 | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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)
|
