ZanthraSW

That question was mostly in response to this comment. I should have quoted it directly in the previous post.

I am honored to have my construction named. Thanks! It may be worth noting that this was my original design using a reservoir in this regard and may help in understanding the way it works: This will not overfill even with the input connected. In steady state, the output of the reservoir will never have a gap, and thus the system will never overfill. When the aquatuner turns on, it will start blocking the bypass bridge. If that happens without the overflow piping, then the packet will stall at the entrance of the bridge. With the overflow pipe it can merge into the output at the T junction. Since the reservoir has extra space, stalling the output to make room for the overflow packet does not stall the input, and the loop continues functioning. When the aquatuner turns off, a gap may be created on the aquatuner output since the packets don't reach the bypass bridge in time to fill it. When this happens an extra packet is used from the reservoir, but since it has extra liquid from the last time the aquatuner turned on, the input does not stall the output. My examination of the problem showed that the full reservoir was unnecessary as it either held 10kg or 20kg, never more, and the same buffer could be constructed on the pipe layer with two bridges, bringing the total to four. I would be very interested to know how or why a system like the quad bridge fails during save/load and if so does using a full reservoir instead of a dual bridge buffer solve the problem.

There is a very shy aquatuner cowering behind the tooltips. Also you can do the same thing as with gas vents with the liquid vents to allow more pressure in the room by putting it in a low pressure tile of hydrogen to avoid over pressure.

There are 2 AND gates for each state change. The first identifies whether the inputs are correct for a state change, and the second makes sure that the state to the right is only enabled if the state to the left is enabled. It can only go to state 1 if state 4 is active.

If you use a reservoir pipe section along with an overflow alternate path with a normal pipe junction (so packets alternate going in) you can keep all packets moving. Here is an example where no packets remain still for more than 1 second. In steady operation, the bridge on the left is not used. Only when the extra packet is inserted by the aquatuner will that allow the packet to bypass. It gets shuffled into the loop, and the bridges on the right store the extra packet..

Are these the states and the cases upon which you want to switch. If so it is a state diagram and not a truth table. If it is the state diagram, then the interpretation would be: In state 1: Output high - Wait for both inputs to be high - Goto state 2 In state 2: Output low - Wait for both inputs to go low - Goto state 3 In state 3: Output low - Wait for input 1 to be low, and input 2 to be high - Goto state 4 In state 4: Output low - Wait for both inputs to be low - Goto state 1 If so you could use a chain of memory toggles which toggle the next one and reset the current one when the inputs match the transition (and it's the current state is active), then pull the output off the start state. In the example here, meant to be easy to understand rather than minimal, I also use a reset line with the buffer gates set to 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1 seconds to force a reset to the start in case a mistake puts it in a position where more than one, or no state toggle is active.

The point is that removing all AND and OR gates and making all your logic with NOT and wired OR will not always simplify the problem, especially when an input is used in both it’s normal and NOTed form in the same circuit. You can save at least the two NOT gates used to buffer the input by using an OR gate instead of wired OR. In the XOR example it saves not just the input buffer, but De Morgan’s lets the inputs be inverted to remove the output inverter after the OR as well. Going from: !(!!A + !B) + !(!A + !!B) to (!A * B) + (A * !B) For a reduction of 8 NOT gates to 2 NOT gates and 2 AND gates. I argue that while the OPs statement of “In ONI, any basic logic circuit can be reduced to something smaller by using negative logic.” may be commonly applicable, you can quickly run into problems where it is not the case, especially when an input you want to OR with something is used elsewhere also.

Sorry, there must have been some miscommunication somewhere on which circuit I was refering to or where the inputs were. This is the circuit I was refering to as being the working XOR gate from NOT and wired OR gates at the four input states 00, 01, 10, and 11.

If interpreting any connected wires as an OR gate, then your XOR gate would be: !(!A + !(!A + !B)) + !(!B + !(!A + !B)) Which has the same truth table as an XOR, same as the one I proposed: !(!!A + !B) + !(!A + !!B) I don't see why it would be incorrect. To avoid the one tick pulse when both inputs go from low to high at the same time, delay AND gates can be put on the cross connections from the inputs after the single not before the wired OR.

Sorry, I was not aware.

That's De Morgan's law again. !(AB) = !A + !B, but that still can't always simplify things. Here is an example of a XOR gate built with NOTs. The furthest to the left has a problem where both NOT gates from the inputs should go GREEN, but due to the cross connection turning them green would turn them RED again, the game can't properly calculate it and depicts them all RED. Using buffers to solve that problem works, but it's much more efficient to use the AND gate. Of course in any real circuit one should just use the XOR gate available, but there are other circuits where this sort of input overwriting can be a problem.

True, as long as you don't need the inputs individually for something else. Once you wire two values together, wherever you sample them you will always have the OR of those values. If you need one without the other at any point you will either have to buffer the value, or use the normal gates.

That's De Morgan's Laws, and can definitely help simplify things. Although for more complex circuits Truth Tables and Karnaugh Maps are probably the way to go to get minimum sized logic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnaugh_map

At least now you can put 2 of the 1kW transformers in paralell to get 2kW protection.

Certainly undocumented, not sure I would go so far as to say not official. In game ethanol has no documented uses. Although it does say in it's description that it can be used as a fuel. Perhaps they need to add an extra mode to the expresso machine that takes a small amount of ethanol for a temporary stress reduction (and a temporary stress increase the next morning). I think something that could really improve the ethanol cycle is to make it so that famer's touch affects tree branch growth. That makes a good use for fertilizer so that you can make the ethanol cycle water positive as an alternative to large slickster ranches. It's a lightweight change that has big implications for the value, and does not make it better for free. Plus dupes already fertilize the trees even if they are fully grown, it just does not affect the branches.