Wicked Air Sportz: Turbo Rev

**Miscue** · 08-14-2002, 01:11 PM

From http://www.wickedairsportz.com

According to Warped Air Sportz -
"So how does it work?

The TurboRev circuit board uses the latest state-of-the-art microprocessor with artificial intelligence software. Unlike the standard Viewloader circuitry, there is no startup delay on the first missing ball. The TurboRev board immediately activates the hopper's motor and starts feeding! As the balls fall, the TurboRev's computer monitors the feed rate and adjusts the agitator motor's speed, torque, and spin duration to increase the feed rate to the maximum possible given the design of the Revolution hopper!"

<IMG SRC="../~Miscue/turborev.jpg">

Now, I'm looking at this picture of the TurboRev Board. I see some capacitors, a diode, a switch, some other stuff, and a PIC 12C508A microcontroller. I'm still looking for the "latest state-of-the-art microprocessor with artificial intelligence software," that's supposed to be on there.

What is the PIC 12C508A Microcontroller?
It is a $4 8-pin, 8 bit CMOS microcontroller.

<A HREF="http://www.microchip.com/download/lit/pline/picmicro/families/12c5xx/40139e.pdf">Full PIC 12C508A Chip Spec.</A>

The 12C508A has 33 single word instructions, 512 words of program memory and 25 bytes of data RAM. Out of these 33 instructions, the ability to multiply or divide numbers is not present. If you want the chip to calculate 3x3=9, you can't without using repeated addition. Say you decided to use repeated addition (or subtraction if you wanted to divide), you would need some kind of repetition instruction - like 'loop.' Guess what? It's not built in, you have to make it using branching instructions.

Ok, so let's say you do this - you get to use their bit test instruction that either goes to the next instruction or skips it. Typically, the next instruction would be the unconditional GOTO instruction, you would want to skip this if you didn't want it to branch to some other part of the program. PITA PITA PITA!! Mind you, you are doing this with a severely limited number of registers - having to pass stuff around in memory is inevitable. It's kind of like having 30 people at a dinner table for 6 with 1 fork to share among them.

So basically... in order to multiply two arbitrary numbers together, I roughly estimate it to be maybe a conservative 30+ instruction process - based from my experience with other instruction sets. Lets say you wanted to simply multiply a list of numbers together - maybe 50+ instructions.

Remember, this chip only has room for 512 instructions. With this in mind - it makes you wonder where they put the "artificial intelligence software."

"...the TurboRev's computer monitors the feed rate and adjusts the agitator motor's speed, torque, and spin duration to increase the feed rate to the maximum possible..."

Now, these buzz words: speed, torque, spin duration, maximum possible - make me think of rotational kinematics, calculus, and statistical analysis. This also makes me think about what kind of numbers we're dealing with here - numbers with stuff following the decimal place. Guess what? The 12C508A does not deal with floating point numbers, only integers (whole numbers). Ok, let's say you were to give it the ability to process floating point numbers by using a scheme to represent them with integers.

Well, I actually wrote a program like this on the x86. It was a big pain. Nobody should ever have to do this unless they are being punished for lechery or given an exorbitant amount of money. Here's what such a program looks like:

<A HREF="../~Miscue/ieee.txt">IEEE addition</A>
(This isn't one of mine, I can't find it)

You think this is big for just adding two numbers? This was done with the powerful Intel x86 instruction set. It would be ridiculously HUGE... did I mention HUGE? using the 12C508A's instruction set.

Let's assume their hardware could actually do what they claim. They would need to have collected data to program formulas based from the data into the chip for max output. I don't see them showing any normal distribution curves, probability density function graphs, Poisson distributions... or anything. All they have is a SINGLE trial in which they mention average feed rates. Seems to me that they produced numbers AFTER the board was made, and did NOTHING before it was made.

Now, these are RANDOM, not CONSTANT averages. You can't make any conclusions until you've made a large number of trials and your RANDOM averages have stabilized.

