| |
Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> wrote on 01/10/2005 12:03:04 PM:
> Steve Hassenplug writes:
> > http://www.teamhassenplug.org/GBC/
>
> I notice that the spec says "Currently, there is no standard for
> physically connecting modules together." One possibility is for a
> module to grab onto the two corner studs of the input bin of the
> module to the right, since that's already a given.
Or specify that the input bin must have a technic beam at the front edge
of the input bin to accept technic pins: this is very similar to how the
castle walls connect...
Tim Massey
|
|
| |
tmassey@obscorp.com writes:
> Or specify that the input bin must have a technic beam at the front edge
> of the input bin to accept technic pins: this is very similar to how the
> castle walls connect...
Excellent idea. What do you mean, though, by "front edge"? Do you
mean the beam which is 10 studs long and which is 10 bricks off the
tabletop? That would impose a requirement on the next-door module to
build up and reinforce a wall 10 bricks high. Many of the prototype
GBC modules either throw or dump the ball into the input bin, with
nothing abutting its front edge.
Wouldn't it be better to have this beam be one brick off the tabletop
(leaving room for a baseplate and spacers adding up to one brick)?
That would reduce the requirements on a module and 2) reduce the
amount of levering action.
In any case, it's perfectly optional. If one module implements it and
another doesn't, then you just remove the technic pins. Yes,
excellent idea, well done, Tim!
--
--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Freedom means allowing
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | people to do things the
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 cell | majority thinks are
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 212-202-2318 VOIP | stupid, e.g. take drugs.
|
|
| |
> tmassey@obscorp.com writes:
> > Or specify that the input bin must have a technic beam at the front edge
> > of the input bin to accept technic pins: this is very similar to how the
> > castle walls connect...
>
> Excellent idea. What do you mean, though, by "front edge"? Do you
> mean the beam which is 10 studs long and which is 10 bricks off the
> tabletop? That would impose a requirement on the next-door module to
> build up and reinforce a wall 10 bricks high. Many of the prototype
> GBC modules either throw or dump the ball into the input bin, with
> nothing abutting its front edge.
I'm still a bit torn on this. There is NO interconnection type that will work with
all the modules we already have (only 10 or 12) but not all need to be
interconnected. The connection is only required in a few cases (where modules are
moving enough mass to slide on the table).
One idea is to use a couple 2x4 plates to connect baseplates together. But not all
modules have baseplates.
With Tim's idea, the modules would need to be connected by adding a beam to the
"front", not connecting "between" the modules, otherwise if you need to remove a
module from the middle, it will take a great deal of work to get them apart.
We're having another gathering this weekend, so I'll have more info after that.
Steve
|
|
| |
Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> wrote on 01/11/2005 04:25:15 PM:
> tmassey@obscorp.com writes:
> > Or specify that the input bin must have a technic beam at the front • edge
> > of the input bin to accept technic pins: this is very similar to how • the
> > castle walls connect...
>
> Wouldn't it be better to have this beam be one brick off the tabletop
> (leaving room for a baseplate and spacers adding up to one brick)?
> That would reduce the requirements on a module and 2) reduce the
> amount of levering action.
Yes, yes it would! :)
Tim Massey
|
|
|
