 | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Laurentino Martins
|
| | | (...) I don't think they are willing to change the main processor (and all the software involved) just to accomplish this... unless there are another versions of the H8 that have more inputs/outputs (?) (...) RCX is HUGE? You should see a (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Jakob Nebeker
|
| | | | | (...) unless there are another versions of the H8 that have more inputs/outputs (?) I didn't know it was processor limited. Maybe they can do some sort of multiplexing. (At least for inputs) That way they could get 2 or more in the space of one. But (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Joerg Volz
|
| | | | | Laurentino Martins schrieb in Nachricht <4.1.19981231143643....90.220>... ..... cut something out, sorry Laurentino <g> (...) times per rotation using only two wires ??? (have I seen this wrong?) You have seen wrong, I disassembled my Unit because (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | RE: RCX 2.0 -- ideas. —Tilman Sporkert
|
| | | | (...) I believe another message already clarified that there are more than two wires involved. However, it is technically possible to do this with two wires. If current stops flowing through a coil (like in a motor, when it rotates around), you get (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