And, averages can be very misleading - other data is necessary to get a picture of what's going on. For instance: Say we have Village A with average income of $7,000/year... Village B with $10,000/year. With this information, can you say that Village B is better off than Village A? What if ONE guy in Village B is making all the money while everyone else is making next to nothing? See the problem? You need an idea of what the individual case looks like.

In terms of feeding balls, the individual case... average time between individual balls (among other things) is much more interesting and revealing than the average feed rates they calculated.

Basically, how they have gone about it is NOT how you conduct a proper statistical analysis.

The chip was "state-of-the-art" some time last century, claiming it has "artificial intelligence software" is a farce, it cannot process anything as complicated as was suggested, and unless they are keeping it a secret - they lack a proper statistical analysis to even begin to calculate these things even if the hardware had the ability to do so. I think what's going on is that WAS is recklessly throwing around and misusing technical terminology.

I think that they can claim this: The TurboRev starts and stops at particular times for particular durations that helps to feed balls better. Does it work a little better than the standard revy? I wouldn't be surprised and do not doubt it. Does it work the way they say it does? No.

Here's another question: Since when does a revy need alien technology to put a round ball into a tube?

Rocket Scientists? Bah. How about BS Artists.

-Brian Workman (Miscue)

**Miscue** · 08-14-2002, 01:35 PM

I didn't have it. I spent over an hour rewriting it.

But I think I did a better job this time.

**Miscue** · 08-14-2002, 05:19 PM

Humm, I just looked at the Equalizer board.

"The Equalizer uses the latest state-of-the-art microprocessor with artificial intelligence software to automatically adapt to the feed rate."

Sound familiar?

**Miscue** · 08-15-2002, 05:54 PM

Well, thanks for copy/pasting that... it's nice to see that my estimate of approx 30 instructions was pretty darn close.

My comments on their lack of publicized research and a statistical analysis besides their hokey bps table was in anticipation of the mentioning of a look-up table which would be based upon results stemming from such an analysis... which I believe I mentioned in some form in the deleted thread on PBN but decided to omit this time because it would provide unnecessary precision in making my point clear.

"maximum possible"

"Maximum possible" is a pretty strong term. This tells me that nothing can surpass it. Using a look-up table, they are limited to discrete values stored in a small, limited number of memory spaces, missing intermediate values. I would argue that a board capable of real-time calculation, limited only by the precision allowed by memory could at least match and possibly exceed their board's max output. But like I said, I don't see why a revy needs 'alien-technology' in the first place.

"artificial intelligence software"

I've made it clear that the chip cannot make calculations on its own. In the case of a look-up table, the chip makes trivial decisions in a mechanical manner. If this is AI, then I claim my microwave oven to also have AI software. It has different settings for different foods, providing a predetermined amount of cooking power for each situation.

For "rocket scientists," they seem to be pretty loose with their terminology, and make a lot of claims w/o supporting evidence/data. This is the point I was after.

Here's another thought: How fast it can feed, and how fast a ball gets into the gun are two different things. How does this revy handle bursts... playing catch-up? What's the average bps of a 3-5 round burst on the gun with a ball stack? What effect does a ball stack have on long bursts? From all indications, it was "designed" to win continuous feed... dump your hopper into a guppie contests.

Why don't they talk about these things?

**Miscue** · 08-15-2002, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by 314159

1)the loader will have a max capacity of about 180 rounds.
2)you can get a pretty good idea of the amount of paint in the hopper by decrementing a running total from 180.
3)you can reliably tell when the amount of paint in the hopper is getting low, and can roughly tell how low by measuing the increasing duration of time of the lack of a ball in front of the eye.
4)when ever the hopper goes from low, to full, it has been reloaded, and reset the running total to 180.

What happens when you reload. What happens if you don't start with a full hopper? Assumptions...
You got words 0-255 to store both your main program and all your table information. The remaining 256 words are for sub-routines. You want a look up table, you wanna keep track of stuff, and have this really cool program that can do it all? Where's all this stuff going to go?

