
> though probably work best as only a supplemental feature on a bot that
> utilises air fans or something.
>
Home