 | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Brass Tilde
|
| | | (...) I'll point out that the standard as it's defined pictorially allows for a non-linear layout just as it stands. As long as the input in in the correct place relative to the previous block's output, and the output is placed correctly relative to (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —
|
| | | | "Brass Tilde" <brasstilde@insightbb.com> wrote on 01/07/2005 01:52:19 PM: (...) edge, (...) participate. (...) a (...) correct (...) and (...) While what you're saying will work fine, the standard does say: Each module should have an "in" basket, (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Brian Davis
|
| | | | (...) In addition, there's an actual *reason* why that is set up that way. Can you picture trying to set up a large scale GBC if we need a certain number of "turns" and "straights"? There could also be interference issues if the rear of the GBC line (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —
|
| | | | news-gateway@lugnet.com wrote on 01/07/2005 04:11:02 PM: (...) one (...) the (...) This was my *exact* reason for asking: tipping containers. If the tip left to right (from their space to the next module's space), there is no need for extra width: (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | (...) In our test, when people dump, they usually dump onto a ramp in their own module, that drains onto the next module. Like on John's back hoe: (URL) you can see, it hangs over it's neighbor a bit. Of course, if you ass-u-me anything about the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Russell Nelson
|
| | | | Steve Hassenplug writes: > As you can see, it hangs over it's neighbor a bit. > > Of course, if you ass-u-me anything about the neighboring modules > you could run into problems. You can assume anything that's in the specification! Speaking of (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Brian Davis
|
| | | | (...) Instead of that, just make sure that your module delivers through the "side" of the downstream module's territory. In other words, using a chute (even a very short one) is a pretty easy solution. And that way the standard isn't further (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption —Russell Nelson
|
| | | | Brian Davis writes: > Instead of that, just make sure that your module delivers through > the "side" of the downstream module's territory. Then the spec should say that the ball should go through a vertical plane, and specify the size of the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
