| |
In lugnet.lego, Scott Lyttle wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> > Steve Barile, USA – President of ILTCO (International LEGO Train Club
> > Organization) and one of the involved AFOLs says about the new train system:
> > “I am excited that the new universal Power Functions system can make track side
> > accessories viable and potentially automated and interactive.”
> >
> > He continues:
> >
> > “With the track being exclusively plastic the LEGO Power Functions Train system
> > has the potential for new and innovative track geometries and continued
> > innovation by both The LEGO Group and the AFOLs.”
Well, automated/interactive track-side accessories and innovative track
geometries are kind of pointless if I can't pull an actual train.
> Well, this is something of a blow to the LTC's doing shows. If the decision has
> been made to discontinue the line and work on a replacment, let us be proactive,
> and indicate the positives of the 9V system that should be worked into a new
> product. I'll start:
>
> Key needs for a new LEGO Train system:
For me, the ability to pull long (10+ cars) heavy trains for at least 6 hours at
a time with little to no attention to keeping them running is necessary. I can
do it now, I'd like to be able to continue to do so.
If new motors are going to be of the Power Functions variety, they need to be
small enough to fit inside a locomotive, and have connection points that don't
require Technic pins. I don't have any of the Power Functions bits, but a quick
browse this morning seems to indicate that everything has studless connections.
Keeping the number of batteries to a minimum would be nice as well. Batteries
are heavy, and need to be replaced, which is 90% of the reason that I don't use
my RCX, NXT, and R/C parts more often, and the #1 reason why I didn't purchase
an RC Cargo Train.
-Elroy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Elroy Davis wrote:
> If new motors are going to be of the Power Functions variety,
> they need to be small enough to fit inside a locomotive, and
> have connection points that don't require Technic pins.
The Medium PF motors is 4 studs wide by 6 studs long, and has a 6x2 plate
portion on the bottom (no studs on top). The other motor is called the "XL PF
Motor", which would hopefully imply that somebody within LEGO might have been
*thinking* about a "small" version as well, but if so I've not seen it yet.
Torque-wise, these are fairly powerful (and current-hungry) motors - the "XL"
variety is very similar to the NXT motors in terms of total power, but I'm not
sure I've seen a good measure on the medium one yet (it "feels strong"). The
"XL" motor is studless (and wider), while the PF receiver is 4x4 (and somewhat
tall) with a plate bottom and some studs on top. The battery box however is
currently studless, and big (although you could hide it in a boxcar I think).
> Batteries are heavy, and need to be replaced, which
> is 90% of the reason that I don't use my RCX, NXT,
> and R/C parts more often...
Agreed that weight is a problem. The NXT Li-ion pack is nice weight and
power-wise, but Li-ions (like any battery, but perhaps more so) do age.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Brian Davis wrote:
> Agreed that weight is a problem. The NXT Li-ion pack is nice weight and
> power-wise, but Li-ions (like any battery, but perhaps more so) do age.
More accurately, Li-Ion batteries, _unlike_ most other battery types, do age.
NiCads wear out through use, or through improper partial charging, and have a
moderate shelf discharge (depleting the charge while just sitting unused).
NiMHs wear out through use and have a high shelf discharge, but are not prone to
memory effects from partial charging. Newer NiMHs even get around the big shelf
discharge problem and claims are that they can hold up to 80% of a charge for a
full year while waiting to be put to use (this type will actually ship
pre-charged unlike the old ones). Li-Ion batteries, however, begin to corrode
internally from the moment of manufacture, and age, more than use, is the most
common cause of death. It is possible to wear them out through use, but you'd
have to use it a lot more regularly than most train systems would be likely to
be used. And considering that for a show you'd have to have several sets
available to keep up with the recharging process, they'd be even less likely to
wear out through use, but they do offer one of the best power-to-weight ratios
of any rechargable battery. They can also be killed by deep discharge, but
that's a mandatory safety feature because recharging them at that point could
result in the battery exploding.
Now, the only battery type that's clearly even better for use in a system like
this than Li-Ion is Lithium Ion Polymer, which has no need for a metal casing,
thus boosting the power-to-weight ratio. LiPo cells, however, max out at 4.23v,
which means two will run slightly less than 9v and three will run much higher.
Incidentally, this is the type of battery used for the NXT rechargable pack,
which would explain why people find it runs a bit underpowered compared to six
fresh 1.5v alkalines (which generally ship at slightly higher than 1.5v). I
don't know if LiPo batteries corrode in the same manner as Li-Ion, but I do know
that for long runs, a rechargable pack that's almost 9v can actually run better
than alkalines, which will slowly drop in voltage as their charge is depleted.
A few hours into a heavy draw discharge, the alkalines could end up running less
voltage than the LiPo/Li-Ion/NiMH/NiCad rechargables would, which is the reason
battery manufacturers market batteries other than standard alkalines for
high-draw devices like digital cameras.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Elroy Davis wrote:
> The Medium PF motors is 4 studs wide by 6 studs long, and has a 6x2 plate
> portion on the bottom (no studs on top). The other motor is called the "XL PF
> Motor", which would hopefully imply that somebody within LEGO might have been
> *thinking* about a "small" version as well, but if so I've not seen it yet.
And presumably a "large" one too...
Tim
|
|
|