What about when the hopper is full and the balls don't have much room to be agitated? What happens when it randomly feeds quickly/slowly? Does it know when you reload?

I can guarantee you that the TurboRev does not and/or cannot do these things... let alone is there a need for this in the first place.

**Miscue** · 08-15-2002, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by 314159
2)...if the delay is longer than average, then...

Then you can subtract 30 from 512... just to be able to divide... let alone produce an average. Delay? So now it must also keep track of time... something extra = more code.

4)then the motor encounters resistance and you shorten the life of the motor in the revvy .

Subtract available instructions from your subroutine section to fit the routine that evaluates motor resistance. Subtract available instructions from the main section to run an ongoing loop that continually calls the motor resistance subroutine.

to get rid of the random feed rate kick in the pants, you could do the check on 5 sequential times that the eye is not reading a ball. if they are over the programmed threshold, preform XXXX action.

This thing runs at 4Mhz right? Add additional code to check the ball every x clock cycles, every x ticks off the RTC, or whatever scheme you have in mind. Bottom line = more code.

it is possible to tell when the hopper is reloaded from a low hopper, the feed time would decrease. (have you ever noticed the noise your revvy makes when it gets low, the motor spins longer than average. this can be measured by the microcontroller, as the time the eye dosen't see a ball. when it is over a certan threshold, it could set the hopper verry low flag or something) when more paintballs were dumped in, the revvy would stop making the noise it does when it gets low (measurable on the eye). (this might better yet, lead to a low hopper led).

Averages, thresholds, etc... lots of code.

additional assumption, if more than x # of rounds are fired without the hopper getting low, it can be assumed that the hopper was topped off, and the counter can be reset to something like 100 or 120. (better yet, put a sensor on the hopper door)

Um... ok. Add what, 150 lines of code to do this?

i think that it is possible with good programming to do what they say.

Agreed! But not with that chip. What you would need is a magician... not a programmer.

**Miscue** · 08-15-2002, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by 314159

the reason that this is said, is that the instructions can move 8 bits at a time. just dealing with the 8 least significant digits of the program counter limits you to within the first 256 memory locations. if you add a couple lines of code, you can get around this limitation by writing to the high bites of the program counter

Ok, so you manipulate the PC register to get around the limitation. This does what... allows you to sacrifice space used for one thing, and give it to another... and you lose a bit from the workaround. Suppose there are no limitations and you don't need a work around... you got 512 words to do something with. You got a look-up table, you got all these things that are being monitored, it's gotta know when to spin, when to not spin, how fast... you got 512 words, 25 bytes of memory, and an instruction set that takes 30 instructions to multiply two numbers together.

And, it has to substantiate the claims of "latest state-of-the-art microprocessor with artificial intelligence software" and "maximum possible" as a reminder to what this was all about.

it all has to do with how creative your programming is, i have an electronic board running on a pic, about 250 words of memory (not exactly a byte, a little longer) and a couple bytes of ram. this is with 5 16 bit timing variables, and other bells and whistles. assembly language can be extremly efficent.

"Creative programming" leaves things up to voodoo magic. If you gave Van Gogh a crayon, and a 1" x 1" canvas... he ain't gonna come up with much.

**Miscue** · 08-15-2002, 08:35 PM

The size of the work around is not important... my point was that work-around/no work-around... doesn't matter.

"Suppose there are no limitations and you don't need a work around... you got 512 words to do something with. You got a look-up table, you got all these things that are being monitored, it's gotta know when to spin, when to not spin, how fast... you got 512 words, 25 bytes of memory, and an instruction set that takes 30 instructions to multiply two numbers together."

**Miscue** · 08-15-2002, 08:40 PM

BTW, this is the most fun I've had in a thread in a long time.

/me shakes hands with 314159

Thanks for being a great sport!

**Miscue** · 08-15-2002, 09:04 PM

You're right... it's hard to say it's impossible with 100% certainty until people try to do it and finally give up after exhausting all approaches. But if this board is a counter-example, I will buy that board... put my TurboRevy on a plaque... and have a gold plate engraved with: "This is paintball's greatest piece of engineering, but it still can't outfeed a HALO."

