Subject:
|
Re: Ideas for new sets?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:41:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
895 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, David Arnon writes:
> In lugnet.technic, James Powell writes:
>
> > I've done a clutch, but it ate LOTS of power, and didn't work all that well.
>
> How come it eats a lot of power? Once it's locked, it's locked... right?
> After one part of the clutch stops spinning in relation to the other part it's
> just a (bulky) part of the drive axle, or did you use a more complex
> implementation with a lot gears and friction?
The problem was that it took 3-4 shafts (I forget, since I have since
dismantled it) to build one that worked (at least 3). The more separate shafts
you have, along with end thrusts, the more power drawn off the motor. It
worked, but was not really practical, IMO. I still have the semi-auto gearbox
that was built based on the ideas from that car (I used the idea of the clutch
without a spring to drive my gearbox into the 2nd gear...only 2 gears, and it
only shifted upwards, but pre mindstorms it was cool!)
I've done lots of totally inpractical designs...and some worked well.
James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Ideas for new sets?
|
| (...) How come it eats a lot of power? Once it's locked, it's locked... right? After one part of the clutch stops spinning in relation to the other part it's just a (bulky) part of the drive axle, or did you use a more complex implementation with a (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
