 | | Re: pneumatic cylinder: why not hydraulic ??
|
|
(...) A XOR gate has two inputs, one with 1 switch and one with 4 switches. The 4-switch one is a standard reverser and the 1-switch one has the air supply on the middle and the two outer ports go to the input ports of the reverser (the middles of (...) (20 years ago, 10-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Whining about studless parts - Was: Pneumatics book?
|
|
(...) David, I'm not working on this issue because it is a good or bad idea, I'm on personal mission. I agree that that over time the friction would get reduced by wear. In fact though this wear will be a good thing. I have tried using gearboxes and (...) (20 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Whining about studless parts - Was: Pneumatics book?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure how good an idea that is. Not the incorporation of BIONICLE parts thing, but the specific use of the socket joints. They're designed to work with friction, and I'd think that extended use of a motor would tend to wear them out (...) (20 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Pneumatics book?
|
|
(...) I too regret the fact that studded designs are hard to find. There are plenty of situations where studded bricks are the way to go. Kevin (20 years ago, 10-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.books)
|
| |
| | Whining about studless parts - Was: Pneumatics book?
|
|
(...) Can you really blame this on studless parts, given that many others *have* made worthwhile designs? Perhaps your prejudice against studless parts is preventing you from creating a worthwhile design. I have made a few worthwhile (IMHO) designs (...) (20 years ago, 10-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Whining about studless parts: was Pneumatics book?
|
|
(...) (20 years ago, 10-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.books)
|
| |
| | Re: pneumatic cylinder: why not hydraulic ??
|
|
(...) Cool, I look forward to it. I ended up adding two 1x4's per leg on my hexapod. They fit nicely. It looks very burly with all those switches though. All the structure and pneumatic parts are there, except hoses and T's. Hooking up all the hoses (...) (20 years ago, 10-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Pneumatics book?
|
|
(...) Has anyone noticed all of the rich variety of parts available to the modern stud-free system that have no comparable equivalent in the old stud-dependant system? Take, for instance, these parts: (URL) triple liftarm> (URL) 1x2 flat liftarm> (...) (20 years ago, 10-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.books, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Pneumatics book?
|
|
(...) Sorry for replying to my own post but I've just had another thought. Has anyone else noticed all the ancillary junk needed to build a studless creation? Compare it with the basic studded version, all you have is beams, of varying lengths, 1xn (...) (20 years ago, 10-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.books)
|
| |
| | Re: Pneumatics book?
|
|
(...) I've long held the opinion that it is a lot harder to make rigid structures using studless beams. I have yet to build anything of worth entirely from studless, despite multiple attempts. Steve (20 years ago, 10-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.books)
|
