 | | Re: [LDAO] New beta version available
|
|
(...) Could you send me a file that has this problem? I've never run across it. Heard about it plenty of times, but never experienced it personally. (...) Don't worry. I added a checkbox next to the radio button, so now the checkbox blocks out the (...) (27 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Q:Best approach to line tracking
|
|
(...) Depending on the width of the line, you might be better off if you can keep both sensors on the line. That way there is a distinction between being on the line and being way off. If you find yourself way off, you can go searching back and (...) (27 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | RE: touch sensors aren't just switches (was Re: ideas for a RIS 2.0
|
|
I believe what we have got here is two solutions. 1) replace the Lego hardware with better microswitches 2) Make a multiplexor capable to work well with the Lego touch sensors Either one will work. I think I would rather make the multiplexor than (...) (27 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | RE: multiplexed touch sensors [was: Re ideas for a RIS 2.0]
|
|
(...) The problem with the LEGO touch sensors is that their resistance varies with the force on the plunger. To get the debouncing algorithm to work, you need to know how long the switch might be in the indeterminate state. (...) Typical switch (...) (27 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: multiplexed touch sensors [was: Re ideas for a RIS 2.0]
|
|
(...) Having revisited this entire sub-thread, it seems people started rambling on (constructively, I think) about switch times, debouncing, etc. Getting back to multiplexed touch sensors, I bet it's possible to get the Lego touch sensors to work (...) (27 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
