Did I create a "true randomizer"?

This may or may not be random, but these are prototypes, so don't expect them to be good.

The reason I called it a "true" randomizer is because, as the output increases, usual TPT randomizers' next output chances become more Gaussian (with the conductor as the center) instead of truly random (in my opinion). The conductor (usually mercury) sometimes does not move well enough to be truly random, and this becomes more and more evident with larger randomizers.

0 means nothing, 1 means conductor}

{0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0}

Chances of an output being conducted next

{2 4 9 18 36 18 9 4}

Chances of a TRUE randomizer's output being conducted next:

{13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13} 

I am using my knowledge of fluid mechanics in TPT, especially utilizing the "leaping wave" effect, in which liquid "holes" in the surface tend to move a lot faster than normal liquid can in a single frame. Instead of using conductors, I am using insulators, as the liquid hole acts as the "conductor".

The leaping wave also expands the randomize selection; using the effect, a randomizer can cover all outputs; but the problem is that mercury randomizers move at 1 frame per second; therefore the selection range is only within 8 pixels (at fastest; selection range may vary, meaning that faster randomizers are actually worse in this case)

Assuming that each output is spaced out at 2 pixels, in the worse scenario, this is the effect of a limited selection range:

{0 0 0 0 0 0 1}

{0 0 3 6 13 26 52}

Outputs outside the selection range are automatically 0, because the mercury conductor does not have enough time to be able to reach the proper position in order to successfully conduct the output.

@boxmein (View Post)

 I clap, for you have given way to a randomizer save on FP.

EDIT: Added 6-output and 7-output version! Noted that 8-output version might be impossible without revised architecture.