 | | Re: pneumatic cylinder: why not hydraulic ?? —Kevin L. Clague
| | | | (...) Mark, I thought this one through, and I get it. I can see how it works. The solution works equally well as my solution. I don't think mine is any more or less complicated, just different. Less hoses, more T's and other technic parts than (...) (21 years ago, 9-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: pneumatic cylinder: why not hydraulic ?? —Mark Bellis
| | | | | (...) If you're short of space you can always double the reverser back on itself if you're using the new switches from 8455, in a similar way to your picture. That's why I like the new switches. A 2x2 switch module is probably easier to accomodate (...) (21 years ago, 9-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: pneumatic cylinder: why not hydraulic ?? —Kevin L. Clague
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 10-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic)
| | | | | | |
