|
|
 | | 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)
| | | | | ARM Assembly Language Programming on NXT?
|
| Hi, I just stumbled on this newsgroup/website while searching for kits for teaching Assembly Language programming to undergraduate students in Comp. Science in an interesting (interactive) manner. I'm primarily interested in the ARM instruction set. (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.robotics.nxt.nxthacking)
| | | | | 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.robotics.nxt)
| | | | | Re: The Future of Trains
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
|
