sorry... being dumb again.

 

ok what would go wrong in this thing?

Ummm... fire?

 

Ive got no idea what im talking about...

There's your problem.

 

Nooo, sorry.

It's being hit on the head lessons in here.

 

Why does this thread make no sense to me?

 

Why does this thread make no sense to me?

Because the original content of the top post has been deleted. Too bad you missed it: it was a real pie-thrower.

 

Get Karnack


Max.

 

im sorry for being gutless and deleting my post... I am an idiot.

but i think im actually correct here...

a = (b+c) & !(d+e)

I can do this with 2 resistors. But the catch is i give the output to discover the input.
So I give a (a single), and then i get distribution of results, and makes sense to electricity.
Seems crazy, but if thats the case, you can actually work all the logic backwards distribution to distribution, either way it doesnt matter. The input must be separated and only ever expand from a single result, but you are allowed to reuse the tracks and resistors (requires rebalancing) whats going to the other side, making it not the most infeesable thing ever.
Ram is cycling the output to the input, and also a differential analyzer does the same thing, and i have to figure that out.

I wont show the tracks, but I think im right now. a=b+c&!d+e is a really simple circuit, where you just watch the expansion from the - point (which has to be the output (a) and you have to give this side.) where the power is presented, then distributed amongst the other side, the electricity sucking from a single point to many destinations. (discovering the input, which seems useless, but it shouldnt matter in the end.)

Transistorless logic.
i hope you like writing your logic backwards!!!!

 

In the original, you had a whole lotta batteries connected in series, some to (+) and some to (-), with (as best I could make out) an ENORMOUS bunch of jumper wires connected criss-cross/cattywumpus every which way for your "logic."

Personally, I thought that was a much more elegant design...

 

I actually know it works now.
you can go distribution to distribution, it doesnt have any flaws.

ok i have to go home cause everyone thinks im dumb.

 

im sorry for being gutless and deleting my post... I am an idiot.

but i think im actually correct here...

a = (b+c) & !(d+e)

I can do this with 2 resistors. But the catch is i give the output to discover the input.
So I give a (a single), and then i get distribution of results, and makes sense to electricity.
Seems crazy, but if thats the case, you can actually work all the logic backwards distribution to distribution, either way it doesnt matter. The input must be separated and only ever expand from a single result, but you are allowed to reuse the tracks and resistors (requires rebalancing) whats going to the other side, making it not the most infeesable thing ever.
Ram is cycling the output to the input, and also a differential analyzer does the same thing, and i have to figure that out.

I wont show the tracks, but I think im right now. a=b+c&!d+e is a really simple circuit, where you just watch the expansion from the - point (which has to be the output (a) and you have to give this side.) where the power is presented, then distributed amongst the other side, the electricity sucking from a single point to many destinations. (discovering the input, which seems useless, but it shouldnt matter in the end.)

Transistorless logic.
i hope you like writing your logic backwards!!!!

This strike me as being pure babble.

If you want to be taken serious, provide examples that can be reproduced by others.

 

I actually know it works now.
you can go distribution to distribution, it doesnt have any flaws.

ok i have to go home cause everyone thinks im dumb.

I don't know that anyone THINKS anything of the kind.

 

(white egyptian tech)

 

I think the answer is around 0:12

 

More babble.

But, I must admit, that video does answer at least a couple of important questions.

 

...But, I must admit, that video does answer at least a couple of important questions.

In fact, this thread now makes perfect sense.

 

It's kinda disturbing that someone in that state is actually playing around with electricity...

 

Well I think im right, I have to go proove it soon.

If you want to make an old school arcade machine, you have to put the output back into the input. (probably with a few intermediatry object based building steps) And thats essentially what makes ram.

And since crossing two wires(-) into a third(+) is an or, double the buss for inverse polarity, 1 bit of ram is pretty small this way, considering its just 2 nor gates feedbacking to each other.

If you guys think im an idiot, oh well, i think i might not bother posting here anymore.

 

If you guys think im an idiot, oh well, i think i might not bother posting here anymore.

Please don't stop. The entertainment is worth twice the price of admission!

 

If you guys think im an idiot, oh well, i think i might not bother posting here anymore.

Promise?