 | | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
|
(...) Is there something that a module builder can not do because the standard is too simple? Steve (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
|
(...) Not to oversimplify, but I mean if the 'standard' for the ball contraption is 32 studs from the front of the hopper to the back edge of the baseplate, and thus I personally would probably grab a 32 x 32 stud baseplate to build on, thus the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
|
(...) I completely agree with that assessment. However, the premise is that I'm using a 32x32 baseplate with the hopper in the bottom left hand corner--using that premise, the module can be used either in-line, or 90 degrees. If one does not use the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
|
news-gateway@lugnet.com wrote on 01/10/2005 10:01:48 AM: (...) thus the (...) module, (...) or 90 (...) That assumes that there is nothing in front of the hopper. There is nothing to say that you are limited to a module 32 studs deep. If you choose (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
|
"Steve Hassenplug" <Steve@TeamHassenplug.org> wrote in message (...) Yes. Currently it's not being able to make turns in both directions with the hopper feed setup the way it is. Someone did point out that there would be a lot of wasted space if (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: The Great Ball Contraption
|
|
(...) That's really not true. As a module builder, you can make all the turns you want. This one makes a whole bunch: (URL) you can't figure out how to put the output in the correct place, with respect to the input, that's not a problem with the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jan-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
