 | | Re: A better full adder! —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | (...) Very impressive! Two pistons! (...) Well, I can eliminate one switch on the Cin/A/NOT A piston. You don't need to throw the switches the full range do you? You can get the release from A/NOT A, and have to have it come from the local switches, (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: A better full adder! —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | | (...) Thanks. Here's how it works: Consider only the right piston for a moment. The output of this subsystem (which will be driving the left piston) is simply (A&~C)|(~A&C), which is an XOR operator, or a half-adder. So what drives the left piston (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A better full adder! —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | | | (...) Oops... after rereading what I wrote, I see made a typo there, and I can see how it could be very, very confusing. What I meant to say was that the bottommost switch on the left piston will already be down to receive A & _C_, which is high and (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jun-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: A better full adder! —Brian H. Nielsen
|
| | | | (...) While working with Mark's full adder design, the XOR gate in particular, I found something which may be useful in some pneumatic constructions. In Mark's fulladder (URL) just the XOR gate (the 3 switches on the piston on the right). There are (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jul-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A better full adder! —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | (...) Egad! Another madman joins the fray! ;) (...) Am I misunderstanding you or are you suggesting that the pressure created by the expansion of one piston would actually be sufficient to compress *TWO* others? Unless the pistons had no loads at (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jul-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A better full adder! —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) I think the idea here is that they are mutually exclusive - only one will be expanded at any one time, so when a different one is expanded, it effectively only has to retract one other - the one that was previously expanded. ROSCO (21 years ago, 1-Jul-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A better full adder! —Brian H. Nielsen
|
| | | | (...) I've alway found low level circuit design interesting. Using pneumatics and LEGO pieces to create them seems like a good challenge. I have some ideas that might turn into workable designs. (...) I've tested it, and it does work. I don't know (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jul-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A better full adder! —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | (...) I wasn't trying to imply that you hadn't actually tried it... I was only suggesting that I didn't think that pistons being driven solely by the compression of air created by the expanding of other pistons would be strong enough to compress (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jul-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A better full adder! —Brian H. Nielsen
|
| | | | (...) No offense was taken. My appologies if I gave that impression. I just completed some load testing on the compressing piston. It easily switched 2 switches, was just barely able to switch 3 switches, and clearly couldn't do 4 switches. Since (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jul-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A better full adder! —Brian H. Nielsen
|
| | | | (...) As a follow-up, over time the air pressure in the closed compression loop drops due to slow leakages, so it requires periodic recharging. One way is to remove and reseat the tubing, but a beter way is to add another T and a hand pump to the (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jul-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
