Subject:
|
Re: Site updated
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:31:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2054 times
|
| |
|
|
Jennifer Clark <jen@vulture.dmem.strath.ac.uk> writes:
> Do you have a link to this test, it sounds pretty interesting?
Sorry, I think it was just something in my mail correspondence with
him. He used to have the motors connected to an amp meter, to check
for stalling and so on. He compared the power consumption of each
motor type under various loads, and concluded that the old style motor
consumed significantly more. I think it used a bit more than twice as
much amps. Hence, it makes sense, or so he reasoned, to conclude that
the old style motor was a bit more than twice as powerful.
However, in most applications you need to gear down the old style
motor. Gearing it down means that a lot of friction is applied, and
it loses this extra power in comparison with the new style motor. So
if you need an slowly spinning axle, the new motor does the gear
reduction more efficiently.
Fredrik
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Site updated
|
| (...) I didn't carefully read the rest of this thread, so the following may be redundant. I've been collecting links to info about Technic motors. I too have been pondering the age-old question, "which motor is better?". Anyway, here are a bunch of (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Site updated
|
| (...) I think this is the ideal ratio, probably similar to the 1:5 gearing I used by using an 8 tooth onto 40 tooth gear which coincidentally fits into the same space as your pulleys. I found that using gears instead of pulleys made the compressor (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
12 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
|
|
|
|
