 | | Re: The Future of Trains —Ben Fleskes
|
| | | In lugnet.lego, Scott Wardlaw wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Has anyone adapted two NXT units to drive a train yet? One NXT as a controller talks bluetooth to the other NXT that drives the train. The NXT that drives the train could be either attached to (...) (17 years ago, 5-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The Future of Trains —Brian Davis
|
| | | | (...) Not exactly, that I know of, *yet*... The biggest problem in running a train would be hiding the NXT - I saw only one good solution to hiding the RCX in a boxcar, and the NXT is bigger, as are the motors. You could use an old motor (or even a (...) (17 years ago, 6-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Future of Trains —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) Oh, for shame, Brian. Letting me think up an option that you passed right over (and a really cool one at that). With the legacy converter cables, you could power the _track_ with an NXT. Hook the track up as if it was a motor, using the (...) (17 years ago, 6-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Future of Trains —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) I believe the options being discussed were in relation to the use of non-metal track, which is all that will be produced by LEGO in the foreseeable future. ROSCO (17 years ago, 6-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Future of Trains —Brian Davis
|
| | | | (...) As Ross mentioned, I was focused more on the "future" of trains, and if it's going to be done in LEGO, it looks like it will be done without conductive track. (...) Absolutely, but you could do better. Run a single loop off a single output, (...) (17 years ago, 6-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Future of Trains —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) Fair enough, but clearly the idea has sparked some interest, so I'm sure I'll see it get put into use at some point. (...) The ports may be able to pour out power, as you say, but I'd say it's equally well established that large trains with (...) (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Future of Trains —Brian Davis
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Future of Trains —David Laswell
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Future of Trains —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | | (...) Philo kindly corrected me, pointing out that the NXT outputs are regulated down to 1 A, so you couldn't run a dual-truck train all the way to stall. You could still get a good bit of the way there, however. Does anyone know what the peak (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Future of Trains —Philippe Hurbain
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Future of Trains —Brian Davis
|
| | | | (...) Ah, thank you - so running two stalled train motors would exceed the NXT output, but running one train motor up to a stall conditions should be fine. Out of curiosity, along with the output limitations on the NXT (1 A) and RCX (500 mA), does (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Future of Trains —Philippe Hurbain
|
| | | | (...) The linear regulator inside is a 1.5A version if I remember well, but I may be wrong. Cross posted to lugnet.trains trying to get train guru opinion... Philo (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Future of Trains —Bruce S. Chamberlain
|
| | | | | (...) At BayLTC we usually run four train motors on one loop using stock Controller with a 1.2 amp wall wart. Bruce (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Future of Trains —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) The Australian LEGO wall wart is marked 10V @ 7VA on the secondary. I don't recall all the stuff I learnt about the relationship between VA and W, but that seems to me to indicate about 0.7A. I believe this generally reduces as load increases, (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Future of Trains —Philippe Hurbain
|
| | | | (...) You are right, the main limitation probably comes from wall wart... You are essentially right for the 0.7A current (though it is not hard limit, rather a safety one). Philo (17 years ago, 9-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
