Darkfangs' Encyclopedia Physicalæ:

Mass:

1m 15d = 15 kg

It appears from my research density in IB is based on shape.
That definitely makes my job really hard. But the above
and below figures seem accurate to describe mass/weight
of this. The weight of carbon cubed (as that is how it
would be represented in real life) at one meter is 134
liberas (pounds), whislt the square of 15 (therfore
reversing the 3d into 2d) is 225, yet removing the idea
of specific gravity (since IB gravity is different) and
running the numbers of brinton's IB gravitation theory
through, getting me about half the gravity, and seeing
the effects it presented, the 15 squared is knocked
down to precisely 112.5, which isn't acceptable either,
but considering the lack of air in IB, you must realize
that the ~1.2 atmosphere worth of pressure at the
altitude my sources presented the carbon at is removed,
due to lack of air pressure (This isn't earth people),
and therefore the weight is about 110, the weight of
carbon in a vacuum. Considering the various variables,
they are identical in essence. As carbon is the building
block of everything, it is what will be presented on
IB matters. This is the multiplier according to Dr Evo:

Multiplier = ((Density - 1) * 0.166) + 1
Mass = Multiplier * Pixels

--------------------------

Length/Width:

LPR= 21 feet across
SPR= ~3 inches

Another figure:

1 LPR = 6.58|777 m, or
15.1|8 SPR = 1 m

That's about all I have on this. This was easy compared to the
others.

---------------------------

Gravity:

Thanks to brinton, we have spectacular, pinpoint accurate
figures. Brinton pointed out that IB had exponential
gravity, not Earth's arithmatic based gravity. Quite
a problem, I noted. So, without further ado:

Brinton wrote:

Furthermore, if we assume the ratios are due to imprecise measurement above, and that the programmers meant for 1 gravity to equal 1/15 regular gravity, we can increase our precision and use the larger number of frames. At 1 a=.000111776LPR/f/f or .10005984LPR/s/s. Multiplying this force by exactly 15 we get 1.508976LPR/s/s for regular gravity, and an LPR equals 6.4945 meters. That's 15.03 SPR to the meter. I haven't gone over the original experiment, but I realize now that my own verification of it was extremely imprecise. By the way, using the model above, I hope you can see that precision suffers as the gravity setting increases, due to the lower number of frames to sample from. By the way, here are some interesting factors. If you want moon gravity, use a setting of 2 and build everything at 80% scale or 3 at 120% scale. For Mars, a setting of 6 is close enough for government work (though 5.8 would be better).

So, that's gravity for ya. Fun fact: For pluto gravity, 1/4 of moon level.

--------------------------

Water:

Water... how I want it in IB. I have been using various programs, models, and tons of ridiculous junk, merely for water. These are the most reliable IB versions:

My collection of water simulations

Nameloc's model (Deceptive, it's just ropes. Though razorsnake has a better model, which is capable of partial collision, it lags. He won't let me reciprocate to pm either, so I can't fiddle with it)

Fighterlegend's excellent model-(click here for outlines)

Razorsnake's model. Excellent, and somehow partially collides without much lag per model.

I have tried to excite intrest here, but people keep naysaying. A great example of such a flop?

Darkfangs wrote:

I need help. I need help making realistic water. My models in other programs only gets me so far, but I need help. I'm looking for: low/no lag (absolutely required), waves (optional), realistic reaction to density (required), upsets wave equilibrium as if the same event happened in real life (shown as formula 2.1), and good looks (if you want). "Why?", you ask? Because I've been working my way to get water implemented in IB. Now, these formulas and diagrams will explain a bit of the harder stuff: Formula/Diagram 1.1 - Waves: Now, since the userbase is generally young people, most of you haven't done trig. This is a sine wave, what a wave actually is: The top and bottom are called the crest and trough respectively. Formula/Diagram 1.2 - Water itself: To know this idea, understand water. Fully, that is. Here is an example Covalent hydrogen bonds join them together. Now, this is water in action: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Water_droplet_blue_bg05.jpg How do these thing relate? Simple. Take that picture, and compute it as calculus. Formula/Diagram 1.2.1 - Calculus in water: Formula/Diagram 2.1 Uʬ= ʬ Motion * 1.421((Object M+ Object N)*(4.1S+.07t)) Just figure it out. I found it, and I don't remember all of the things. For more help: Google Water article on Wikipedia Endorphin, which has water These things generally clear up all problems, so now we have a challenge: get it possible in IB.

