 | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Chio Siong Soh wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Nathan Bell wrote:
> > In lugnet.robotics, Chio Siong Soh wrote:
> > > Bad tidings! I'm experiencing a rather high failure rate with the new type 9V
> > > geared motor (#43362). This motor has been discussed before
> > > (http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/?n=19204&t=i&v=a)
> >
> > I had the same problem with one of mine. Using them in a fast RC car might do
> > this if it gets slammed into something. I will inform Nathanael Kuipers of the
> > problem since he works at TLC and can tell the proper person.
>
> Thanks!
> No, these motors were only used for FLL type challenges, not in fast RC cars.
>
> I can submit the bad motors for *CSI* and 'autopsy' if need be.
>
> C S Soh
I sent Nathanael Kuipers an email regarding the motors and asked him to forward
it to the proper person.
Do you think it is excessive torque, excessive use, or just a bad piece design
that causes this problem?
Nathan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Nathan Bell wrote:
> Do you think it is excessive torque, excessive use, or just a bad piece design
> that causes this problem?
I suspect it's bad design. Perhaps the way the brushes rub on the PCB as pointed
out by Philo (http://www.philohome.com/motors/motor.htm). "This higher friction
explains why 43362 stops faster when you give the shaft a twirl, and why its
no-load current is higher (9mA vs. 3.5mA)".
Its performance is degraded compared to the earlier motor (#71427). The only
advantage seems to be its lighter weight.
In previous posts misgivings have been expresed about this new motor which I am
now re-voicing:
http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/?n=19204
http://news.lugnet.com/technic/?n=8601
C S Soh
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Chio Siong Soh wrote:
>
> Its performance is degraded compared to the earlier motor (#71427). The only
> advantage seems to be its lighter weight.
I'm guessing it may also be cheaper / easier to manufacture.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Chio Siong Soh wrote:
| |
Its performance is degraded compared to the earlier motor (#71427). The only
advantage seems to be its lighter weight.
|
I’m guessing it may also be cheaper / easier to manufacture.
ROSCO
|
I burned out two of these motors in a high-torque situation (my Great Ball
Contraption module prototype) which I posted about
here and
here.
I don’t like them for their friction, their louder sound, and that they “feel”
cheaper than the originals (weight, mostly).
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Jordan Bradford wrote:
| |
I burned out two of these motors in a high-torque situation (my Great Ball
Contraption module prototype) which I posted about
here and
here.
|
What a relief to know I’m not jinxed after all.
| |
I don’t like them for their friction, their louder sound, and that they
“feel” cheaper than the originals (weight, mostly).
|
And their high mortality rate.
I hope the proper person at TLC is looking into it.
C S Soh
| | | | | | |