I'd LOVE to make it to Shatnerball... but I can barely afford a tank of gas.

Just a poor college kid.

Boo hoo. Hehehe.

**Miscue** · 08-15-2002, 09:22 PM

Well, looking at the TurboRev board... I don't believe it has the hardware to adjust power/speed... just turns on and off. I'm not an EEG dude, so not sure. Anyone know?

**Miscue** · 08-15-2002, 10:08 PM

Humm... that's what I figured.

So... how is "torque" adjusted then? Would have to adjust the amps...

**Miscue** · 08-20-2002, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
I'll tell you what, since the days of agitated hoppers are numbered, and Wicked Air Sportz will be releasing our own force feed hopper in the future, I would be happy to openly discuss the technology that makes the TurboRev the fastest feeding device for the Revolution.

As Bill Mills pointed out, he conducted his tests with a 1st generation TurboRev with the stock 4 blade impeller. After Bill's tests, I did change the software a little bit to help in those situations where there are fewer balls in the hopper to start with.

Now, if people would like an informative discussion about this technology, I am open to it. The technology is quite possible, and it works - I don't think Bill got a big check to lie on the Warpig results.

Some of the posts here are dead on the money about how it works, and others are so far off in left field. It seems that most of the people posting are in their youth, and are probably not very experienced with assembly language programming, or even the basic tricks you can do with the PIC micros. If you think you need multiplication or division instructions, you are thinking too high level. There are no such requirements in the TurboRev software, although lookup table pointers are certainly built in realtime (even with the limited RAM).

The concept of there never being a "gap" between two balls is wrong. Out of months worth of testing, I have only seen a few times where two balls were actually touching together (no space between) right as they passed the dead center portion of the infrared beam. Remember, the beam is modulated at a particular pattern to eliminate reflections from the balls false triggering the receiver, and to eliminate problems with ambient light.

Basically, what I would like from this discussion, at the end of course, is a public apology. When we are done, the information that I am going to give would allow others to produce a competing product. As I stated, we are looking toward the future with our new hopper (which will likely be as doubted as everything that I have ever worked on in the past). You have to ask yourself one question, if nothing else - why does the TurboRev feed faster than any other aggitated hopper in existance?

Let me know if we can have a rational convesation here.

Perhaps when this discussion is closed, we can move on to the Equalizer doubts.

Rational Conversation? I suppose we should mimic you with conjectures and statements we have not attempted to back up in a logical fashion.

Once again, you've made comments w/o any supporting evidence/data. Your authority on the matter is self-proclaimed. You have not been able to answer the simple questions : WHY? and HOW? other than that it's because you say so.

So, some things are in left field. WHICH claims are incorrect? Support with evidence.

I do not see the necessity of an apology because the information presented: A - Has no ill-intent. B - Invites and does not inhibit counter-argument to test the validity of the claims. C - Has not been disproven by you or anyone else, and thus stands as the best flow of reasoning to base our understanding of the matter.

"It seems that most of the people posting are in their youth, and are probably not very experienced with assembly language programming, or even the basic tricks you can do with the PIC micros."

This is your response to my post I assume. Reason is timeless and undiscriminating. A logical proceeding is no less sound or less valid if born from the mind of a five year old or a sixty year old. Don't tell us what our ages are, explain why the logic is wrong.

<marquee>PROVE IT......PROVE IT......PROVE IT......</marquee>

**Miscue** · 08-20-2002, 09:01 PM

Show us the code, so we don't have to bother with getting a chip programmer to get it ourselves. Provide commenting on the code that shows where the chip does all the things you say it does.

**Miscue** · 08-20-2002, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz

There is not constant pressure on the balls.

I will be back tomorrow to check the responses. If people would like to know how this works, and have an open mind, with an open discussion, that would be great.

Once the discussion is complete, there will be nothing left to "prove" to anyone, and the nay-sayers will probably feel a little silly.

