|
|
 | | Re: LEGO design patterns... you know, there's a book in that, I'm sure of it!
|
| Hello, let me reply to a number of related postings at once here ... (...) Not being exactly the GUI expert you may have envisioned, I think the GUI would need to offer sensible categories and potentially more powerful mechanisms to really find the (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic)
| | | | | Re: A better full adder!
|
| (...) Ah... it took me a while to figure out what you were doing, but I see now... (reviewing your pics) If your inputs to the XOR were A and B, you use A to drive the piston, and require the presence of both B and NOT B to make the piston move. I (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: A better full adder!
|
| (...) AND takes 1 piston + 1 switch using your design. XOR takes 1 piston + 2 switches using my design. OR takes 1 piston + 2 switches using my design. But AND and XOR can be done using the same piston, so 1 piston + 3 switches gets you a half (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: A better full adder!
|
| (...) Finally I can compete again! ;^) I can do a half adder with 1 piston and seven switches, plus you get dual polarity pressure. Three switches for AND and four for XOR. This says that I can do single pressure logic line with one piston and three (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: A better full adder!
|
| (...) It sure is. Thanks. Using the same pattern (setting up specific switches "backwards"), I can do a half adder with two pistons and 4 switches (2 switches on each piston). Again, no need for inter-piston bracing, just the requirement that a (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: A better full adder!
|
| (...) Kevin (21 years ago, 26-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | what parts are left over after building 8448 gull wing?
|
| Trying to sort out all the parts that should be in a 8448 supercar set. I have built the gull wing version. What parts should I have left over, if any, that are needed to build any of the other versions? (21 years ago, 26-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic)
| | | | | Re: Mechanical Memory for Computing
|
| (...) Actually a byte is whatever you define it to be - a nibble is generally half a byte, and a word is generally 2 bytes. I haven't seen a machine using 4 bit bytes, but I've seen 8, 16, 32 and 64. And I'm sure there are other weird ones floating (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics, lugnet.build, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Mechanical Memory for Computing
|
| Very cool design. (...) Question: Why are you calling 4 bits a byte? 4 bits is a nibble, while 8 bits would be a byte. Obviously the design can be extended to 8 bits like you mentioned. They you would have your byte. Michael (21 years ago, 26-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics, lugnet.build)
| | | | | Re: A better full adder!
|
| Hey, that's great! Now it's nice and symmetrical with 3 columns of 4 switches... something satisfying about that. :-) Now, all I need is 4 more switches and I can build it! Cheers, Mark (R) (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
|
