|
Larry Simpson wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Peter Abrahamson wrote:
>
> Why can't a 9v engine unit be attached to the Emerald Knight engine when being
> built like the traditional ones? Does it have to do with the drive system on
> the pistons and wheels?
Well, I haven't opened mine yet, so this isn't for sure, but a 9V motor
really doesn't fit with the wheel configuration on the engine without
severe changes. It could be put on the tender, although that has 8
wheels, so you'd have to change the wheel configuration there - contrast
for example with 7750, where the tender is built around the motor - or
make the tender perhaps longer for it to look sensible.
|
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Peter Naulls wrote:
> Larry Simpson wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Peter Abrahamson wrote:
>
> >
> > Why can't a 9v engine unit be attached to the Emerald Knight engine when being
> > built like the traditional ones? Does it have to do with the drive system on
> > the pistons and wheels?
>
>
> Well, I haven't opened mine yet, so this isn't for sure, but a 9V motor
> really doesn't fit with the wheel configuration on the engine without
> severe changes. It could be put on the tender, although that has 8
> wheels, so you'd have to change the wheel configuration there - contrast
> for example with 7750, where the tender is built around the motor - or
> make the tender perhaps longer for it to look sensible.
Basically, a 9V train motor doesn't fit this engine very well, in terms of both
the motor's size and look.
I've thought about using a 9V motor, too, and personally I'd use it as one of
the trucks on a passenger car, as close to the engine as possible so that it's
still pulling the majority of the train's weight -- assuming you add more cars.
The 9V motor can't really replace anything on the engine because it won't fit
where the pilot and trailing wheels are, and it obviously can't be used in place
of the drive wheels because then the pistons won't work. Using the motor as the
base of the tender is a possibility, but you'll have to modify the tender.
|
|
|
Jordan Bradford wrote:
> I've thought about using a 9V motor, too, and personally I'd use it as one of
> the trucks on a passenger car, as close to the engine as possible so that it's
> still pulling the majority of the train's weight -- assuming you add more cars.
> The 9V motor can't really replace anything on the engine because it won't fit
> where the pilot and trailing wheels are, and it obviously can't be used in place
> of the drive wheels because then the pistons won't work. Using the motor as the
> base of the tender is a possibility, but you'll have to modify the tender.
On another note, will the new PF stuff work with my "old" RC train
controller? As noted previously, the one I ordered is not expected
until April - or I could shell out on eBay/Bricklink. Also, has anyone
tried to use an "IR blaster" or similar with any of the RC stuff?
|
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Peter Naulls wrote:
> On another note, will the new PF stuff work with my "old" RC train
> controller?
Nope. They use completely different IR protocols, unfortunately.
http://news.lugnet.com/technic/?n=16192
> As noted previously, the one I ordered is not expected
> until April - or I could shell out on eBay/Bricklink.
I'm waiting for my remote, too. :(
If you have an RCX or NXT, you can program them to send PF-compatible signals to
the PF receiver. The RCX needs different firmware to do this, and the NXT needs
an IRLink sensor such as the one from HiTechnic. See the rest of that thread I
linked above.
|
|
|