It's only natural to have nay-sayers. You've provided nothing to help anyone understand the why's and how's. Skepticism is only natural and you have not provided any information so that anyone can be 'correct' in their ideas on this board, w/o blindly following your claims. We don't like to blindly follow things. We want to know WHY.

Why until tomorrow? I thought you made this thing? Should be on top of your head.

Make us believe... please. So that we can have an understanding of the truth.

**Miscue** · 08-20-2002, 10:02 PM

An interesting article...

http://www.lysator.liu.se/amiga/al/g...od_or_bad.HTML

**Miscue** · 08-20-2002, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz

Not a chance... I am going to do something even better. I am going to hold your hand, and walk you through the technology, make you answer the questions, and let you build one yourself.

BTW, I was not foolish enough to not lock the PIC chip.

Fine then. What algorithms did you use? Pseudocode is fine. BTW, I can't build it from scratch w/o your code. And besides... A 10 year old could slap it together on a bread board w/o assistance. Your habitual inability to produce data/information is disheartening.

**Miscue** · 08-22-2002, 01:51 PM

Question: Why does a revy need to be able to learn? Does it play chess too?

**Miscue** · 08-22-2002, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Do you want the hopper to feed fast? If so, you need to determine the optimal speed/torque for the motor (at the very least).

A very simplified form of hopper AI can be viewed like this:

The time between balls is clocked in, and an average over a period of time is recorded. Now, increasing and decreasing the motor speed is going to affect that average. So, the software can determine what the best possible speed is to allow the balls to flow the quickest.

This method alone works great, but it can not deliberately accelerate the stack of balls, although this does happen on occassion as you see a spike in the timing chart.

Miscue, you and others asked for an explanation (proof) of how the TurboRev technology works. I am providing that to you. If you intend to make smart *** remarks, then I won't waste my time.

This is not proof... extremely vague.

Replace "hopper" with "popcorn popper." This popcorn popper has an agitator connected to a motor.
.
.

Do you want the popcorn popper to pop fast? If so, you need to determine the optimal speed/torque for the motor (at the very least).

A very simplified form of popcorn popper AI can be viewed like this:

The time between kernel pops is clocked in, and an average over a period of time is recorded. Now, increasing and decreasing the motor speed is going to affect that average. So the software can determine what the best possible speed is to allow the popcorn kernels to pop the quickest.

.
.

You could replace "hopper" or "popcorn popper" with microwave, dishwasher, lawn mower, blender, etc... and it would follow the same logic. Actually, pretty much everything you have said has similar problems.

If you had explained WHY... then this template would not be interchangable. The WHY's for why a hopper, popcorn popper, etc. will be different - and are not interchangeable.

This is what's happening. You are making the square peg fit the round hole. You don't even know the WHY's yourself. What you think and say is make-believe... imaginary. I believe that you believe what you say is true - and in this there is no sense in arguing. What do you say to someone who says the earth is supported by a large tortoise? "What does that tortoise stand on?" "Oh, it's tortoises all the way down!"

Sure, you may be good in field X... but that does not make you good in field Y, which you are trying to do w/o success.

I'd stick to coding... and leave the subject of "reality" alone.

**Butterfingers** · 08-15-2002, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by DarkPhoenix
I admit Warped Air Sportz' sales tactics are questionable at best but in a test conducted by Warpig, the only other hopper that was able to beat out a Turbo Rev board equipped revy was a revy on a warp feed, I believe. I have both the x-board and the Turbo Rev, and I have found the turbo rev to have more advantages than the x-board, I notice only very little difference between the two's operation, though.

The increase in feed rate could ALONE be attributed to the "WAS modified" Vortex Impeller that was in the revy.

I have a vorex impeller in my gutted revy, paralelly hooked to my warp motor, even at 9 volts the feed rate exceeds that of a standard 12 volt revy.

**Butterfingers** · 08-21-2002, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
I'll do you better than that... this test was conducted by a respected author for APG (Paul "Doc" Koch), using his Tippman Model 98 with an experimental e-bolt.