Now, what would complete this, truly? Well, I went to an expert in water simulation and flash programming, our very own fighterlegend. So without further ado:

fighterlegend wrote:

DF: So, FL, I have seen you have quite a knack for water simulations. Care to tell how you got interested in these? FL: Yes, I'll tell. I've gotten interested because I've seen some attempts at water simulations. I've tried several, and found out a hacked (small) circle inside a regular (smallest IB can have) circle would help the water simulation become more realistic. DF: Awesome. What kinds of different approaches are there to simulations (Name types, E.G. : Ropes, balls, et cetera) FL: There's all kinds! Ropes, Balls, Sliding joints, jelly, and theres a few others I haven't seen yet on IB.. DF: Very comprehensive, Fighter. Now, I have had interest in water implementation in IB. As an experienced flash programmer, do you think this could be viable at low lag. FL: Yes. I think so. If Oliver could input a code that will allow water to have outlines to the back (only to other water particles, like bond outlines) or have a blur function on each circle, it could have a low-lag simulation of water.. If people use it correctly. DF: That's what I needed to hear. The truth. So, it's time to close up shop. Anything you want to say in conclusion? FL: If you want to give a shot at different approach at a water simulation in Incredibots, feel free to PM me for help!

He and I also had this convo, which absolutely revolutionized the water simulation of IB. This is it:

Me and FL in Incredichat wrote:

[18:41] <Darkfangs> Hey. [18:41] <Fighterlegend> Hi [18:45] <Darkfangs> I finally figured it out. [18:47] <Darkfangs> I figured out water. [18:47] <Fighterlegend> aH [18:47] <Fighterlegend> NICE [18:47] <Fighterlegend> erm [18:47] <Fighterlegend> caps [18:50] <Darkfangs> The idea is to have one single block of blue, for low lag, you have a force (similar to a thruster) acting upwards past a certain line. [18:50] <Fighterlegend> Ah [18:53] <Darkfangs> The force will be equal to the carbon-water density, where the IB density causes a submerged object to gradually: 1. Float upwards and bob (saying the force takes effect at the sea level and stops at halfway through the depth of the water) [18:56] <Darkfangs> 2. Submerge (Meaning the density pulls down just as much as the aforementioned force pushes up, so that neither succumb and the object stays in place underwater) [18:57] <Darkfangs> Or 3. The force cannot overcome the density and the object sinks to the bottom. [18:59] <Darkfangs> The block of blue would be slightly transparent, and the gravity would be the equal to SetGrav-1 for the water. [18:59] <Darkfangs> Sound like it's viable? [19:00] <Darkfangs> It's pretty much reversing gravity. [19:01] <Fighterlegend> Yeah [19:03] <Darkfangs> AFK for a bit. [19:15] <Darkfangs> K, I'm back. [19:23] <Darkfangs> Anyway, the force would be set to increase in an expontial E^ ln x form, defined as a horizontal line at sea level and a line halfway to the full depth. [19:24] <Darkfangs> Since this is a force box and 1 blue block, it would create no lag or a negligable amount of lag, while retaining perfect realism and buoyancy. [19:29] <Darkfangs> Man, I sure wish I could tell this stuff to the IB programmers... it's a perfect idea, and it's just out of IB limits. [19:30] <Darkfangs> In terms in making a bot to test it. [19:35] <Fighterlegend> Ah [19:35] <Fighterlegend> k [19:35] <Darkfangs> So... the question would be... how do we get the numbers? [19:35] <Fighterlegend> Erm [19:35] <Fighterlegend> sec [19:36] <Darkfangs> K. [19:36] <Fighterlegend> I was thinking [19:36] <Darkfangs> Yeah? [19:36] <Fighterlegend> Density/strength of thruster*size of block [19:37] <Fighterlegend> erm [19:37] <Fighterlegend> Density/size of block*density of block-strength of thruster [19:37] <Fighterlegend> I think [19:38] <Darkfangs> Wouldn't that be (Density/size of object)*(density of object-strength of thruster)? [19:39] <Darkfangs> Parantheses. So that things get grouped right. [19:42] <Darkfangs> There is more or less a general equation like that, and there are 30 values for density. Size of the objects doesn't really matter, but 1 LPR = 100 SPR. 100 values. The thruster represents only ONE value, the buoyancy of water. [19:46] <Darkfangs> Actually, the equation is: (Strength of force(upwards force)-density of object(downwards force))=Speed of ascent [19:50] <Darkfangs> A value of SoA>0 returns an object upwards and bobs it (centripical force via force), a value of SoA=0 suspends an object halfway depthwise, and a value of SoA-1 sinks an object to the bottom of the water. [19:51] <FL> Yeah [19:54] <Darkfangs> When the equation is plotted on a graph, all 30 values will be plotted, and then a line of best fit should tell us what every value inbetween results in. [19:55] <Darkfangs> Those values show the speed of ascent or descent, and suspension happens at a value of zero. [19:56] <Darkfangs> Only one value can return zero, so that leads a starting point. [20:05] <Darkfangs> The density of carbon is 1.8 to water's 1.0. I think IB's buoyancy should be defined as: SoA>0 values= 14 (1-14) | SoA=0 value= (15) | SoA<0 values= (16-30) [20:05] <Darkfangs> Makes the most sense to me. [20:15] <Darkfangs> You still there? [20:23] <Fighterlegend> sorry [20:23] <Fighterlegend> back [20:24] <Darkfangs> Anyway, you read the above text? [20:28] <Darkfangs> If so, did I miss anything? [20:31] <Fighterlegend> Erm [20:31] <Fighterlegend> Yeah [20:31] <Fighterlegend> I read [20:31] <Fighterlegend> Well [20:31] <Darkfangs> What did I miss? [20:31] <Fighterlegend> Box2D's physics are weird [20:31] <Fighterlegend> And not on spot.. [20:31] <Darkfangs> CURSE YOU BIZZARE PHYSICS ENGINE!!! [20:33] <Darkfangs> Well, do you think you could try to calibrate a thruster to simulate the model? If so, we might be able to use that as a prop. [20:33] <Darkfangs> Besides, you'll easily get a feature out of that one. [20:38] <Darkfangs> So, anything else you have to remark on? [20:43] <Fighterlegend> Yeah [20:43] <Fighterlegend> I could [20:43] <Fighterlegend> but not now [20:43] <Fighterlegend> xD [20:47] <Darkfangs> Well, I need feedback man... [20:48] <Darkfangs> I plan on putting this in the Encyclopedia. [20:48] <Darkfangs> This convo that is. [20:50] <Fighterlegend> kk [20:51] <Darkfangs> So feedback... [20:52] <Fighterlegend> Erm [21:00] <Darkfangs> Cool. Bye.

