| |
In lugnet.technic, Mathew Clayson wrote:
> > As you can see this opens up a new world of possibilities...
>
> Has anyone tried the rc train remote on a power function
> reciver to see if it uses the single output pwm control
> signals? If not, hopefully the new RC train system will be
> compatible.
I'd be very interested in that experiment (using a Hobby train RC on the PW
Receiver) as well, but this does answer a number of questions for trains. For
instance, tunnels and large layout out of line-of-sight on the RC should now be
possible. You could run a large number of trains (more than four, or perhaps
eight) as long as you were OK with only commanding them in a small "control
zone". and the ability to set the pin power individually makes accessories
(lights, horns) easy to control... and with two independent motors, something
like an engine with a coupler/uncoupler or a working crane becomes a
possibility, all controlled by a single RC unit.
For robotics, this is even more interesting. No more busy Loops to keep
commanding the PF receiver to prevent it from timing out! I'm also wondering if
with a custom cable you could run three motors (set pin one to 0V (ground), and
use that as a common ground for three small motors, with hot leads on pins 2, 3,
& 4). You could certainly use it to control some LEDs. But it's the existence of
the PWM and no timeout abilities that have me most intrigued. Like Chris
mentioned in a different (with a 1.0 RCX controling these new modes), watching
the Bulldozer or other large Technic creations crawling around under PWM would
be a vast improvement.
Now, now to get all this in an NXT-G blocks :).
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Mathew Clayson wrote:
>
> > > As you can see this opens up a new world of possibilities...
> > Has anyone tried the rc train remote on a power function
> > reciver to see if it uses the single output pwm control
> > signals? If not, hopefully the new RC train system will be
> > compatible.
>
> I'd be very interested in that experiment (using a Hobby train RC on the PW
> Receiver)
I did this experiment a while ago, I just presumed everyone else has as
well.
The Short answer is NO. I could not get the new IR train to control the
PF receivers either at full on, or with PWM.
My IR train, and PF gear are 100% incompatible.
I've posted a YouTube Video showing both at the same time, not being
affected by either remote, as well, I ran the 2 transmitters at the same
time, and the respective device worked flawlessly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgnndCPK1Z8
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Chris Magno wrote:
> Brian Davis wrote:
> > I'd be very interested in that experiment (using a Hobby train RC on the PW
> > Receiver)
> The Short answer is NO. I could not get the new IR train to control the
> PF receivers either at full on, or with PWM.
>
> My IR train, and PF gear are 100% incompatible.
It looks like the PF IR receiver will be very useful for train control and other
continuous duty applications. But the only remote available is for intermittent
operation. So the only LEGO option to running in PWM/continuous duty is to use
a RCX or NXT brick, with a RCX remote or blue-tooth remote to control it.
And I'm assuming that a new PF IR train remote will only have a single continues
motor control, with perhaps a light, and "other" intermittent output.
How difficult would it be to implement the PF protocols in a handheld IR remote
using programmable chip like a PIC or PICAXE? A replacement pc board for the
current PF or train remote, or the Krana remote would be nice.
Would a programmable(not universal) "TV" remote be able to learn codes from a
RCX?
Mat Clayson
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Brian Davis wrote:
> (...) For
> instance, tunnels and large layout out of line-of-sight on the RC should now be
> possible. You could run a large number of trains (more than four, or perhaps
> eight) as long as you were OK with only commanding them in a small "control
> zone".
Here's my fantasy: implementing prototypical ATC (Automatic Train Control)
signalling with sensors (e.g. counting coupler magnets, as the best functional
equivalent to axle counters) at block boundaries to detect block occupancy, and
IR beacons at signal locations to stop trains if/when necessary. Control would
happen with NXTs. For simple operations (automatic stop and start at signals)
one could devise simple microcontroller-based beacons that broadcast a "go"
signal (a given speed step and direction) when given an input and a "stop"
(speed 0) signal otherwise.
I'll try this out some day if I manage to gather up enough LEGO. For the time
being, I'll keep dreaming... (My trains are the eighties grey-rail 12 V type...)
Followups set to .trains.
--
Juhana Siren
|
|
|
