Subject:
|
Re: We may have to come up with somethign bigger...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:14:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1726 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Brian Davis wrote:
| |
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the cadence will be set by the slowest assembly
cell, correct? So if your goal is a a fast cadence, you need *every* cell to
meet at least that minimum requirement.
|
That’s right! We have to agree that everyone will try and meet some maximum
time. No worm gears allowed! :)
| |
Or, since you are using train track, with switching points that can be
controled by an RCX as well, is there is one slow step in the process it can
be duplicated, with the transport vehicles alternating between the left and
right brance, effectively halving the time for that step by doubling the
assembly cells.
|
Well, we could, but that would get pretty complicated in a hurry, I think. But
it’s not unlike the Montrac system - there are switches which you can see in the
video so shuttles can bypass certain sections.
I think what will ultimately happen is if we get 1 complete car, without flaw,
to come off the thing, we’ll be happy. :)
| |
That train track could really be handy. In an extreme example, you could
“switch out” portions of the line that have faulted out for some reason, or
need to be “restocked”.
|
Well, then we’d have half-finished cars. No-one wants to drive a moon rover
without a steering wheel. :) I suspect in that event we will just stop the
whole thing and fix whatever is wrong.
I think we should arrange the track layout in a giant + shape, for no reason in
particular...
;)
-Iain
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
