To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.technicOpen lugnet.technic in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Technic / 10770
10769  |  10771
Subject: 
Re: YAPNQ
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.technic
Date: 
Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:06:18 GMT
Viewed: 
2888 times
  
In lugnet.technic, Mark Tarrabain wrote:
> Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > Mark,
> >   I am impressed with this concept, and wanted to see if I could eliminate the
> > rubber bands and get back to a differential pair (standard LEGO pneumatic)
> > setup.
> > 
> >   To create the complement (in terms of pressure or not) you can use two
> > switches that are linked like one side of my mux.  The switch handles are linked
> > *and* the two ports are linked.
> > 
> > Drive piston with C1 (contraction) and X1 (expansion).  Also run C1 into the
> > switch closest to the piston.  Drive C2 (contraction) into the other switche's
> > (the other half of the two switch mux) input port.
> > 
> > What you get out of the 2 switch mux is
> > 
> > C C P
> > C X P
> > X C P
> > X X R
> > 
> > where P is pressure and R is release.
> > 
> > I'm at work, but as soon as I get home I'll upload a picture of it.
> > 
> > Bottom line is...... two input AND gate with one piston, three switches, one T
> > and no rubber bands.
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure OR is doable using one piston, three switches and a T no bands.
> > 
> > XOR requires one piston, four switches, two Ts and no band.
> > 
> > NOTs are free, just by reversing connections at the piston inputs.
> > 
> > Thanks for showing me your single piston AND gate.  It was very inspirational.
> > 
> > I think I can now implement a full three bit binary adder in 3 pistons
> > (presuming that a piston can flip 7 switches) with no bands.  This is down from
> > 15 in the last one I actually built, and down from 7 using my rubber band based
> > AND/XOR.
> > 
> > Kevin
> 
> Er... You can add 2 three bit numbers using that few components?!?!?
> 
> (heavy sigh)  Well... that totally blows anything away I think I could
> have come up with.  My one-bit full adder (A+B+Carry in) alone used
> three pistons and 13 switches.
> 
> I'm reluctant to admit it, but it appears that I have to.  I'm
> hopelessly outclassed here.  (chanting) I'm not worthy... I'm not
> worthy...  :)

Uhhhh..... You are worthy.  I can create a full adder (A+B+Carry in) in three
pistons, 17 switches (7+7+3) and no rubber bands.  You win on switch count.  I
win on band count.  Rereading my post I can see how I led you astray.

Mark is worthy.... Mark is worthy.... Mark is worthy....

> 
> > > Mark

Kevin



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: YAPNQ
 
(...) Egad! (insert pause for realization) And I'm back in the game! Well, rubber bands *are* cheaper'n switches, after all. :) My adder design doesn't *strictly* require rubber bands, but would require that all three pistons be "reset" at the end (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: YAPNQ
 
(...) Er... You can add 2 three bit numbers using that few components?!?!? (heavy sigh) Well... that totally blows anything away I think I could have come up with. My one-bit full adder (A+B+Carry in) alone used three pistons and 13 switches. I'm (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic)

12 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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR