St. wrote:
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:46ea44f8@news.povray.org...
>> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:46ea0375$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>> Goesontoshowthateverythingworthdoing,andalotthat'snothavebeendoneontheIntern
>>> et,andwehavehitrockbottom.Nonetheless,ifsufficientlybored,Icouldget~200per5s
>>> ecs,Isuppose.Luckily,I'mnotATM.
>>     Heh, well, I reckon I could do about 5000 @ 20 seconds using one hand. 
>> :)
> 
>       Ok,ok,youdidn'tbite. ;)
> 
>      
But,I*could*doitonehandedwithmys00perd00perhammeractionpendantmotorthingyrunning@20,000RPM!!

> :op
> 
>          Heh...  :)
> 

Taking into account the mass of the space bar itself and the inertia it 
gets when hit along with the return force of the spring and the tendency 
for the actual space 'button' mass to cause it to have a different 
inertia than the bar itself therefore to lag behind the space bar on the 
'up' stroke you run a good risk of either having the contact that 
registers a space bar press never separating - giving the appearance on 
one long continuous press of the space bar, or causing the space bar to 
disintegrate.

Me, I prefer to remove the debounce circuitry/routines from the 
keyboard.  Then each press can be worth thousands in themselves.  After 
all it is the number of times that the contact in the space bar button 
connects that ultimately counts..... - but then I run into the problem 
that the computer is probably not fast enough to catch them all.....

<sigh>



heh... :)


Tom

Post a reply to this message