Scioly.org

Whiteheat073 wrote:

Whiteheat073 wrote:

bernard wrote: Really depends on the kind of wood you're getting. The "good looking" wood is not surprisingly going to cost you a lot more (sometimes making your project cost 5 times more). If you're on a budget, as a lot of students are (and it really doesn't have to look beautiful to win), some home improvement or lumber stores sell scrap/damaged wood for less; I think I've seen it at 70% off sometimes. If your device ends up being a bit wobbly, add some metal brackets or add some wood supports to your angles.

Good to know; Thanks!

I don't really care if my trebuchet is pretty, so I will probably buy the "not-pretty" wood.

windu34 wrote: Yh, when you go to home depot or wherever, there is often a cart with wood that is marked off.

Whiteheat073 wrote:

windu34 wrote: Yh, when you go to home depot or wherever, there is often a cart with wood that is marked off.

Is that the pretty/expensive wood or the cheaper wood?

windu34 wrote:

Whiteheat073 wrote:

windu34 wrote: Yh, when you go to home depot or wherever, there is often a cart with wood that is marked off.

Is that the pretty/expensive wood or the cheaper wood?

Cheap wood, but the reason it is cheap is usually because it was cut (slightly shorter now) or has slight imperfections. Usually looks about the same

Whiteheat073 wrote:Sorry, I know this is dumb, but I don't have my packet on me and I don't know if Air Trajectory has an impound or not. Does it?

windu34 wrote:

laidlawe18 wrote:I think that in theory, that would be ideal, but in all practicality, it's probably not going to work. My goal for this year is to make something that is super consistent, and can accurately be modeled by some kind of function. Rather than using physics to find a function, I think you'd just be better off just testing it a bunch and then making a regression equation. With the far target no longer on the center line, there are way to many individual places that the target could be to test and perfect all of them.

For the far target, couldn't you just bring a laser pointer to aim your device and then use Pythagorean theorem to find the distance?

Jackcbrown89 wrote:

windu34 wrote:

laidlawe18 wrote:I think that in theory, that would be ideal, but in all practicality, it's probably not going to work. My goal for this year is to make something that is super consistent, and can accurately be modeled by some kind of function. Rather than using physics to find a function, I think you'd just be better off just testing it a bunch and then making a regression equation. With the far target no longer on the center line, there are way to many individual places that the target could be to test and perfect all of them.

For the far target, couldn't you just bring a laser pointer to aim your device and then use Pythagorean theorem to find the distance?

No

Jackcbrown89 wrote:

windu34 wrote:

laidlawe18 wrote:I think that in theory, that would be ideal, but in all practicality, it's probably not going to work. My goal for this year is to make something that is super consistent, and can accurately be modeled by some kind of function. Rather than using physics to find a function, I think you'd just be better off just testing it a bunch and then making a regression equation. With the far target no longer on the center line, there are way to many individual places that the target could be to test and perfect all of them.

For the far target, couldn't you just bring a laser pointer to aim your device and then use Pythagorean theorem to find the distance?

No