 | | Re: The Future of Trains
|
| (...) Some precisions here: - NXT stall current is 2A but only for a short time: internal thermal protection will trip at a current much lower than that (exact value depends on temperature and overload duration). A practical value is about 1A - NXT (...) (19 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
| | | | | Re: The Future of Trains
|
| (...) So it sounds like a single loop should be no problem under most situations, since I'm not sure I've heard of anyone running three motors on a single train (there's the same issue with how much amperage a power regulator can push). (...) It (...) (19 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
| | | | | Re: The Future of Trains
|
| (...) Stalled, the train motor pulls 950 mA, while the stall current of the NXT motor is a whopping 2 Amps. So a single NXT motor output should easily handle a twin-engine train loaded to the point where it stalls the engine(s)... there's the matter (...) (19 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
| | | | | Re: The Future of Trains
|
| Again I may be missing something, and perhaps the future of LEGO's solution, as yet unknown looms as a possible roadblock--but why for example could not the various train clubs come up with a standard piece--get together--gurantee a certain number (...) (19 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: The Future of Trains
|
| (...) Hi Ben, I do not see so much need for a full system: the biggest need is for straight track and possibly new curve radius. The aftermarket will offer used 9V switches for the next 20 years. Some people will switch to the new battery trains. (...) (19 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
|
