 | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Mark Bellis
|
| | | (...) I made a device that sends balls alternately down two chutes. Balls enter through a 2x2 hole in the top, onto the centre of a 7L studless beam, set up as a see-saw. Which ever way a ball goes, it drops onto another, longer, see-saw that tilts (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: TGBC - The Weakest Link? —Chio Siong Soh
|
| | | | (...) Any operation involving a long sequence of events as in The Great Ball Contraption (TGBC) is likely to be fouled up by failure of one of the events in the chain - the so called weakest link. Is there allowance for the fact that one of the (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: TGBC - The Weakest Link? —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | (...) First, test the modules as they are added to the system to make sure they meet the minimum requirement. Second, watch the whole thing like a hawk, being ready to shut it down to fix such problems. Third, there will have to be some (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: TGBC - The Weakest Link? —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | (...) Not really. :) However, we're not expecting the GBC to run 100% of the time. It's not like letting a train run in a circle for eight hours. There are all kinds of things going on at the same time. In our testing, we seemed to run for about 20 (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
