 | | Re: Migrating from IR tower/spirit.ocx to USB
|
|
Why not just keep using your old serial tower? -a "Dave Hallowell" <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> wrote in message news:NEBBLJAEMKLDMPB...ems.com... (...) (23 years ago, 23-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | bushing (bush) question
|
|
(I never thought about this until just now, I know these things as "bushings" and they are listed as "bush", which only now seems appropriate when they are activly in service, as opposed to sitting in a bin. If I had an www.oed.com account I would (...) (23 years ago, 23-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: bushing (bush) question
|
|
(...) I don't have any hard evidence, but I've always found that the type 2's (later version) grip a little more consistantly. The type 1's in my collection are either *really* tight or just moderately tight. Type 2's seem to be consistantly (...) (23 years ago, 23-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: bushing (bush) question
|
|
(...) They're pretty much the same. But I think Type 1 bushings often have a tighter fit than Type 2 bushings. It really depends on each specific part and its particular tolerances. I have some Type 1's that are extrememly tight fitting, and others (...) (23 years ago, 23-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: bushing (bush) question
|
|
(...) Based on my experience, out of over 200 Type 1's that I own, only a few have ever split in half. Having recently acquired a used 8880 supercar (which uses Type 2's), I now have over 20 split Type 2's, and that number keeps increasing with use. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | RE: bushing (bush) question
|
|
(...) Type 2 is newer, probably because the Type 1's were too hard to take off the axle. I've noticed that most of my loose Type 1's have a hairline fracture on one side. (...) All the parts with teeth were essentially replaced with functional (...) (23 years ago, 24-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: bushing (bush) question
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Bram Lambrecht writes: [...] (...) I think this is correct. I once built the "Aliens" type walker, (URL) . I used Type 2 originally and found that after the thing would walk a few meters one of the legs would pop off. Didn't have (...) (23 years ago, 24-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: bushing (bush) question
|
|
(...) Note also that Type 1 & 2 are also slightly wider than a smooth 1/2 bush - about half the thickness of a tooth wider. Two of them butted together (tooth side) is exactly the same width as 2 smooths (or a single full bush). And as TJ says, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: bushing (bush) question
|
|
(...) No, I've found that all the half bushes share the same width: 1/2 stud. (...) Again, I've found that two old style half bushes together (with the tooth side facing each other), are _narrower_ than a full bush (or two smooth bushes). They are (...) (23 years ago, 25-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: bushing (bush) question
|
|
(...) looking. (...) axle). (...) with (...) Note also that Type 1 & 2 are also slightly wider than a smooth 1/2 bush - about half the thickness of a tooth wider. Two of them butted together (tooth side) is exactly the same width as 2 smooths (or a (...) (23 years ago, 25-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: bushing (bush) question
|
|
(...) No, I've found that all the half bushes share the same width: 1/2 stud. (...) Again, I've found that two old style half bushes together (with the tooth side facing each other), are _narrower_ than a full bush (or two smooth bushes). They are (...) (23 years ago, 25-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