Oh yeah... that should be really easy to verify dosent webby write for APG too... err...

**Butterfingers** · 08-20-2002, 08:37 PM

We are not doubting the claim that your product works. Your products usually do. Not once did we say your products DIDNT work.

However, we find it misleading that you must hype up products to make it look better than it really is.

Most of your products are doubted because you are making outrageous claims. Yes they work but not the way you describe it.

State of the art microcontroller?

Common its a $4 microcontroller. You're making it sound like this thing has the cray supercomputer in it.

I say if you dont wan't people do doubt your products don't make bogus claims, all we want to see is performance.

Look at the halo... similarily according to your standard the halo uses "space age electronics more powerful than the computer used to put the astronauts on the moon" also.

If the guys at halo made that claim we would be cynical too.

The bottom line the consumer dosent like being fed a line of crap for a product they can judge the performance of by themselves. It turns alot of us off.

**Butterfingers** · 08-20-2002, 09:07 PM

WAS,

The test results don't prove that the "AI technology" is possible. It just proves your loader feeds faster.

Sorry a change in the loaders logic does not consititute "AI"

Nor... is a $4 pic a state of the art microcontroller.

Perhaps we have diffrent definitions of "AI"

To me the optical eye picking up changes in feed rate and comparing it to a pre made chart does not constitute AI.

Or is it even possible given the limited capabilities of the microchip?

**Butterfingers** · 08-20-2002, 09:21 PM

WAS,

Before you comment, If you could answer these questions to the best of your ability...

Out of all the other manufactrers out there why do you think we pick on you?

Why do you think all of your products have come into doubt as you claim?

Do you think it may have somthing to do with your marketing tactics? Perhaps your attitude towards potential customers?

If you can answer and understand the responses to these questions I will guarantee you will have a revalation.

After we find out what you think, perhaps we can reply with our answers.

**Butterfingers** · 08-20-2002, 10:54 PM

Here are my honest answers,

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz

It is because my claims are beyond the normal scope of what people have been programmed to believe as the limits of a device. Simple as that.

Sorry to say it isnt as simple as that...

I honestly know very little about microelectronics. However your answer is not the case. Your answer to this question, at least in my mind is false. The simple fact is that you come off as a person who blows alot of smoke and that puts alot of us on the defensive. We have NO problem accepting the extraordianry. Its just the way you present it that makes us cynical. The fact that you tend to avoid questions just makes it worse. It makes people think you have somthing to hide.

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz

Because I do not produce common place products. I seek to produce products that exceed the boundries of what is considered the maximum level. It is by no accident that these products are doubted. I want to make things that will make people feel that way... and when they get them in their hands, and the reviews are done, I was right. The money and the fame in the industries I have been involved in are truly meaningless to me. It's that look on the doubters face when they realize they were wrong that keeps me going.

Actually, no. Your products are good yes... But the reason your products spark controversey is beause independently derived results differ than your stated results. 30 fps dropoff at 14 bps PUHLEZE. It would be lucky if it showed 2 fps dropoff with the stock board at that ROF. At best we can call this claim highly exaggerated. We are not attacking your technology we are attacking your claims. So far you have not proven ANY of our concerns wrong. I think you will be hard pressed to prove that the stock board is in fact the reason for dropoff. Considering cledford's methods were far superior to yours. The fact that you avoid and sidestep the aquestions does not help either. The fact that you change claims to fit your situation does not help.

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz

My marketting tactics are the simple truth. Mix that with the product specifications, and you're bound to have a mass of nay-sayers.

I love my potential customers. We have implemented a lot of changes based on customer requests. This is a REAL big thing with me, and one of the main reasons why there is a communications port on the Equalizer. I want to be able to have multiple languages (a suggestion made by a customer), ability to have a custom boot up message (yet another suggestion). When you sit in the technology pit, you don't always see what would be good for your products, and our customer feedback has been incredibly valuable.

