| |
At 12:03 PM 10/6/2003, you wrote:
> [bigger snip]
>
> Ah..., but you don't really need the back and the front controlled by
> pistons do
> you?
>
> I would think that keeping the front hinged and the back actuated would
> give you
> what you want. With two pistons ganged together, you can achieve tilt down,
> level and tilt up. Then you have four more pistons to do whatever you want.
You really don't *need* both sides actuated, but it allows one to raise the
platform as well. Not really necessary, I suppose.
I presume you mean two pistons ganged end-to-end. I think this would work
much better, but so far have not found any really good ways to do this
without putting undue stress on at least some of the connection. Do you
have a good geometry in mind?
> [snip]
>
> >
> > > If you control the platform pistons using pistons instead of switches, • you can
> > > have a more analog situation. You can hook two pistons together. By
> > > expanding
> > > and contracting one piston, you can expand/contract the other piston.
> >
> > That's a good idea, something that hadn't occurred to me. This would
> > eliminate the pumps and the airtank and the switches, and a lot more of the
> > tubing. However, like I said earlier, I don't have enough pistons to do
> > this. I really need two control pistons to flip the two 'working' pistons.
> > There isn't enough air contained in one piston to fully flip two working
> > pistons, especially under load.
>
> Ah, but if you simply hinge the front, and control the back with a single
> piston, that is driven by a single piston, you can get very fine control and
> still have four pistons left over.
Very true. I'll have to try that. Thanks for the idea!
~Mike
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
