Subject:
|
Re: 8421 first impressions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Jul 2005 12:03:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4262 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Gyl Midroni wrote:
> 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
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 of the possible 3 states of the
pneumatic switch... on and off, not reverse.
-Matt
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
