Subject:
|
Re: thoughts on gbc module reliability
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 Jun 2006 01:25:10 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
steve <(sjbaker1@airmail.)NoMoreSpam(net)>
|
Viewed:
|
4220 times
|
| |
|
|
I wonder whether some cause of instability for seemingly well tested
modules when they are put into a real GBC is that the specification
doesn't specify the speed, or the angle of entry of balls into your
input hopper.
If your upstream 'test' module is feeding you balls very gently,
but the one you get 'on the day' throws the balls violently into
your hopper - I could imagine all sorts of consequences that your
previous testing didn't show up.
I wonder whether it would be worth someone designing a standard
'test input' which would deposit balls at the maximum and minimum
rates and at a range of speeds and angles.
We could publish that design and require all machines to have been
tested against the ball provider from hell.
Similarly, we could create an output module that would break in
some obvious way if forces or ball throughput rates were unreasonable
and require everyone to build a copy of that to test their friendliness
to downstream modules.
This wouldn't solve the problem of sheer randomness causing jams and
leaks WITHIN a module - but it ought to at least cut down on the major
disasters when someone didn't understand that 30 balls might appear all
in one go coming in at insane speeds and random angles.
Well, it's just a thought.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: thoughts on gbc module reliability
|
| (...) If you have a module, then bring it - old or new. I'm not sure how many new ones I'll have, especially as one of mine is now a virtual GBC antique, having been one of the very first modules ever made to the standard. And the others that will (...) (18 years ago, 29-Jun-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
43 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
