Subject:
|
Re: 8421 first impressions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 15:17:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4512 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, danny staple <orionrobots@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/1/05, Philippe Hurbain <philohome@free.fr> wrote:
> > > I think it is supposed to deliver more torque than the standard motor.
> >
> > Indeed... more torque, but lower efficiency:
> > http://philohome.com/motors/motorcomp.htm
> >
> > Philo
>
> 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 to either use two motors
> together, or just gear down a lot?
>
> Dannny
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 less noisy.
I will likely take out this motor and use a micromotor instead.
However, what bugs me the most is the pneumatic element of the set. Has anyone
built this and found the same problem as me - the whole boom comes crashing down
when you release the pneumatic switch! What's the most elegant way to implement
a gentle hydraulic easing down of the boom instead?
Gyl
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
