|
|
 | | Re: The Future of Trains
|
| (...) 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: ARM Assembly Language Programming on NXT?
|
| Do a Google on "LEJOS OSEK". I believe this is a solution that has taken the base "OS" from the NXJ JAVA byte code interpreter as the basis for programming the NXT using GCC C++. I assume if you can use the GCC C/C++ tools with the NXT then you (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.robotics.nxt.nxthacking)
| | | | | Re: The Future of Trains
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
|