So you dont think calling a PIC controller a state of the art microprosessor isnt exaggerating a LITTLE. How about the confirmed LIES about 30 fps of dropoff that never existed? And the confirmed LIE about how 14 bps isnt 14 bps when waveform analysis actually confirmed it was 14 bps on the dot?

We will continue to laugh harder than you ever will until you address the concers presented.

Sereously,

If you honestly beleive your answers are the "Real" reasons. You either don't understand us or you are just on a self imposed self rightous high of arrogance and ignorance.

I encourage other members to reply to these same questions honestly and accurately so WAS can see and perhaps learn the million dollar question of why...

Let me tell you a story of me...

Being a whiz kid isnt all that it is cracked up to be. Isolation from activities outside of the acedemic realm often leaves us devoid to the feelings and intentions of others. I admit to being ignorant when I was younger most notably up to my first 2 years of highschool. In 8th grade I was invited to a national science convention in brookhaven national labs and took honorable mention for my work on plant biology, I was always on the top of my class. I *thought* I was smarter than anybody else. The last 2 years of highschool my life changed. I had joined the football team. At first I thought my colleauges were just the stereotypical jocks. I always thought I was right and that they didnt understand me. The truth is I just didnt listen...

Take that as you will...

**Butterfingers** · 08-23-2002, 07:21 AM

WAS,

Ill spell it out nice and simple for you.

WHERE IS THE PROOF!

You can theorize all you want, the truth is that your product does not half the stuff that you theorize.

WE WANT SIMPLE PROOF. A feat that you have not been able to provide us up to this point.

Here is my theory on truck flight....

"It is possible for the turbulance under the tires of a big rig to create enough lift for a truck to fly. Our brand of tires have an intracate tread patten that allows big rig flight to be possible. It is too complicated for me to explain big rig flight to you so i will redefine everything until you get sick and tierd of listening to me and take me at face value like a bunch of pawns. Eventhough I have never actually shown that I can fly my big rig I assure you that it is possible becuase my theory is sound and unlike any development in life I do not think it requires any proof."

Sereously cut the crap and either put up or shut up. So WAS. If you theory is so sound where is your proof?

THAT IS the bottom line.

Proof is not the argumentative fallacy and half arsed speculation you have been giving us, proof is a gun shooting 16 BPS as you claim with a turborev.

A quote from a wiseman:

"WAS= Wild A..ed Speculation"

**Butterfingers** · 08-23-2002, 12:20 PM

the vortex impellers do in fact extend over the feed tube.

**Butterfingers** · 08-23-2002, 01:02 PM

Gee WAS we still come to the bottom line don't we?

Instead of just speculating, why dont you just prove your claims and shut us all up.

**mykroft** · 08-22-2002, 04:06 PM

WAS: I'm wondering if you ever looked at standard practice amongst players. String of over 16 balls are rare in the tournament scene, except for back players, and even then the strings tend to be shorter. As far as I can tell from your explanation of how the Turbo-Rev works, the adaptive algorithm is useless for 75%+ of the tournament scene, who tend to snap shoot strings of 3-10 balls.

So the adaptive algorithm would appear to be useless since it requires a steady string that's excessivly long, I would suspect you pick up most of the Turbo-Rev's performance the same way an X-Board does, by spinning faster & with more torque. Now if you store the data gathered, and got the minimum string down to 8 balls or so, I could see this working, but that would take more RAM than the PIC you are using has.

**mykroft** · 08-23-2002, 11:38 AM

WAS: The difference between the Pre-BE board(1st gen) and the BE board(2nd Gen) is the delay (implemented to counter the sunlight&sensor issue on Gem's). The X-Board, which is spins noticably faster than a 1st or second gen board, you can demonstrate this by running them side by side.

The Xboard is a different design than the earlier boards.

Thread: Wicked Air Sportz: Turbo Rev

Thread Tools

Display

Hybrid View

Wicked Air Sportz: Turbo Rev

Re: A little challenge...

Posting Permissions