| |
In lugnet.robotics, John Brost wrote:
> I think just cutting off the lift and waiting for them
> to drain out is best. The only thing I am worried about
> is how long it would take for the sloping ball stream to
> empty out before I could lift the bridge.
Not long at all. With the 3'+ slopping double-beam track I had at BF '06, I
think it only took less than five seconds for them to clear the end... and that
was for a *very* shallow slope. Given the time it takes to lift and lower the
bridge, adding a few seconds delay shouldn't cause any real problem.
> I don't want to take down the whole GBC because my bridge
> is slowing things down.
I wouldn't worry about it. First, the original train spec was to support
multiple stations with two trains at more than 1 bps... I'm not sure we've ever
had a full GBC running consistantly at 1 bps, and since at BF '06 we removed
some of the stations, that actually speeded things up. The trains could have
taken much bigger hits in efficiency and still kept up with the balls (in fact a
few times we ran for a while with just one train, so we had a saftey factor of
at least two part of the time. Additionaly, how often are we going to be lifting
the bridge? If it really slows things down, we can just go back to ducking under
it... and it will still be an amazingly cool addition to the GBC. Heck, if it
carries the ball stream then it's "really" just a GBCm that violates the
backplane rule :-).
> How long would you be willing to stand and wait for
> the bridge to go up so you could walk through?
We're talking about the GBC here: what on Earth does the practicality have to do
with it? This thing is just remarkably cool looking - it goes in.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
