Page 49 of 58

Re: Air Trajectory B/C

Posted: March 24th, 2015, 5:53 pm
by UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F
theoriginalweevil wrote:
UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:
theoriginalweevil wrote: My experience with whoopee cushions is that they are frankly quite poor quality. Seals are bad, the bindings might open, and there may be variations between each cushion. Also consider the possible wear and tear of it?

My school had one "swinging arm" device and the accuracy was great; the other "falling weight-soda bottle" machines deviated. We attributed this to the wear of the soda bottle and the "shaking" of the device.

Not sure how much time you have left before your next competition?
My team has a lot of time, so it's just trying out all possibilities. Do you guys think a ball bladder would work better?
We had about a month left before the competition (which has passed since) and we used soda bottles to build. I'm curious to why you won't use the soda bottles. They don't need to be huge, they're inexpensive, common and easy to find.
Actually, that's what is being used now. However, our team is trying to find some viable replacements, so we're trying as many things as possible to get the best one.

Re: Air Trajectory B/C

Posted: March 24th, 2015, 9:56 pm
by theoriginalweevil
UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote: Actually, that's what is being used now. However, our team is trying to find some viable replacements, so we're trying as many things as possible to get the best one.
Gotcha. Maybe try the sipper bottle, and keep us updated :idea:

Good luck :)

Re: Air Trajectory B/C

Posted: March 24th, 2015, 10:01 pm
by actionpotential
Woahh that's pretty cool theoriginalweevil

How did your "swinging arm" device work? We've been thinking about how to somehow use that design, but we weren't able to think of anything feasible...

Re: Air Trajectory B/C

Posted: March 24th, 2015, 10:31 pm
by theoriginalweevil
actionpotential wrote:Woahh that's pretty cool theoriginalweevil

How did your "swinging arm" device work? We've been thinking about how to somehow use that design, but we weren't able to think of anything feasible...
The device belongs to my school- not me, sorry. I'll be here and sing its praise but I have no clue how to explain it in detail.

Re: Air Trajectory B/C

Posted: March 26th, 2015, 4:12 pm
by Pink Salmon
I am interested to see what other people have made. Anyone care to post theirs?

Re: Air Trajectory B/C

Posted: March 26th, 2015, 4:39 pm
by nxtscholar
If anyone cared to look at NJ's Facebook page (YES, IT EXISTS D:), one would have found this: https://www.facebook.com/NJScienceOlymp ... =3&theater

I got second with mine at states and it is in the picture

Re: Air Trajectory B/C

Posted: April 12th, 2015, 8:39 am
by mej710
How much do you think the rules will change for this event next year? Do you think they will change a lot of requirements for how the device is built?

Re: Air Trajectory B/C

Posted: April 12th, 2015, 1:11 pm
by chalker
mej710 wrote:How much do you think the rules will change for this event next year? Do you think they will change a lot of requirements for how the device is built?

I'll flip that question around: how do you all think we SHOULD change the rules for next year?

Re: Air Trajectory B/C

Posted: April 12th, 2015, 1:24 pm
by bernard
chalker wrote:
mej710 wrote:How much do you think the rules will change for this event next year? Do you think they will change a lot of requirements for how the device is built?

I'll flip that question around: how do you all think we SHOULD change the rules for next year?
I would have expected for bucket shots to happen on the second year. I'm guessing they were to give another challenge to teams that got the basic straight launch deal down.

Seems like some of the videos I've seen for the Air Trajectory trial event had raised targets, which could be an extra challenge but it doesn't seem much harder than than making it into the bucket, just that the raised targets would be less of a yes/no deal like the bucket shot is. Raised targets would have challenges of measuring shots that land too far away since you can't raise a large section of the landing area.

Could also add scores for other measured things like they did for the second year of Gravity Vehicle in 2013. Could include scores for any of the following: drop height, falling mass, mass of projectile.

Could also add a requirement for it to have some type of step, say your falling mass might have to store energy in an elastic band, which then converts that energy into air pressure by pulling a piston.

Re: Air Trajectory B/C

Posted: April 12th, 2015, 6:20 pm
by BuildistFromTheNorth
This was posted on the NorCal state competition faq page
"Question: If a student blows into a soda bottle to restore it's shape after a launch, is that allowed under rule 3b. (I believe it's the same rule B and C division) The issue came up at Regionals, with disagreement about whether changing the shape of the bellows manually post launch is allowed. (if not allowed, how would this be different from the mass as a piston which fills the tube design which must by necessity change it's volume between launches).
ANSWER Device must return to ambient air pressure by itself (rule 4c) as the machine is reset for another launch. No pumps or re-inflating a container using any outside energy, other than energy used to reset the devise for another launch, may be used."

This makes no sense. I assume the intent was to clarify you can't pre pressurize the device but if the proctor doesn't allow any inflating even though it is used to "reset the device" according to the part that says "other than energy used to reset the device for another launch". My device (which uses an ball which is compressed by the falling mass) complies 100% to the rule that states it has to start and return to ambient air pressure. Now I'm deathly afraid I have to rebuild in a week... *bangs head against wall in confusion/frustration*