Jump to content

Logic gate extender

Recommended Posts

All the recent talk about logic gate improvements made me wonder what would i add to the system to make it more useful. Then i got an idea. I could use an AND or OR gate that has 3 or 4 inputs instead of 2. It would help save space and make the system more readable. But what if i needed 5 or 8 or more. How to properly fit gates this large. Then i got it.

The extender is a 1x1 building with an automation input that you build next to a logic gate. It has an arrow(can be rotated) that needs to point at the gate or at another extender for it to work. When build by a gate it acts like another input port making a 3 input AND, OR or XOR gate. Then you can connect more, as many as you need. You have the freedom to shape it according to the space you got. 2 on the left, 3 on the right, maybe one up, just requires the extender to be next to the gate or other extenders and pointing on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/01/2019 at 4:57 PM, DesktopMan said:

For AND you can just connect wires together as a workaround. Would be useful for sure.

You mean for OR.

For AND you would need a NOT gate on each input, the wire their outputs into a single NOT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found the automation gates to become cluttered pretty quick - I like the idea of being able to buss things together if I'm using OR conditions and don't want to cross signal lines - it's unclear what takes precedent on a single signal line other than toggle switches. NOP diodes would be good for isolating signals from backtracking ( a double NOT arrangement achieves this as has been mentioned ).

So I imagine you would have a bus of single lines in with a test condition out. I kind of needed an ANY gate here...Probably could have used your complimentary gate terminal idea here @Sasza22. But I don't know how that would pan out for AND logic. If you were to distill the idea down to a single output terminal block that tested for OR, or AND, then the single terminal block helper design becomes universally biased towards OR tests unless there is some sort of detection of the test they're attached to. There would just be a series of single block terminals getting arranged to form the desired result based on their position. Imagine it in use below in the picture. If there was a row of terminals accepting signals from the battery bank ( 8 signals, so 8 terminals all in a row pointing towards a hypothertical single block sized OR test terminal ) - this works wonderfully, because any of them triggering on would turn the OR block on wihtout any bias towards test case -if the signals propagated to-the-side as you suggest - it wouldn't matter which side they were on. However, AND would have to differentiate - that is to say that a series of blocks is by logic, an OR conditional test, AND would need to associate left and right or up and down or spirals, and so on. AND would be a special case.

If you desired AND on a bus like setup, then you would need ( let me short hand this as the AND out terminal ( Aout ), And Test ( A ), and the test conditions T1...T5, such that all conditions T1...T5 must be true. If there was no reverse propagation of the test condition, then you would need T1AT2AT3AT4AT5Aout -> signal out. Because T1T2T3T4T5Aout illogically translates as an OR condition (o) without reverse propagation, it looks like and T1oT2oT3oT4oT5Aout doesn't behave as some might think. So that kind of side-attached propagating may have unintended side effects. You could stick an AND-aware terminal next to an OR block for a 3 way test condition, two AND with an OR, but it would need to be aware that it's an AND signal differentiating from it's adjacent block and not associated with the OR signal it's attached to. Considering the existing logic block sizes, we're limited in its effectiveness, or clarity for that matter. It doesn't seem to want to cooperate in mixed test cases.

AND terminal blocks could check their 4 directions - a 3 way pointing to a single And block out - getting a wire away from the block would be trick for a 4 way+ unless you built it directly on the terminal of the machine. I think these complicated scenarios are what lead to the footprints and layouts we have. That and identifying the logic by symbol in the overlay. 


This bit of OR logic on my battery bank was only needed once - I could deconstruct it after all the batteries were built and charged since they drain at the same rate, and fill at the same rate. Or at least I assume they do since they're all on the same line. I could then just run an automation line down to the generators. But I haven't bothered with it since I tend to forget things that a functioning as intended.

Honestly, I find myself mostly using automation to keep power consumption low on a given cluster of equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

  • Create New...