--------------------------

Light speed... IB's c:

Darkfangs wrote:

A higher speed is possible, but it causes what programmers know as "immediate paradox". They are such extreme measures of conflicting variables that cause a crash in all programs as a failsafe for all coding. The way to attempt this is to Have this equation: SRP||MPFakintoMPS ----------------------- Btyes The biggest speed is akin to IB2's total byte capacity. With optimum circumstances, using the smallest rectangle possible, which is about 4 bytes I guess, and via either glitches or reprogramming (which would be a bit higher), exhibit the maximum force possible on it, a force akin to maximum speed. Now, I don't know the bytes that IB2 is capable of, but putting it in laymans terms: MPF moves SRP at Bytes * Force in newtons points, which divided ( or was it multiplied) by the 30 I'm given, would make it Mph. That would be ... ehh, maybe 2.3 million mph? Of course, this doesn't make sense, as no computer in all of existence could calculate at 30 fps though a immediate paradox. In fact, I don't think even an IBM supercomputer could get through one. They are the equivalent of the number 9 being typed 453,000,000,000 googolplex times. Immediate paradoxes happen when nothing is possible and everything is impossible, and when no reason exists, neither can logic, and the neither can programming, then you can't achieve this. But, if a computer was capable of in excess of the 989700000000000000000000000 Yettaflops per microsecond of seek time needed to pass this specific immediate paradox. But, I dreamed a dream here.

That is the best definition. Though others had very good explanation, this is the best because it overlays the maximum speed, not just possible, but implementable. Remarkably, the Køϯ Point (Point at which everything must paradox, despite capacity) is hardly above IB's Paradox point. Convenient, Ryan. Anyway, my outline for IB's C is nearing to true c (or real c).

