Storm the Castle B
- bernard
- Administrator
- Posts: 2498
- Joined: January 5th, 2014, 3:12 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: WA
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 186 times
- Been thanked: 789 times
- Contact:
Storm the Castle B
"One of the ways that I believe people express their appreciation to the rest of humanity is to make something wonderful and put it out there." – Steve Jobs
-
- Member
- Posts: 632
- Joined: April 26th, 2018, 6:40 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Re: Storm the Castle B
There isn't a single design for the counterweights - the event supervisor can turn up with anything that meets the specified dimensions (15cm cube with eyebolt with minimum internal diameter of half an inch.)
Note:
1. The eyebolt is part of the counterweight, so is included in the 15cm cube size limit.
2. The rules don't seem to explicitly require a specific clearance around the eyebolt - it rather depends on your reading of "on top". There was a design last year using PVC pipe parts to form the structure of the mass, where the eyebolt was clearly above the "mass". You could also imagine something that looked more like a 15cm cube with an eyebolt set in to the top of it, with enough of the cube gouged out to allow a shackle or karibiner to connect to the eyebolt, but no space for a longer horizontal pin. It's unlikely that an ES would build that, but it's not completely obvious to me that it would be illegal.
3. https://www.soinc.org/sites/default/fil ... 111721.pdf is the instructions for the PVC counterweight from last year. That design would work for this year's rules as well.
- These users thanked the author knightmoves for the post:
- SusanV (December 7th, 2023, 10:07 pm)
-
- Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: December 1st, 2022, 1:07 pm
- Division: B
- State: UT
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Storm the Castle B
Under chart score - 7.f.vi, how do we make 'example calculations'? I have no idea what to do
Thanks
Thanks
-
- Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: December 3rd, 2022, 5:40 pm
- Division: B
- State: DE
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Storm the Castle B
Hi
My son is participating in this event at Seventh grade level. The problem details say that the masses for the counterweight must be 1 kg as the light weight and 2 kg as the heavy weight. However 6F states that "Counterweight masses must be announced only after the impound is over". Does that mean the counterweigh masses will not be 1kg and 2 kg?
Does the team choose how far the target must be?
My son is participating in this event at Seventh grade level. The problem details say that the masses for the counterweight must be 1 kg as the light weight and 2 kg as the heavy weight. However 6F states that "Counterweight masses must be announced only after the impound is over". Does that mean the counterweigh masses will not be 1kg and 2 kg?
Does the team choose how far the target must be?
- Pebble
- Member
- Posts: 33
- Joined: April 14th, 2021, 2:08 pm
- Division: B
- State: MD
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
- Contact:
Re: Storm the Castle B
I believe the second part refers to States and Nationals where the weights are limited to a range for heavy cw and light cw as opposed to regionals (probably encompassing invitationals) which are set at 1 and 2 kg.baburamdoss wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2022, 5:48 pm Hi
My son is participating in this event at Seventh grade level. The problem details say that the masses for the counterweight must be 1 kg as the light weight and 2 kg as the heavy weight. However 6F states that "Counterweight masses must be announced only after the impound is over". Does that mean the counterweigh masses will not be 1kg and 2 kg?
Does the team choose how far the target must be?
The team does choose how far the target can be, in increments of half a meter.
ok
-
- Member
- Posts: 249
- Joined: March 20th, 2011, 3:21 pm
- Division: B
- State: OH
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 15 times
Re: Storm the Castle B
Does anyone happen to know the masses of the counterweights at Nationals last year (2022)? Thanks!
-
- Member
- Posts: 249
- Joined: March 20th, 2011, 3:21 pm
- Division: B
- State: OH
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 15 times
Re: Storm the Castle B
Sorry for the double post! So I know this is not the place for official clarifications etc. etc. I'm curious about the energy rule. For traditional trebuchets, it seems easy to test. What about trebuchets whose arm makes a full rotation or almost a full rotation? If you put the device in ready to launch position w/o a counterweight and fire it, and the arm starts to swing backwards, not in the linear direction of the launch, but it is in the rotational direction of the launch. However, it will stop at the bottom of its rotation, obviously, and not start to swing back up. Any ideas what is allowed?
-
- Member
- Posts: 632
- Joined: April 26th, 2018, 6:40 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Re: Storm the Castle B
The device, without the counterweight, must not supply energy to the launch.
You're going to argue that in the device you describe, the arm starts in a high-potential-energy configuration, moves through a low-potential-energy configuration, and doesn't release until it's in an even-higher-potential-energy configuration, and therefore it's legal by the rule that says that the device "must not contribute energy to the launch".
I think you're right. I also think you're going to meet ES who won't follow this argument, and will interpret the rule to require that the launch configuration with the counterweight missing should be the low potential energy configuration of the device.
That's worth putting in a clarification request for, I think.
You're going to argue that in the device you describe, the arm starts in a high-potential-energy configuration, moves through a low-potential-energy configuration, and doesn't release until it's in an even-higher-potential-energy configuration, and therefore it's legal by the rule that says that the device "must not contribute energy to the launch".
I think you're right. I also think you're going to meet ES who won't follow this argument, and will interpret the rule to require that the launch configuration with the counterweight missing should be the low potential energy configuration of the device.
That's worth putting in a clarification request for, I think.
-
- Member
- Posts: 249
- Joined: March 20th, 2011, 3:21 pm
- Division: B
- State: OH
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 15 times
Re: Storm the Castle B
Agreed. Thanks!knightmoves wrote: ↑January 12th, 2023, 8:22 am The device, without the counterweight, must not supply energy to the launch.
You're going to argue that in the device you describe, the arm starts in a high-potential-energy configuration, moves through a low-potential-energy configuration, and doesn't release until it's in an even-higher-potential-energy configuration, and therefore it's legal by the rule that says that the device "must not contribute energy to the launch".
I think you're right. I also think you're going to meet ES who won't follow this argument, and will interpret the rule to require that the launch configuration with the counterweight missing should be the low potential energy configuration of the device.
That's worth putting in a clarification request for, I think.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest