 | | More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
Hello I'm trying to make a robot go as fast as possible, but it seems that the power of the engines are stopping me. I own one RIS kit and nothing more. Can i add some more batteries or something? -- Magnus Fasting E-mail: pleboy@online.no Icq: (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
Tricky , Tricky, here's the dilly, 8 to 24 tooth makes the fastest, but low output power, try to find the proper combo so your motors don't work to hard, add a worm gear to hold off the back spin, then try some more gears to get the speed you need, (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
(...) Assuming the robot is being used self-powered (versus with AC adapter), would there be benefit in modifying the RCX to run off a single 9 volt versus all those AA's? That would save quite a bit of weight. :) Doing this wouldn't be "Lego pure" (...) (23 years ago, 13-Mar-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
(...) This would cause the weight to go down for acceleration, but then when you turned off the motors, you would coast a shorter distance due to your less inertia. It would depend if you were building a robot for pure acceleration, or not. It would (...) (23 years ago, 13-Mar-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
(...) In general terms, worm gears are less efficient than standard gears as they have more inherent friction - essentially, driving a worm gear is like pushing something up an inclined slope. How much this translates into a lego system I have no (...) (23 years ago, 13-Mar-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
I think the best solution is to use NO gears. Without the additional friction of the gears and axles through beams, the motors are surprisingly powerful. I have had very good experience with direct drive robots. I suggest that you experiment with (...) (23 years ago, 13-Mar-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
(...) The original supplicant wanted to use rotation sensors - so I guess direct drive is out. I guess you can use an axle extender and use the sensor as a bearing - but you won't get a very precise position reading if you can only sense position (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
(...) if there's enough space around you can add the rotation sensor on an auxiliary axle with an 8t gear, and an 24t gear on the direct drive axle. best, yaco\ (23 years ago, 14-Mar-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
(...) It could be that I am misinterpreting it, but the original post seemed to ask the question "How do you get more power out of the Lego motors?" It was not about gearing or rotation sensors at all. These things are important but the implication (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
I used to regularly drive LEGO 9V motors at about 12V with no observed damage. I assume the increased power/torque would be proportional to the voltage, i.e. 33% more voltage gets you 33% more power/torque. However, I don't know how to get more than (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
(...) Have you tried building a transmission? Matthias Jetleb VA3-MWJ (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
(...) The day I got my RCX2.0, I took it apart and confirmed my suspicion that the motor drivers used in the 1.0 are similar to a Melexis MLX10204. A similar chip is used in the 1.0, but the Melexis chip is used in the 2.0. I then fired off an (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
(...) Have you actually tried this? I've taken both my RCX's (1.0 & 2.0) apart, but, while there is a 5V regulator for the MCU, I couldn't see any regulator for the motor outputs. This doesn't mean it isn't there, just that I couldn't find it if it (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
Yes, I tried it. I don't know how the internals of the RCX work; all I know is I put 12V in, and got 9V out. -- Mark Haye, mhaye(at)tivoli(dot)com "Matthias Jetleb" <jetleb@netcom.ca> wrote in message news:3ab97dfc.301576...net.com... (...) (23 years ago, 23-Mar-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
Mark Haye <mhaye(@)tivoli(.)com> wrote in message news:GA9p5z.JwG@lugnet.com... (...) 33% more voltage should also give you 33% more current, so power (i.e. voltage times current) should increase by 77%. But higher currents give higher (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: More juice out of the standard motors.
|
|
Yes, but they used more prats then the RIS contains :/ They used two battery boxes to gain 18V using this coupling: (URL) had a motorcontrolled polarity switch to walk around the voltage limits in the RCX. /Tobbe (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
