 | | Re: Compact dozer design
|
| I built one of these myself - a while ago. The LDraw plans are at (URL) although I am yet to take some photos. My version could definately be made smaller. I intend to apply the principle to two modified servos in a non-Lego bot, although I will (...) (20 years ago, 14-Apr-05, to lugnet.technic)
| | | | | Re: Compact dozer design
|
| (...) What exactly is the advantage of using the adder-subtracter design versus the motor-for-each-track design? Let me guess; does the adder-subtractor design produce slow changes in direction while the motor-for-each-track design only makes quick (...) (20 years ago, 14-Apr-05, to lugnet.technic)
| | | | | Re: Compact dozer design
|
| (...) Nope - it means if you have two motors which are not perfectly matched (which they so very rarely are), you can still get a straight line. If you build a motor-per-track buggy, and drive it accross a long corridor, then without course (...) (20 years ago, 14-Apr-05, to lugnet.technic)
| | | | | Re: Compact dozer design
|
| (...) That does sound like an advantage. However if I'm not mistaken, it also means less torque because technically only one motor is driving the wheels. The other one is just for steering. ?? Nathan (20 years ago, 14-Apr-05, to lugnet.technic)
| | | | | Re: Compact dozer design
|
| (...) Well sort of. The application of torque is reversed - when steering a "1 motor per track" model, you only get 1 motor driving, when going straight you get 2. This is simply reversed in the adder/subtractor system. It's a small price to pay for (...) (20 years ago, 15-Apr-05, to lugnet.technic)
| |