So far, williempie has gotten closest, Ryan could easily achieve it though.

Now, here is a real expert's view on this (plus gravity): Brinton. He was a pioneer in the discovery of gravity's equation, and finding a way to beat the speed of railguns at his time.

Interviewer wrote:

DF: So, you're one of the lesser known members, but you played a very important part in physics discoveries. I thought it would be nice to speak on two subjects. Let's start with gravity. What is IB's equation for gravity compared to real life? Brinton: First off, I’m a star… in my own mind at least. We actually assumed that gravity (at a setting of 15) has the same coefficient in IB as it does on earth, and that’s how we converted IB distances to more common measurements like meters, by measuring how far they were accelerated in a given time. DF: Very nice. Does size or weight affect objects as real life does? Brinton: Well, it’s a 2D world, so everything’s mass is determined by area. In effect, everything appears to have the same thickness. One funny thing we found about weight was that the density settings seem to adjust from 1 at 1 to 5.82 at 30. Early on, that discrepancy confused me a great deal. Other than that, Newtonian physics seem to mostly work, some glitches excepted. Also, the gravity setting seems to work as expected. A setting of 1 is 1/15 a setting of 15, etc. Not perfect, mind you, and I don’t know why, but certainly close enough for government work. This has important implications when working with scale. The higher the gravity, the smaller everything appears to be. My regret is that the settings are so limited. By placing normal gravity at 15, maximum gravity is different by a factor of 2 while minimum is different by a factor of 15. A setting of 5 or 6 for normal would have made more sense, or maybe 10, since low gravity has more uses than high gravity. DF: Awesome. What shape seems to have the most interesting effect: Rectangles, circles, or triangles? Brinton: I like playing with triangles, because they’re the sharpest. Of course circles are perfect. You should read Flatland by Edwin Abbot. It will give you a new perspective on the IB world. I think you can even download it for free now. Of course one thing different than a strict 2D world we have in IB is that we can have one thing stacked upon another. DF: Great, let's move on to light speed. I noticed you took the unique thrusters approach to the idea, whereas everyone else used railguns. Does that affect it in any way? Brinton: I don’t know much about railguns, but I knew that a force applied near the center of a circle would eventually make it spin faster than the same force applied near its edge. I knew that thrusters could only accelerate up to a certain speed, but if that speed were reached at the center of a circular path, an object at the edge would be travelling much, much faster. DF: And what do you think the max speed is in IB? Brinton: My theory was that since IB has 30 frames a second, the maximum “observable” speed would be the diagonal of the largest sandbox (which is the longest distance we can see) in 1 frame (which the shortest possible time). That works out to 1935 LPR (width of the largest possible rectangle) per second, which is about 12764 meters per second. It gets more complicated when you collide a fast small object to move a larger object. Doing that, I got a measurement that the small object prior to collision was travelling at over 17000 meters per second. Really, only the programmers know for sure what can be done, but I couldn’t figure out how to accelerate anything faster than about 17500 m/s using the tools and time available. DF: That's pretty cool. I guessed it was about that. Well, time to wrap up. Any closing words? Brinton: Incredibots has something for everyone. You can conduct physics experiments here, or make a cute movie for your friends, or anything in between. I’ve learned that to make something people will like, you have to use both the physics and the aesthetics. Please check out my challenges and rubes and whatnot, and of course, rate highly. Thanks.

--------------------------

Klanns:



This is the general article on Klanns, as we call them in IB.



These figures show a single linkage in the fully extended, mid-stride, retracted, and lifted positions of the walking cycle. These four figures show the crank (rightmost link in the first figure on the left with the extended pin) in the 0, 90, 180, and 270 degree positions. The general lower limit for klanns is 4 legs, though I have seen working, stable two legged ones. But... that's not what fascinated me. I met Lojyk, a vet in IB, when I was pondering the maximums of myriapoda, or multileggedness. He got interested, and started making more and more complex versions. Before this, BJP's Death spider held the record of 16 legs. On his first try, Lojyk smashed this record, making, very quickly, a 32 legged Klann. He didn't stop there though, as he wanted to get higher. Soon, he released a 48 legged one, as a 64 legged Myriapod froze. Immediately upon seeing it, b0tman featured it on the spot. Even then, Lojyk went higher, releasing a 52 legged Myriapod. He realized that was it for Klanns. But, since klanns were a four bar system, he deleted one part, getting him to 64, and no further. I think it's called a Hoeken Linkage or something. Even I thought he was done. He wasn't done though. One last myriapodic bot came from him. He made a 2 rod linkage system, which got him to 84 incredible legs. I was taken aback to say the least.

