Wicked Air Sportz: Turbo Rev

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
this whole process will not work _at all_.

You said it

manike

[WickedAirSportz]

I guess one thing you would have to explain away is this fact:

You "comment out" the subroutine call for the logic in question, and the feed rate drops. How could this be if it didn't work?

[Butterfingers]

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]

WAS: Put an X-Board rev beside a 1st gen rev, empty, and turn the thing on, watch the X-Board spin faster. It's visible to the naked eye.

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
I guess one thing you would have to explain away is this fact:

You "comment out" the subroutine call for the logic in question, and the feed rate drops. How could this be if it didn't work?

Is that your only proof that your hypothesis is correct?

Geeze, how the heck did you graduate with all of those degrees?

Varying the paddle rotation to the rate of drop of the paddles is an excellent way to stir the pot the best way possible and agititate to get a good stream of balls falling into the loader aperture. I have respect for that part of your code, and thoroughly understand how it can help keep the tube as full as possible and make as reliable an agitating system as it can. But that's not what you claimed. You claimed it allowed feed rates over what an agitating system can, that's what I am calling. Your hypothesis on how it can achieve higher feed rates is what I am calling.

I hypothesise that by losing that logic, and I'm guessing just rotating the paddle constantly, you may not have the ideal rotation rate and thus it won't stir the pot efficiently, or worse it will rotate too fast and bounce balls around in a popcorn effect. I've seen both happen. By varying the rate you are more likely to pass through the rotation rate which is ideal and thus help to feed better than a constant rate at the wrong value.

manike

[WickedAirSportz]

I hypothesise that by losing that logic, and I'm guessing just rotating the paddle constantly, you may not have the ideal rotation rate and thus it won't stir the pot efficiently, or worse it will rotate too fast and bounce balls around in a popcorn effect. I've seen both happen. By varying the rate you are more likely to pass through the rotation rate which is ideal and thus help to feed better than a constant rate at the wrong value.

Nice try. When the logic can not determine the optimal pulsation rate necessary for syncronization, the routine simply falls back to varying the motor speed to provide the best feeding. This happens in a drop test.

You think it is physically impossible to syncronize the feeding to the outlet drop frequency. I disagree. You believe that you can not determine within a certain degree of accuracy of where the paddle blades are located. I disagree. In fact, I can tell you how many blades the paddle has by the outlet drop frequency vs motor speed! This is how I know this works!

[314159]

Originally posted by manike
I have respect for that part of your code....

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Nice try. When the logic can not determine the optimal pulsation rate necessary for syncronization, the routine simply falls back to varying the motor speed to provide the best feeding. This happens in a drop test.

This was in responce to your saying when you remove that part of the logic, my mistake, I thought you meant removed the logic that varies the rotational speed.

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
You think it is physically impossible to syncronize the feeding to the outlet drop frequency. I disagree. You believe that you can not determine within a certain degree of accuracy of where the paddle blades are located. I disagree. In fact, I can tell you how many blades the paddle has by the outlet drop frequency vs motor speed! This is how I know this works!

Well you have seen my evidence and theories and proof... where is yours? is your only proof the fact that you disagree?

*la la la I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and not listening to you because I am right la la la*

Sound familiar? Time to grow up, and back up what you say with evidence or shut up as someone who doesn't have a leg to stand on.

manike

[manike]

Originally posted by 314159

are you implying that maybe it doesn't even do that?

It's the principle of doing it and the idea that I agree with.

manike

[WickedAirSportz]

You claimed it allowed feed rates over what an agitating system can, that's what I am calling. Your hypothesis on how it can achieve higher feed rates is what I am calling.

Ok, let's start there. Do you believe it is possible to strike the stack of balls (or balls surrounding the stack where kinetic energy can be applied) to accelerate the bottom most ball under ANY circumstance? Don't you think this happens on occassion anyways?

[manike]

WAS, I suggest you actually read my posts and what I said, you will find I answered this already. I'm not sure if I can even be bothered to humour you with replying now.

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Do you believe it is possible to strike the stack of balls (or balls surrounding the stack where kinetic energy can be applied) to accelerate the bottom most ball under ANY circumstance? Don't you think this happens on occassion anyways?

It is possible for it to happen occasionally and accidentally, but it's a rare and lucky occurrence. You talk about a consistent 16bps which means it has to happen every single ball.

As I stated it's very unlikely, due to gaps in the stack and due to the lucky timing and small windows of opportunity that are available.

Where is the video? or proof? or evidence?

A little less conversation a little more action please

manike

[314159]

Originally posted by manike
It is possible for it to happen occasionally and accidentally, but it's a rare and lucky occurrence. You talk about a consistent 16bps which means it has to happen every single ball.

Wicked Air Sportz introduces an upgraded circuit board for your Brass Eagle/Viewloader Revolution! This amazing board kicks your Revvy into high gear, allowing consistant feeding of up to 16 balls per second!

TurboRev with WAS modified Vortex Impeller
Overall Average Feed Rate: 13.407 bps

bolth taken from the same page at http://www.wickedairsportz.com/products/turborev.htm

i think that the 16 bps constant* might mean, 16bps at sea level, average tempature and humidity, maby slightly pressurised hopper ......

i do expect marketers to be unethical.... that is why you never trust them

[WickedAirSportz]

Overall Average Feed Rate: 13.407 bps

Drop tests can not accerate the balls, as there is no way to build a pattern. Kind of like not having a muffler on an engine (back pressure) reduces your low end torque.

[cledford]

Is that why drag pipes are only about 12 inches long?

[314159]

"Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic" Clark

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo" Asimov