 | | Re: The latest rage in pneumatic computing —Steve Baker
|
| | | (...) I wonder if there are savings to be made by building the adder from scratch rather than out of standard XOR/AND/OR gates. (...) The big remaining issue is storage - both RAM and ROM. Whilst you can theoretically build this out of flip-flops - (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jun-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The latest rage in pneumatic computing —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | (...) I thought so too, so I designed one. See elsewhere in this thread. (...) Yeah, I thought so too. (...) This is almost exactly what I was envisioning!!! Cool. Glad to know I'm not the only one psychotic enough to come up with a cockamamy idea. (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jun-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The latest rage in pneumatic computing —Andy Gombos
|
| | | | | Using the paper tape idea - the input consists of a row of holes and spaces. The spaces are large enough for a piston end to get through, and change some part of the meachine on the other side (to store state). Output could be a piston with a sharp (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jun-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The latest rage in pneumatic computing —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | | | (...) Yeah, but that would be the whole idea. Otherwise it would be easy.. just knock out axles where you want a 1 and leave 'em in where you want a zero and let a human being read it. But I was thinking of a situation where the output could be fed (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jun-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The latest rage in pneumatic computing —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | | (...) Oh... When you mentioned axles and holes I instantly flashed on the axles *always* being in the holes, just pressed to one side of the brick or the other. That way you don't have to make a machine that can insert axles in holes. By pressing (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jun-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The latest rage in pneumatic computing —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | (...) Yes. I've been pondering this for a while. I had thought of using "long pins with friction" pressed into 1x10 technic beam. It gives you 9 holes. You'd have 8 bits plus parity (I doubt I'd use parity though) (...) Yes. Mark had proposed this (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jun-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The latest rage in pneumatic computing —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | | | (...) Why not go the 'bit stream' route instead? Forget about bytes. Make a Turing machine operating on an 'endless' stream of bits. No adders, subtractors etc, just a state machine. Might be a bit difficult to program though... -- Anders Isaksson, (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jun-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The latest rage in pneumatic computing —Rob Limbaugh
|
| | | | <SNIP> (...) memory (...) What about 1x1 beams for a ROM punch card? Of course, combinations of 1x2 beams with 2 holes could be used, as well. For RAM (at least an all LEGO solution), I can envision a memory "drum". When bits are to be written, (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jun-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The latest rage in pneumatic computing —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | (...) I think that it is harder to make a machine that pops a pin into a hole than it is to make a machine that pushes a pin though a 1x2 beam with axle hole. The axles never leave the hole. You just have to slide them to one side of the brick to (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jun-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
