Subject:
|
Re: YAPNQ
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:02:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1103 times
|
| |
|
|
Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> 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.
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 of a cycle. My
switch count is 4+4+5. I cannot *BELIEVE* how convoluted the mess is
that shows how these switches are connected though. It took me an insane
amount of time just to figure out how to draw it all so that the
switches would be balanced (nearly as possible) across all the pistons
and still do it in the smallest number of switches I could.
>> Mark
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: YAPNQ
|
| (...) Er.. re-reading that, I see that sounds kinda dumb. It sounds like I meant that you have to manually reset them. I actually only meant that the pistons can be reset by applying air pressure on the other side of all three pistons. >> Mark (21 years ago, 20-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: YAPNQ
|
| (...) 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.... (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
