Most compact binary adder

[embizone]

Think I made the most compact binary adder in Minecraft.

Dimensions: 8 long x 4 wide x 2 high = 64 blocks per bit

Pictures:

   

   

   

Update: 2 high tileable version that is 9 long x 4 wide x 2 high: http://imgur.com/a/xwg9J

[embizone]

How the fuck do pictures work...

[slugdude]

May I add that for a few tiny hours I held the record after I beat Embi's initial 80blocks/bit with a vertical 72block/bit. He quickly retorted D:

[Apocryphan]

Your supposed to riposte when they retort! ouchies!

[Apocryphan]

How the fuck do pictures work...

looks like one of those old polaroid pictures, next to the paper thing that bills arrive in. just put in the link address after a single click, beware the double clicks, they do almost nothing. cheers!

[GISED_Link]

Unfortunaltely, you cannot stack it verticaly... even if you let 1 block of space between the modules (risk of BUD...).

But I think we have something really interesting here.

[embizone]

Unfortunaltely, you cannot stack it verticaly... even if you let 1 block of space between the modules (risk of BUD...).

But I think we have something really interesting here.

It can be stacked vertically by making it two blocks longer.

[Nickster258]

This design is 9 long also. Right input requires direct power, therefore a simple redstone signal can't power the redstone dust behind the block with the lever on it, a repeater is required.

Also, with the BUDs, usable height of the system is 4 blocks.

[embizone]

This design is 9 long also. Right input requires direct power, therefore a simple redstone signal can't power the redstone dust behind the block with the lever on it, a repeater is required.

No it isn't... that's not how we evaluate dimensions. Either way you can just add a repeater and solve the problem...

Also, with the BUDs, usable height of the system is 4 blocks.

It wasn't made to be stacked vertically. If you want to, just make it two blocks longer and you can stack it 2 high.

[Nickster258]

I always under the impression that dimensions are usable dimensions (therefore the 9 long) with stacking considered (therefore the 4 tall).

[newomaster]

Two tall tileable adders this small are a beast. I don't normally redstone anymore, but this looks like a fun challenge. Embi, I shall give this a shot. I presume we don't care about speed?

[embizone]

I always under the impression that dimensions are usable dimensions (therefore the 9 long) with stacking considered (therefore the 4 tall).

That has never been the case... is my 4 wide CCA not 4 wide because you can't tile it? Of course not.

Two tall tileable adders this small are a beast. I don't normally redstone anymore, but this looks like a fun challenge. Embi, I shall give this a shot. I presume we don't care about speed?

I mentioned twice that this is trivial. Here's a design that is 2 high x 4 wide x 9 long: http://imgur.com/a/xwg9J

[GISED_Link]

For me, the last design is the best. I will look if we can stack it diffrently to have the first input up and the second below (each bit of the same byte at the same high).

About the dimension, it depends of the purpose. If the device is not design to be staked (e.w. an ALU), we don't have to give to stacking dimension.

[auztin3]

Oh boy, what have I missed. >_>