Anyway, these are his bots:

Folding Klann
84 legged Myriapod
64 legged Myriapod
52 legged Myriapod
48 legged Klann
32 legged Klann

Klanns don't go much past this incredible myriapoda, but Lojyk had a gift where he could make the effortlessly, whilst others struggled. I might get an interview in here if he agrees. Oh, I forgot to mention that I believe I found the last work in myriapoda, but it would be a waste of time.

Darkfangs wrote:

Umm, it's hard, since I'm not good at linkages. Oh, I know! Yeah i did a quickie. Anyway, there are 128 legs, and those hook to 128 rods that hook to 128 increments of the black circle. Eliminating the need for second pieces, you have 128 legs with 128 rods, 256 pieces, and then add 128 circles (0 opacity), 384 pieces, then one circle, and one triangle, for a grand total of 386. Or, you could eliminate the rods from the equation by hooking the legs to the rods, putting it back down to 258 pieces. If you cut out the circles and use an SBS, you can have only about 135 pieces, and not too many moving parts. Now, I wonder how tiny a klann could be...

Yeah, I am a definite myriapodamaniac.

I hoped to get an interview with him to get some info up, but he just snapped at me about some incorrect things. Oh well. I was hoping I could have gotten him, as he is extremely gifted and learned in this area. Jerk...

I found an alternative in this area however.

Interviewer wrote:

DF: So, it's been established that you are a master of Klann linkages. What I would like to know is: What originally got you interested in Klann linkages and the like? BJP: Good question. I originally saw a simple klann bot on IB and decided to research it a little and find accurate schematics and figures to replicate it. I found this website in the process http://www.mekanizmalar.com/index.shtml It is a wonderful site for the mechanically minded individual that wants a simple representation of rather complex and simple systems. DF: That's a great story. Was it hard to make such complex Klanns? BJP: Yes, it was a rather involved process. I played around with a number of different designs of fixed joint placements and leg lengths until I found a pretty reliable one. Sound good to you? DF: Very intriguing. How are they made? BJP: Now that is a little bit harder question to answer... I am not that great of a teacher when it comes to this kind of thing. I would like to say that there is a nice and simple way of making them, but you really can only find that out by diving into it head on and going though all the hard steps first before you can see the easier methods of doing it. DF: I always wanted to know that process. Could you give some info on Klanns? BJP: As far as info is concerned it is all contained on the web. I normally have a few windows with schematics and pictures open to compare my developing creation to. I suggest that if any of you want to make something similar that you do the same. DF: Great having you here BJP. Any closing words? BJP: Yeah, patience. It takes a lot of that and a steady hand and a specific focus to try and create something as complex as a 16 legged Klann linkage bot.

He somewhat steered away from explaining info, but a golden review nonetheless.

There is also a good link on these:

http://www.mechanicalspider.com/index.html

and

http://www.mekanizmalar.com/index.shtml

--------------------------

Friction and Elasticity:

This is a big undertaking. I am definitely starting off with an old friend, brinton:

Brinton wrote:

