Subject:
|
Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Jan 2005 02:58:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7885 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> wrote:
> Speaking of which, you should probably add a
> requirement that the top of the input bin must
> always be unobstructed. That is, the output
> part of a module gets to do anything it wants
> with the space over the input part of the
> next module.
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
complicated. At least one practical reason for this is for a Type II
(crate-passing) standard, allocating the space above your neighbor's input crate
zone might really limit the solutions.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
94 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
