 | | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) I think it is supposed to deliver more torque than the standard motor. Anyone care to verify that for me? (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) Indeed... more torque, but lower efficiency: (URL) (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) Hmm - not a lot more torque, but a huge amoutn of additional consumption, and fairly highly reduced efficiency. The 5292 appears to definately be the American SUV of the Lego motor range. I take it that for heavier torque - it is still better (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) Thanks for the info. Still, I don't see the need to use this motor in the 8421. It only uses one motor, and it is not a very demanding application. They could have used the minimotor easily. It would have been smaller and less expensive, and (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
Yes. When I built the crane, I had the same problem. This can be fixed however. All you have to do is attach the extra tubes. (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
On Fri, July 1, 2005 10:17 am, Gyl said: (...) I replaced the single pair of pneumatic cylinders with two pair of pneumatic cylinders. It's a very easy change (except for securing the two cylinders end-to-end) That allows the boom to hold much more (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) As far as I understand it, having had a chance to chat with the set designer in Billund during the inside tour, the "buggy" motor is cheaper than the smaller one you are referring to. The buggy motor uses a conventional iron cored armature (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) Hi Vineet. In what way did you atached the extra tubes (there were a few cm of back and blue tubing left over after I cut the size I needed - I assume you are referring to those). Thanks, Gyl (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) I will make an assumption (not always a good idea) and say the 2 unused cylinder retract ports should be hooked together with 2 legs of a Tee, then the third leg of the Tee attaced to the unused port on the pneumatic switch. Every other (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) well... you could just only switch the pneumatic switch to the centre stop. I have done this and the air gently flows out and the boom slowly lowers (not too slowly mind you, but it doesn't slam down). I think this is designed to only use two (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) Thanks, I did do that and it works so so, but not great (I stil have to very carefully partially open the switch so it leaks slowly) but certainly better than before. What's wierd is that there is actually an extra tee in the set, although not (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) Hi Gyl, one thing you could try is adding hoses to the unused cylinder outlets, and pushing lever handle partially in the end of the hose. I've found by adjusting how far the lever is up the hose you can partially block the hose, which would (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