Primitive Experiments on Friction and Elasticity of Collisions Completed I’ve been doing some additional work on friction in Incredibots. By experimentation I found that the angle of repose under normal gravity, that is the angle of an inclined plane at which an object begins to slide, is around 25 degrees. That means the coefficient of static friction is around .466. Further experimentation showed that the coefficient stayed the same at variable gravity, so friction responds under different gravities in IB as it normally would in real life, despite the fact that IB gravity isn’t quite the same as real gravity in every respect. Finding the kinetic coefficient of friction proves to be more difficult. I’m studying the physics involved and trying to design an experiment to calculate it, and after that to translate it into terms the IB community can use. I’ve also been working on elasticity of collisions. Unfortunately I didn’t set my experiment up using standard units, so the exact numbers would mean little if anything. Here’s what I did. In zero gravity, I placed two balls propelled by blocks set behind them which were attached to fixated objects with sliding joints. The balls traveled toward each other, collided, and bounced backward in the direction they came. I measured the amount of frames it took for a ball to travel to a predetermined starting point, then from that point to the collision point, to measure the pre-collision speed and thus the momentum. I then measured the amount of frames that it took the ball to return from the collision point to the starting point, to determine the post-collision speed in relation to the pre-collision speed and thus determine the amount of kinetic energy that was lost in the collision. At an initial speed generated by thrusters set to 15, the collision caused a 71.15% loss in kinetic energy. At an initial speed generated by thrusters set to 5, the collision caused a 80.5% loss in kinetic energy. I don’t know if the thrusters acted on the objects long enough to get to full speed so attempting to extrapolate these results to other thruster speeds is impossible. Also, I’m not certain anyone has determined how different thruster settings relate to each other in terms of terminal speed. In any case, it appears that the greater the speed involved the more elastic the collision becomes. I’m not sure how that matches up to real life, but it does bode well for my and others’ experimentation with super-observable speeds, in that a collision moving at extreme speed would at this point appear to generate a very small loss in energy.

He added this correction:

Brinton wrote:

Upon further examination and eliminating some possible causes of inconsistencies it appears that my original hypothesis about elasticity was wrong. In testing collision with one object against a fixated wall, and allowing the thrusters to reach their maximum speed, testing at speeds 5 through 20 in increments of 5, the object loses from 81.9% to 83.3% of its energy, without the variable speed apparently causing the inconsistency. I know this is a small data set, but it takes a few minutes to check each speed since three data points have to be gathered at each one. Because sometimes the challenge system loses a frame before the winning condition being met is recognized, I believe that it’s the imprecision of the system causing the variation and that the true elasticity of collisions in IB equals around 82.5% loss or 27.5% maintained, however you want to figure it. I don't know who invented the term LPR and SPR, though I was involved in converting that to meters with some precision. My original suggestion for standard units was somethign else, but LPR and SPR seemed to catch on and I've been using it ever since. By the way the experiment above let the thruster run for about 1 LPR and then was tested over a 5 LPR distance. At thruster speed 20 the ball went 3.06 LPR /sec pre-collision and 1.39 LPR / sec post-collision. I do wonder if the shape of contact in the collision makes any difference, but maintaining a non circular orientation through the point of contact might be difficult. Due to the compression of the objects together as they collide, decreasing the area of the collision relative to the mass might make a difference in the elasticity. Too many variables, too little time. I'll try to get to this next week. I have a busy next couple days. As far as changing the shape of the objects go, the original experiment used two balls colliding and the data was fairly consistent until I decided to start from scratch, and I got about the same numbers as here. I just had that one bad data point and i was the first one I did and that made the whole thing feel suspect.

http://incredibots.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=799477#799477

That is the thread link.

--------------------------

General Physics mechanisms:

There are many main mechanisms in physics: The wedge, lever, inclined plane, hammer, fan, pillar, bolt, windmill, chute, regulator, engine, lift, piston, teeter, pendulum, chamber and ball, Newton's cradle, and more. The wedge is a triangular block between two objects that, when struck, forces the two objects apart, and the wedge down. A lever is a long rectangular block with a equilateral triagle supporting it at one end called a fulcrum. When the opposite end is upset by weight, the force exponentially increases and sends an object flying upwards. An inclined plane is something like a springboard in gymnastics, something that, when pressed upon, sends far more force upward. A hammer is an object that strikes, with a head that is very heavy, using gravity to accrue force to increase kinetics. A fan is basically any object that spins. A pillar, more commonly called a domino, has many replicas that, when gravity upsets it, triggers an A to B chain reaction. The bolt is a very, very heavy object that, when given momentum of extreme proportions, like being shot as if a projectile, can make objects move as if on ice. A windmill is a spinning four bladed object that is intended to hit an object far, or raise elevation while turning it around. A chute is a set of piping that a ball or such object rolls through to get from A to B quickly and accurately. And lastly, there is the regulator, which does an action intermittently (I believe funky made this once). An engine is a motor which uses combustion (internal or external) to move objects and is one of the most useful things in mechanics. This thread is a serious discussion on the matter:

