 | | A better device for tank treads than the adder / subtractor —Roy Nelson
|
| | | I have a challange for those realy good at using differentials and gears: The adder / subtractor device is not the ideal device for use in tank treads. An ideal device would drive straight forward and back with both motors running. It would also be (...) (22 years ago, 16-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: A better device for tank treads than the adder / subtractor —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) Well, an adder/subtractor (a/s) *does* turn both treads evenly, but only with one motor driving. (...) An a/s does this when the drive motor is stopped and *the other* motor turns. (...) Controlled by the speed / direction of "turning" motor. (...) (22 years ago, 16-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A better device for tank treads than the adder / subtractor —Roy Nelson
|
| | | | | | Beleive me, I have exampined the Lugnet technic gears site and been to all the links. I've also done other searches both on tank creations and on RCX bases using treads. I've recently bought 4 packs of tread links to make a large crawler base for my (...) (22 years ago, 16-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: A better device for tank treads than the adder / subtractor —Dean Hystad
|
| | | | | (...) I think most of your problems would be solved by installing a clutch that links the left and right drive axles. It would be somewhat like the limited slip differential in the Ferrari brothers book. I perfer using the clutch gear instead of (...) (22 years ago, 16-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A better device for tank treads than the adder / subtractor —Roy Nelson
|
| | | | | | Thanks Dean for the great ideas and for posting links. Sounds like I should buy the Ferrari brothers book. I'll try the clutch idea first, it seems to be the solution I'm looking for and it is relatively simple, I do have a couple clutch gears but I (...) (22 years ago, 16-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A better device for tank treads than the adder / subtractor —Roy Nelson
|
| | | | | | Dean, the clutch idea works perfectly! I make a simple drive base like the one in your post using the clutch gear, added a couple of motors, tested it using a couple of dual-switch battery boxes, then tested it with an RCX and a remote. It drives (...) (22 years ago, 18-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: A better device for tank treads than the adder / subtractor —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | (...) Do you want both motors to contribute to the power when driving straight? I.e., is your worry that one motor is idle, and hence does not contribute to the motion? Is that why you want a different arrangement? As I see it, the main advantage (...) (22 years ago, 16-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A better device for tank treads than the adder / subtractor —Roy Nelson
|
| | | | Hello Fredrik, (...) I was going to use two mechanically-linked motors for the forward/back motion and a third motor for the turning motion in combonation with the adder subtractor. Fitting the second forward / reverse motor in was going to be a (...) (22 years ago, 16-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
