Subject:
|
Re: thoughts on gbc module reliability
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:38:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4882 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, David Hurley wrote:
> I was wondering the exact same thing. For BF06 planning purposes, I was
> tentatively planning on having "throughput zones" grouped according to balls per
> second. The faster modules would be grouped together just as the slower ones
> would be with others of similar speed. My big mama-jama module can barely do
> .4bps on a sunny day. The junction between the faster to slower modules can be
> regulated with what I call "leaky bucket" modules to regulate/throttle the ball
> flow from faster modules to slower ones.
>
> Dave
I'm not sure this is the way to do things... I don't want to seem cruel or
anything (but I will be blunt), but this module of yours doesn't meet the GBC
spec of 1 bps. It is your responsibility as a builder to make it fit the spec,
not change the layout to meet your module's ability. It isn't terribly
difficult to split the ball stream within a single GBC module. I once had a 48
x 48 module that split the ball stream into 4 separate streams for this very
purpose. If your module as is can't meet the 1bps spec, then something in the
module needs to be changed. The idea of the spec was so that EVERY module could
be put ANYWHERE in the GBC and it would all work. In the past, this has been
bent so that modules that can't handle large batches are not placed downstream
of a batch- output module, but overall throughput was still 1bps.
In my mind, reliability is a completely different issue. Reliability specs
aren't specifically laid out in the GBC spec (unless that has changed since I
last looked at them), and as Rafe pointed out, getting very high reliability
requires LOTS of testing, which some simply do not have the resources for. It
is perfectly okay to split the GBC into high reliability and lower reliability
zones.
Just my $.02
John
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: thoughts on gbc module reliability
|
| (...) FWIW I do have a bypass on my module. I just have it blocked right now while I am testing the remainder of it. My earlier post was an acknowledgement of the difficulties that exist in meeting the minimum rate. I certainly am not trying to make (...) (18 years ago, 6-Jul-06, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: thoughts on gbc module reliability
|
| John Brost writes: > The idea of the spec was so that EVERY module could be put ANYWHERE > in the GBC and it would all work. In the past, this has been bent > so that modules that can't handle large batches are not placed > downstream of a batch- (...) (18 years ago, 10-Jul-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: thoughts on gbc module reliability
|
| (...) I was wondering the exact same thing. For BF06 planning purposes, I was tentatively planning on having "throughput zones" grouped according to balls per second. The faster modules would be grouped together just as the slower ones would be with (...) (18 years ago, 5-Jul-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
43 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
|
|
|
|
