Subject:
|
Re: Liebherr R996 Mining Excavator
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:08:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1308 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Simon Bennett writes:
> This is what it's all about, ever more impressive MOCs from ever more
> ambitious AFOLs!
>
> Very impressed with the use you've made of the newer elements, as John said
> in another thread these are very useful but not all of us are up to speed on
> how to use them effectively. From this and your articulated tractor you
> certainly seem to have made a great start.
Thanks!
The greatest thing about most of these new parts is the smaller cross
section dimensions, when comparing traditional Technic beams to studless
beams (or full-width lift arms):
http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=32316
Having pieces that are equal in height and width allows for construction
techniques (which I think are better and more compact) not possible with
traditional studded beams. It does take some practice to get the hang of it,
and to stop thinking "traditionally" (i.e. à la Expert Builder- the stuff I
grew up with) when building.
The expanded range of liftarms (1/2 width ones) has also been great. We now
have everything from 1x2 to 1x7. Some have only smooth holes, and some have
axle and smooth holes, but they're all extremely useful.
Also, the ability to change connection directions 90° is invaluable:
http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=32184
http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=32291
Anyway, I digress.
> It sucks when you finish something and find you can't get it to work 'cos
> it's so heavy doesn't it ;-). I think part of what we need is super-torquey
> motors and metal axles but then maybe the Meccano guys have won the argument?
Nope, never! Lego is still better ;-)
> In all I think it's a great MOC but maybe, the R996 being such a bulky beast
> in the first place, you could have predicted the power problems.
Hey, I'm a structural engineer, not a mechanical engineer ;-)
> I'm certainly going to consider this before I start my next project after the
> frustrations of my Aviation Tractor.
It's a little difficult to plan when you have no way of estimating weight
accurately. Also, it's difficult to design your power trains using the new
geared 9V motors without having a lot of experience.
We could come up with a guide to help future builders. If we take all the
variables involved, and compared them with performance, perhaps we could
establish an equation to help estimate power needs. We could also come up with
an equation to estimate weight.
Weight can easily be esimated by using "densities" of previous models. So,
take the volume of the envelope of the model and divide it by the weight.
You could establish a table of all the different models with descriptions, and
also provide an average density of all the models.
The estimation of power needs is a little more complicated. Perhaps we take
the data and use Buckingham's Pi theory to create a few emperical equations.
I'm not sure if this would be the proper method, but perhaps someone (and
someone with mech. eng. experience in dealing with power transmission) could
help out.
I'm really digressing here. The point is that we should gather data from
everyone's models and use it in the future.
> GGrrr, I wish I could have afforded to come over for BF so I could have
> discussed this stuff with some of you guys personally.
Perhaps there will be an opportunity someday :-)
TJ
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Liebherr R996 Mining Excavator
|
| (...) ambitious AFOLs! Very impressed with the use you've made of the newer elements, as John said in another thread these are very useful but not all of us are up to speed on how to use them effectively. From this and your articulated tractor you (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
