| |
In lugnet.trains, Paul Foster wrote:
> set # 8866
>
> http://shop.lego.com/ByTheme/Leaf.aspx?cn=87&d=328
>
>
> Paul
I just noticed the new PF Lithium Polymer Battery Box output is 7.4V. Am I
missing something here? Did they drop it from 9V since most people only run
their train controllers at the 4th or 5th 'hash mark' equating to about 7.4V
maximum? Is this going to pose an issue with longer/heavier trains?
Just thinking...
-Dave
ToT-LUG
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Dave Sterling wrote:
> > Paul
>
> I just noticed the new PF Lithium Polymer Battery Box output is 7.4V. Am I
> missing something here? Did they drop it from 9V since most people only run
> their train controllers at the 4th or 5th 'hash mark' equating to about 7.4V
> maximum? Is this going to pose an issue with longer/heavier trains?
>
> Just thinking...
They made it 7.4V because all lithium polymer battery cells are 3.6 - 3.8V.
Since this is a pack with 2 cells in series, you get 7.4V. A 3 cell pack is
typically 11.2V. As you can see, keeping the old 9V system was not really an
option if using Lithium power. LEGO could have used Nickel Metal Hydride
(NiMH), but the batteries would have weighed a lot more and had a lot less
capacity. 1150 mAh is pretty substantial when you consider that a car battery
may only be 20x this.
Regarding the motors, I would assume that the new motors were designed to have
adequate power at 7.4V. There's no reason they couldn't have the same power at
7.4V as the old motors did at 9V, they would simply draw more current.
Eric Albrecht
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Eric Albrecht wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Dave Sterling wrote:
> > > Paul
> >
> > I just noticed the new PF Lithium Polymer Battery Box output is 7.4V. Am I
> > missing something here? Did they drop it from 9V since most people only run
> > their train controllers at the 4th or 5th 'hash mark' equating to about 7.4V
> > maximum? Is this going to pose an issue with longer/heavier trains?
> >
> > Just thinking...
>
>
> They made it 7.4V because all lithium polymer battery cells are 3.6 - 3.8V.
> Since this is a pack with 2 cells in series, you get 7.4V. A 3 cell pack is
> typically 11.2V. As you can see, keeping the old 9V system was not really an
> option if using Lithium power. LEGO could have used Nickel Metal Hydride
> (NiMH), but the batteries would have weighed a lot more and had a lot less
> capacity. 1150 mAh is pretty substantial when you consider that a car battery
> may only be 20x this.
>
> Regarding the motors, I would assume that the new motors were designed to have
> adequate power at 7.4V. There's no reason they couldn't have the same power at
> 7.4V as the old motors did at 9V, they would simply draw more current.
>
> Eric Albrecht
Eric:
Thanks for the awesome explanation! I learned new stuff today...does that mean
I can go home now? :-) I'm excited to see how the new motor and battery box
pull. I think the new PF trains could add a lot of functionality to existing 9V
layouts. I'm planning to incorporate PF into my layout for BW for sure.
Thanks again for the electrical information. I'm an electrical doofus. ;-)
Best Regards,
Dave
ToT-LUG
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Dave Sterling wrote:
| |
Thanks again for the electrical information. I’m an electrical doofus. ;-)
|
So am I. However, I’m also into R/C aircraft so I have a long history with
batteries and motors and could talk your ear off about them. I could also
explain why the battery pack costs so much!
| |
Thanks for the awesome explanation! I learned new stuff today...does that
mean I can go home now? :-)
|
Yes, I give you permission to go home. You can tell your boss I said so.
| |
I’m excited to see how the new motor and battery box
pull. I think the new PF trains could add a lot of functionality to existing
9V layouts. I’m planning to incorporate PF into my layout for BW for sure.
|
I got to try out the new controller, motor, and battery along with the Emerald
Night train at Brickfest. I didn’t notice any lack of power. The train was
running on a Power Functions XL motor which oozes with power. Knowing that the
same motor can also operate on 9-12V, you could always use your own battery pack
if you really wanted more torque. But I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
Consider that, even at only 7V, a PF XL motor has over 14 N-cm of torque. Comparatively, the old 9V train motor
had only 1 N-cm of torque at 9V. The PF motor also runs much slower so needs to
be geared differently to get the same speed, but factoring all this in you end
up with about the same pulling power at the same speed.
Eric Albrecht
Technicopedia
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Dave Sterling wrote:
> I just noticed the new PF Lithium Polymer Battery Box output is 7.4V. Am I
> missing something here? Did they drop it from 9V since most people only run
> their train controllers at the 4th or 5th 'hash mark' equating to about 7.4V
> maximum? Is this going to pose an issue with longer/heavier trains?
>
> Just thinking...
>
> -Dave
> ToT-LUG
Hi Dave,
I was lucky to receive an Emerald train as kind of beta tester.
It got motorized with a XL-PF-motor as intended in the building instruction, but
I have used an old 9V battery box (equipped with 6 pc. of 1.2V NiMH rechargable
batteries). This offers 6x1.2V = 7.2V in total and so it will be comparable to
the new Lithium Polymer battery box.
