Subject:
|
RE: TGBC - The Weakest Link?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:11:54 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Rob Limbaugh <rlimbaugh@greenfieldgroup.comNOSPAM>
|
Viewed:
|
1209 times
|
| |
|
|
<SNIP>
> >
> > Is there allowance for the fact that one of the modules may • act up and
> > not deliver the requisite balls for the next module to act on?
>
> Not really. :)
>
> However, we're not expecting the GBC to run 100% of the time.
> It's not like letting a train run in a circle for eight
> hours. There are all kinds of things going on at the same
> time. In our testing, we seemed to run for about 20 minutes
> at a time, before someone would say, "Stop..."
>
> Then, we'd shut down the contraption, pick-up loose balls,
> check weak spots, and power it up, again.
>
> Generally, if one module doesn't work, we'll just take it
> out, slide the other modules together, and start going again.
> Given that there are no "special" modules (beyond the first
> and last modules) any other module can be placed in any location.
>
> > Each module must at minimum be able to sense that there are indeed
> > balls in the input bin before acting on them and that there • are balls
> > in the output bin for the next module to do its stuff.
>
> I'd kind of like to see a module that won't "work" if it's empty. :)
Like a train layout, how about routing/switching module to create
multiple ball routes? This way, if any one module acts up, only modules
affected in that path need to be dealt with. Given the standards
(regarding input/output bin size/location), all routes can dump back
into a main bin.
[Note: If someone else mentioned this, I apologize... There's been a
lot to read over this thread! :) ]
- Rob
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
