Wicked Air Sportz: Turbo Rev

[cledford]

Originally posted by 314159


first, assume that no paint is being fed, and the paddles were spinning all the time. the paint in the hopper would be continously spinning around. the paint moving around in a circle would have it's momentum traveling around in a circle in the direction of the propellers. this would probally result in skipping, bobbeling.... and resist gravities pull to feed it down.

it seems the most advantageous way to move the paddle would be just enough to ensure a couple balls go over the feed port, then abruptly stop it, just as the gun is firring, before the ball in que in the ball stack clears the senor, tripping it. then repeat it before the next estimated shot.

This makes total sense - I think it would be called "optimizing the flow of balls to be fed by gravity."

Once gravity takes over the feed rate cannot exceed 14BPS per second, right?

If the above stated adaptive process works as suggested, I can see how it would insure that the balls would be suffering the minimum amount of force pushing them in a different direction from where you want them to go - but how does it speed up gravity?

Another question, regarding the source code - can't it be copy-writed or something?

-Calvin

[WickedAirSportz]

If the above stated adaptive process works as suggested, I can see how it would insure that the balls would be suffering the minimum amount of force pushing them in a different direction from where you want them to go - but how does it speed up gravity?

By advancing the position of the paddle slightly. Instead of now clearing the path, you are actually "tapping" the top ball in the stack as it falls, which accelerates the bottom ball into the breach.

That in a nutshell, is exactly how it works.

[cledford]

Thank you.

-Calvin

[WickedAirSportz]

The theory that I originally had was that it takes 'xx' ms for a ball to fall the ~.68" when sitting on top of the bolt. If the paddle could be wedged between three balls on their way down the feed tube (moving the middle ball completely away from the feed tube) so that the bolt was opening and closing as the balls were falling, you could easily exceed the speed of gravity @ the ~.68" distance because the distance would be just about double. I had no luck getting this to work, although I believe that this method is also possible (but much more dependant of the number of paddles and point of blockage).

[Butterfingers]

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"

[314159]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
By advancing the position of the paddle slightly. Instead of now clearing the path, you are actually "tapping" the top ball in the stack as it falls, which accelerates the bottom ball into the breach.

at first glance at this, i thought that the length of the feed neck was not significant, because the distance from the paddle to the eye was a fixed distance. you trigger the paddle a given amount of time after you see a ball fall, and it wacks the ball above it... right?

one day i was watching a clear revolution loader. after every string the guy fired, and at every slight pause. the revy would have a ball in the beam sensor, but there would often not be a ball on top of it. in order to inshure accurate timing of the paddle to wack the top of the ball, there must be a ball to wack (NOT GAP ABOVE THE EYE).

with the proper distance under the loader, one could get the top ball in the ball stack to stick out just slightly so that the paddle wacked it every time. with a less than optimal distance under the loader, the paddle would throw out the top ball in the stack to be wacked every time. because you do not have any provisions for adjusting the length of the feed neck in the revvy, how do you insure that there is a ball in the top of the stack to be wacked every time? do you have a set of instructions for the pic for this?

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
By advancing the position of the paddle slightly. Instead of now clearing the path, you are actually "tapping" the top ball in the stack as it falls, which accelerates the bottom ball into the breach.

That in a nutshell, is exactly how it works.

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
The theory that I originally had was that it takes 'xx' ms for a ball to fall the ~.68" when sitting on top of the bolt. If the paddle could be wedged between three balls on their way down the feed tube (moving the middle ball completely away from the feed tube) so that the bolt was opening and closing as the balls were falling, you could easily exceed the speed of gravity @ the ~.68" distance because the distance would be just about double. I had no luck getting this to work, although I believe that this method is also possible (but much more dependant of the number of paddles and point of blockage).

[manike]

Originally posted by 314159
at first glance at this, i thought that the length of the feed neck was not significant, because the distance from the paddle to the eye was a fixed distance. you trigger the paddle a given amount of time after you see a ball fall, and it wacks the ball above it... right?

one day i was watching a clear revolution loader. after every string the guy fired, and at every slight pause. the revy would have a ball in the beam sensor, but there would often not be a ball on top of it. in order to inshure accurate timing of the paddle to wack the top of the ball, there must be a ball to wack (NOT GAP ABOVE THE EYE).

with the proper distance under the loader, one could get the top ball in the ball stack to stick out just slightly so that the paddle wacked it every time. with a less than optimal distance under the loader, the paddle would throw out the top ball in the stack to be wacked every time. because you do not have any provisions for adjusting the length of the feed neck in the revvy, how do you insure that there is a ball in the top of the stack to be wacked every time? do you have a set of instructions for the pic for this?

Well noticed, you got your post in while I was formulating my above reply :

As I explained above this is a major issue and just one of the reasons why WAS's claims and hypothesis does not work. I'm not convinced that the distance between the eye and the paddle is even close to being correct to try and get the tap to work, but then since the whole theory is mute what does it matter?

manike

[mykroft]

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.

[Koosh]

Wait wait wait....

Doesnt WAS also sell modified impellers that don't even go over the feed tube? Aren't they supposed to help with the feed rate? IF that is true, does it just totally blow the theory out of water (again)?

[Gambit22]

Well, this is going in to the FAT. A most worthy rambling.

[Butterfingers]

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

[Koosh]

DOH!

hehe... nevermind then...

[WickedAirSportz]

Now WAS does vary the speed of the paddle BUT without knowing exactly where the paddle is in it?s rotation ...

This is where you are wrong, and where most the logic comes into play. You can tell with a certain degree of accuracy where the paddles are located in reference to the feed neck by calculating the space between balls and the reaction to the motor speed. One thing that I have always stated is that for the TurboRev to work properly, you paddles arms MUST be bent down as far as possible (so that they rub the sides of the hopper). This puts the arm directly over the inlet whole, about 1/2 a balls distance from the hole itself. The WAS modified Vortex impellers do just that. If your arms are not bent down, this whole process will not work _at all_.


As far as the x-board vs standard board goes. There is no difference in the hardware, it is the exact same board. The ONLY difference is in the code. Go dump the PICs yourself. The only difference between the code is the delays were shortened with the x-board and they added a reset for the low battery indicator so that it is checked and reset periodically (instead of always flashing when the battery is low).

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
This is where you are wrong, and where most the logic comes into play. You can tell with a certain degree of accuracy where the paddles are located in reference to the feed neck by calculating the space between balls and the reaction to the motor speed.

Codswallop. You can only tell that a paddle is within 60 degrees of the feed neck due to the fact there are 6 paddles within 360 degrees... There is no way you can relate the speed of the balls passing the sensor with where the paddles are in their rotation.

As I pointed out, even if you knew where the paddles were, and had the balls lined up, and the eye at the right point it still won't work.

Where is the evidence?

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

manike