Fleabustion Motors

I believe rutger has done it best performance-wise, though b0tman licked him in aesthetics. Next, we have lifts. We all know that there are rubes that do in fact use elevatoresque equipment. I believe Bok's list of RGM parts show the best example. Next, is the piston. Everyone would say it really just a sliding joint. It isn't at all. Imagine powering a sliding joint with a fleagun. That's a clear picture. Now there are teeters, which are fulcrum balanced objects that, when upset, send force up on an object, which is pulled down by gravity to repeat it again. Pendulums are next to tick, metaphorically and literally speaking, and they are rarely found. I found it by true luck. It's once again thanks to Lojyk that we have this. He made the first realistically regulated pendulum after all. "Chamber and ball" is a long tube holding a projectile, usually spherical or spheroid, that has, in real life, expanding gases, but bombs are suitable for IB. Lastly, the ever famous Newton's cradle. One ball is set in motion, in an arc really, and collides with another ball, which collides with another ball, et cetera. It's a fresher idea than dominoes to transfer motion, and with innovation, can even be set up like dominoes! To learn more, visit Bok's thread:

Last, Boks's list of RGM parts!

--------------------------

Graphs:

Coming soon.

--------------------------

Bonus Content:

- Weapons interview with AssassainatorPie:

Darkfangs wrote:

DF: So, I heard you are knowledgeable about IB weaponry. Can you give some examples you and others have made? AssassinatorPie: In the middle of May and into June, the bullet and cartridge met IB, I tried using multiple shaped bombs as a propellant, but the idea failed because if and ever if the bullet moved, the bomb would shift and produce different results. I received a flea bomb known as a "mine" from Destruction, and many trial and errors formed from it and it turned into a single fire, fragile, little bullet that was button-sliding joint activated. The bullet was then known as IB's First Realistic Bullet, because it was the first to have a functioning cartridge. Over the summer of 2009, I saw one of the most amazing weaponry devices on IB, it was a model of a WWII Thompson, it had a working bolt make of a sliding joint and a full magazine with a bullet and a shell, the only problem was is that what made the bullet fire was a big spinning wheel with big spokes and I compared it to primitive firing systems which is a controlled catapult if you will. Recently developed was Destruction's Rail Driver, which is a giant cannon with a super high powered flea bomb, that he took a long time to copy and paste the bomb, it scales the entire map in the blink of an eye. DF: Wow, big list. What caused you to become interested in new, experimental weapons? AssassinatorPie: I remember making my first idea for it when I went to Trap and Skeet club and I was analyzing my expended bullet after I had fired it, I often came upon 2d ideas when looking at mechanics and seeing if I could make the 2d model here, after May of 2009, the only bots I have actually dedicated my mind to have been projectile based weaponry, because I have always been fascinated by this little device that has enough energy to sent this little piece of metal, thousands of feet per second. This idea boomed into the bullet now, which remains a standard design in my weapon robots, it is evident in my shotgun shell, the slug and the 9mm bullet. I don't like thrusters as a propellant for bullets because it should be an instantaneous thing, not an accelerated. DF: That's cool. And has anything stood out alot to you? (Provide a Melee example as well) AssassinatorPie: Well art is empty without substance, so melee weapons don't stand out to me, they don't do much, but with IB2's new "in simulation mouse control", melee weapons have attracted the fun of hitting something up-side the head with a blunt or sharp item. DF: I think I'll check that out. Could you provide a nice link to a thread with lots of weapon technologies? AssassinatorPie: I created a thread designed specifically for the creation of weapons on IB, found here http://incredibots.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=155608 It contains weapons submitted by anyone who wants their weapons shown, and since it was created by me, of course my weapons are there too DF: Well, I think I got a good amount here. Any words of encouragement for the newer members? AssassinatorPie: New users will be new users, but here is a tip for everyone, " The Search Function is your friend, look twice and ask once."

--------------------------

Well, that's all for now. If you want something added, I might add it.

Credit goes to:

Endorphin
IB1 and related companies
IB2 and related companies
Google
Various windows applications
SilverGun, once graphs are up
Dr. Evo for formulæ
Brinton for formulæ
Various other members
Notepad
Everyone who helped get this a sticky

Links:
http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/spec_gra2.html
http://incredibots.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=154388&start=0&sid=940678a598ebabcc1aefab011af7760c
http://incredibots.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=799477#799477
http://www.mekanizmalar.com/index.shtml

Random formulæ:

t=6/s (T= time S=speed)

This article will be updated regualrly.