Subject:
|
Re: TGBC - The Weakest Link?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Jan 2005 02:46:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5432 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Chio Siong Soh wrote:
> Is there allowance for the fact that one of
> the modules may act up and not deliver the
> requisite balls for the next module to act
> on?
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
special-purpose modules within the system, such as the first "timing module", a
"return module" (like Steve's train), perhaps turn modules, etc. A very simple
bypass module can be built (I'm working in it) that can easily be adjusted in
length "on the fly" so a malfunctioning module can be hot-swapped out of the
line.
> Each module must at minimum be able to sense
> that there are indeed balls in the input bin
> before acting on them and that there are balls
> in the output bin for the next module to do
> its stuff.
At this point, most if not all of the modules I've seen can "run dry", so
there's not need for a module to check for itself.
> But to complicate matters, the weakest link
> may not be just one module. Different modules
> could act up at various times.
Yes. Babysitting will be needed.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: TGBC - The Weakest Link?
|
| (...) 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)
|
94 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
