| |
Thanks for the sacrifice!
From what I can see, it looks like there's room in this motor for an
axle *hole* rather than an axle shaft. What a shame...
Philippe Hurbain wrote:
> I received two new 9V mini-motors from S@H, that was of the new variety
> described by Mark Riley (http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/?n=19204).
>
|
|
| |
Indeed, I see no technical or dimensions problems that would prevent using a
hole. But perhaps that was not possible in 71427 - and compatibility rules !!!
Philo
In lugnet.technic, Brian B. Alano writes:
> Thanks for the sacrifice!
A small one, it works fine now!
>
> From what I can see, it looks like there's room in this motor for an
> axle *hole* rather than an axle shaft. What a shame...
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.technic, Brian B. Alano writes:
> Thanks for the sacrifice!
>
> From what I can see, it looks like there's room in this motor for an
> axle *hole* rather than an axle shaft. What a shame...
It should be fairly easy to saw off the axle and glue a bush to the shortened
axle, thus getting an axlehole instead of the protruding pin.
The mainproblems would be to
- Get the bound strong
- Get the bush centered on the axle
Perhpas some other LEGO part is a better choice since the bushes tend to split,
or one could just improve the bush design with coating of carbon fibers and
glue.
Main question; Would the center gear/axle thingy stay on place it it does not
protrude the chassis? Perhaps a modified motor would need a "storing axle" at
all times and careful handling when installing a longer axle?
Who's up for some surgery?
I don't own any of the new motors and if I did I would probably not risk it
this way in any case :-)
Best regards,
/Tobbe
http://www.lotek.nu
(remove SPAM when e-mailing)
|
|
| |
"Philippe Hurbain" <philohome@free.fr> writes:
>
> Indeed, I see no technical or dimensions problems that would prevent using a
> hole. But perhaps that was not possible in 71427 - and compatibility rules !!!
I think it should have been possible there as well
(I have a disassembled 71427 that was broken).
As for compatibility, if you put an axle 2 into the hole
it should be pretty much equivalent, maybe not as strong mechanically.
Another question is why they make a new version.
From the specs it seems to be slightly worse,
so is it cheaper to manufacture or more reliable?
Any ideas?
Jürgen
--
Jürgen Stuber <stuber@loria.fr>
http://www.loria.fr/~stuber/
I åa ä e ö å i öa ä e å.
|
|
| |
"Tobbe Arnesson" <StPnAtM@lotek.nu> writes:
>
> In lugnet.technic, Brian B. Alano writes:
> >
> > From what I can see, it looks like there's room in this motor for an
> > axle *hole* rather than an axle shaft. What a shame...
>
> It should be fairly easy to saw off the axle and glue a bush to the shortened
> axle, thus getting an axlehole instead of the protruding pin.
>
> The mainproblems would be to
> - Get the bound strong
Notoriously difficult
> - Get the bush centered on the axle
>
> Perhpas some other LEGO part is a better choice since the bushes tend to split,
> or one could just improve the bush design with coating of carbon fibers and
> glue.
I'd rather use a hacksaw on a technic angle or axle connector.
> Main question; Would the center gear/axle thingy stay on place it it does not
> protrude the chassis?
Probably not so easily.
> Who's up for some surgery?
I'd rather propose the following operation
(totally theoretic, use at your own risk):
Saw of the protruding axle and use a very fine drill
to make an axle whole in the original plastic bit.
> I don't own any of the new motors and if I did I would probably not risk it
> this way in any case :-)
I don't think there is a difference between old and new motors
in this regard.
I think I should put a Dremel on my wishlist one day :-)
Jürgen
--
Jürgen Stuber <stuber@loria.fr>
http://www.loria.fr/~stuber/
I åa ä e ö å i öa ä e å.
|
|
|