With this equipment the Emerald is slower than 9V trains, but it is obviously
the most powerful train since set 112 (which had just unbelievable pulling
power!).
I am convinced that this drive will be much stronger than the clutching power of
the magnet couplings. So with different gearing you will be able to make up
faster (but less powerful) trains.
If you are interested in the speed of the train, please check out this short
video of my train running at full speed with 7.4V:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp4lnQvVYqs
With Kind Regards,
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Dave Sterling wrote:
> > I just noticed the new PF Lithium Polymer Battery Box output is 7.4V. Am I
> > missing something here? Did they drop it from 9V since most people only run
> > their train controllers at the 4th or 5th 'hash mark' equating to about 7.4V
> > maximum? Is this going to pose an issue with longer/heavier trains?
> >
> > Just thinking...
> >
> > -Dave
> > ToT-LUG
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I was lucky to receive an Emerald train as kind of beta tester.
> It got motorized with a XL-PF-motor as intended in the building instruction, but
> I have used an old 9V battery box (equipped with 6 pc. of 1.2V NiMH rechargable
> batteries). This offers 6x1.2V = 7.2V in total and so it will be comparable to
> the new Lithium Polymer battery box.
>
> With this equipment the Emerald is slower than 9V trains, but it is obviously
> the most powerful train since set 112 (which had just unbelievable pulling
> power!).
>
> I am convinced that this drive will be much stronger than the clutching power of
> the magnet couplings. So with different gearing you will be able to make up
> faster (but less powerful) trains.
>
> If you are interested in the speed of the train, please check out this short
> video of my train running at full speed with 7.4V:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp4lnQvVYqs
>
> With Kind Regards,
>
> Ben
Ben:
Wow. Thanks for the video link! It looks pretty cool running there, and the
speed seems to be reasonable. I don't necessarily run my trains very fast, I
just usually have 5-7 pieces of rolling stock hooked on back of the freight
trains. I wanted to make sure I could still pull my trains with minimal effort.
Sounds like that answer is yes. :-)
One other question though, the Emerald Night sounds incredibly noisy compared to
previous 9V trains. As I have never built a steam train, maybe this is normal.
But it just seems like there is a lot of 'gear whine' when running. Did you
notice this as well or is it just an artifact of the acoustics of the room you
shot the video in? Instead of motorizing the Emerald night, does it make more
sense to built it without the gear drive and motorize a coach with a 9V or PF
train motor (effectively pushing the Emerald Night?
Thanks again for the info. This is why I love LUGNET so much! You guys rock.
:-)
Best Regards,
Dave
ToT-LUG
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Dave Sterling wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Dave Sterling wrote:
Hi Dave,
yes the Emerald is not really a quiet train and from my perception it is slighly
noisier than old 9V equipment.
The sound is definitely different: 9V has a more metallic sound: quite harsh.
The PF motor + gearing generates quite a different noise type. I think we will
quite soon getting used to this....
Part of the noise is of course caused by the connecting rods and another bit of
sound is due to the fact, that a 90° curve has been included in flex track type
(not the final version, but early beta stuff). The many gaps cause extra noise
of course.
Maybe you ma compare these videos to learn more about the difference of 9V and
PF sounds.
PF:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyqAR2BgLB8
9V:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W71hpDO-b4E
(And from my impression these videos do not catch the reality very well. The
PF-motor and it's gearing is overpresented in the video).
Leg Godt!
Ben
|
|
| |
Hi Ben,
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
I have used an old 9V battery box...
|
How did you use the old 9V battery box together with the PF motor and IR
receiver? Did you create a modified 9V->PF cable? I couldn’t find a way to use
the old battery boxes with PF using the normal 8886 PF Extension Cable.
Regards,
Ildefonso.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ildefonso Junior Zanette wrote:
| |
Hi Ben,
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
I have used an old 9V battery box...
|
How did you use the old 9V battery box together with the PF motor and IR
receiver? Did you create a modified 9V->PF cable? I couldn’t find a way to
use the old battery boxes with PF using the normal 8886 PF Extension Cable.
|
Hi Ildefonso,
yes I had to do some modification work on my IR-receiver.
I used a 9V plug from a adapter cable 9V-to-PF (you can open these without
destroying anything).
(pictures from: http://www.philohome.com/pf/pf.htm)
Then I removed the plug from the receiver and made a shortcut between cables
“9V” + “C2” and “c1” + “0V”
I fixed the 9V plug from the adapter cable to the receiver. I used the receivers
old plug to use the adapter cable in future as a extension cable.
Please be careful! The nine volt battery box may NOT be used in both directions.
You would put 9V on the 0V cable annd vice versa => this can detroy the PF
equipment.
You may only press the left button of your battery box (if you hold it in front
of you and have the plug connection away from your body). You may just test this
for a second: the stuff seems to be quite robust against reversed currancy....
(good luck!)
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Hi Ildefonso,
yes I had to do some modification work on my IR-receiver.
...
Ben
|
Hi Ben,
Thanks a lot for the tips and advice. I’ll certainly be doing this with one of
my extension wires. There are some projects that I would like to use the battery
box 4760:
and this cable will be handy on these MOCs as well!
Regards,
Ildefonso.
|
|
|
