 | | Re: SSClagorpion —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | (...) Thinking about this more....... One of the reasons that makes this slow is the inherent piston friction which combined with pressure defines the rate of expansion and contraction. So the rate is not very negotiable. But using rate * time = (...) (20 years ago, 15-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: SSClagorpion —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote: <snip> (...) So using #1 axle connectors as the linkage, we get a reduced piston expansion, down to 86% of maximum. Using technic axle joiner perpendicular, we can reduce the range to 70% of maximum. I can't (...) (20 years ago, 15-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: SSClagorpion —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | (...) Yes, I'd rather see a solid, strong, slow robot over a fast robot that succeeds in tearing itself apart. :) (...) That's the throw of the switches, right? Not the throw of the cylinders on the legs. So the legs will "move" at the same speed, (...) (20 years ago, 15-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: SSClagorpion —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | (...) Well Steve, it might and it might not. Given 18 bits of state (two bits/pistons per leg plus two extra), we could have a total of 256K possible combinations of leg positions. We only want about about 10 of them. If we start out the pistons in (...) (20 years ago, 16-Apr-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
