Subject:
|
Re: A brief reflexion on power sources
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Sat, 26 Jul 2003 19:18:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1053 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Pedro Silva wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Ludo Soete wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Pedro Silva wrote:
> > > In lugnet.trains, Mark Riley wrote:
> > > > "Pedro Silva" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Plus, under this line of thinking, the introduction of DCC by LEGO would
> > > > > become a much natural step for the consumer - "I now have too many trains
> > > > > to control, so now I must get myself a new control-system"... ;-)
> > > >
> > > > What would be really nice is if Lego built train motors that
> > > > accepted the plug-in style DCC decoders. The motors would
> > > > ship with a dummy plug that merely routed power from the track
> > > > to the motor and headlight connector. When you want to
> > > > upgrade to DCC, all you do is remove the plug and drop in the
> > > > decoder of your choice.
> > >
> > > So, if I understand you correctly, the "new" motor would consist of two
> > > parts: -Part A, motor and headlight connector (already attached to wheels?)
> > > -Interchangable parts B and C, one being that dummy plug you mention
> > > (default in every purchased motor?) and the other being the decoder (*).
> > >
> > > That sounds nice. It even would allow for a "part D", where instead of a
> > > dummy plug we'd have a connector to a batterybox. Come to think of it...
> > > the only mod to the current outside design would be something like "cutting
> > > out" a part of the box (two plates thick, 2x4 in surface?) and have that
> > > portion transformed in brick A, B or C.
> > >
> > > This of course raises the possibility of other customizable options, one of
> > > which being triple-wheeled motors (again),
> >
> > Note that, with the actual train motor design, it's impossible to DRIVE on 6
> > wheels, only on 4 wheels and 2 free running wheels.
>
> Oh, I know that. I meant with the same design {in size and outer shape}. The
> interior of the motor would have to suffer adaptations, but hopefully none of
> these would mean the new design would require the modification of the older
> trains to fit it.
>
> > another one being "non-engine" motors
> > > to perform acessory actions, DCC controlled (a maintenance crane,
> > > perhaps?)...
> >
> > Note that any 9V motor (exept train motor) can be used with a DCC decoder
> > without modification!
>
> It can?
> I lack knowledge of electronics to understand how a comprehensive DCC system
> works, I tossed this only as an example. If it works already... :-)
Just connect the motor wires on the motor output from a DCC decoder. As simple
as that.
>
> > > (*) - I take it that LEGO would not accept a non-LEGO decoder?
> >
> > Why not? Why should they re-invent the wheel? Any development of a new
> > system cost money, so the obvious way is to chose an existing system at a
> > REASONABLE PRICE. Why should a decoder with sound implementation cost over
> > 150 Euro? If you want to be successfull, you'll need low prices for it and
> > reliability. Most of the people doesnt want to use DCC (NMRA or MAERKLIN or
> > whatever system) because of the cost. And if you want it completely
> > automated, you need feedback to the processer (or PC) and in this case you
> > end up with a bunch of wires, and then you lose the ease of transportation
> > to different events. Hooking up all those wires ....
>
> Precisely to simplify the whole matter. LEGO electrics are usually very
> "userfriendly" - any DCC system by LEGO would have that appeal if wirings and
> controls could be externally simplified {by providing readymade accessories}
> that did not require extensive modification. In a world of mass marketing,
> that is a crucial move IMHO.
I agree with that, but it needs a verry good thinking befor acting. I didn't buy
a RCX because of the cost and its limited I/O (input / output). If i use a Basic
Stamp (cost abouth 62.5 Euro ~= US Dollar), plus some extra hardware i can
connect 16 I/O, witch is less expensive than a RCX, but not everyone is capable
of building something like that too, i know.
> > A view of wires ONLY to operate the points with a PC.
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=276456
> >
> > Kind of overview on the station. Note the wires on the station building,
> > where i use white LED's for internal lighting.
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=276965
> >
> > Here you see the wires and pcb's used to operate a signal post at the left
> > side of the track.
> >
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=276964
>
> This is one example of what I mean. LEGO could provide the readymade signal,
> with a simplified "plug" for all DCC wires at once - the non-specialist
> costumer would be less intimidated by that, don't you think? In a way, the
> adoption of LEGO's own DCC material might be a good way to attract more and
> more folks to DCC.
Don't forget that some people are building there railways as they are in there
home country, so signalpoles are everywhere different. Asume a standard
signalpole, then it needs his own decoder and eventual some relays to switch the
power for the track. This can endup with a 4*6*1 brick or even a 4*8*1 brick.
>
> > DCC is nice, but there are also some witdraws. I have large problems with
> > single motor trains at low speed, especialy on points. Most of the time they
> > stop because of an open cirquit (left track to left wheel to left wheel
> > spring bar to DCC connector to decoder to DCC connector to right wheel
> > spring bar to right wheel to right track). Thats why i use double motors on
> > my trains, witch results in a higher price (2 motors instead of 1). Also the
> > motor on itself is a verry simple thing. It can't stack energy at low speed,
> > because there's no flywheel atached on the motor shaft, something model
> > trains have and also react better at low speed. There's still a lot of work
> > to do if you want to have a single motor train (shunter) running reliable on
> > a track at low speed. As long as you only want to operate the trains with
> > DCC, then you don't have a lot of wires, but once you are used to it, you
> > want more, and then start the 'trouble' with the wires.
>
> Thank you for this information. Not having access to real-life examples of
> train modelling at this level, I'm hoping that can learn as much as possible
> about it at Zwolle later this year.
Are you going to Zwolle? I hope to go. But i dont take my DCC with me.
> About the need for double engines - could it be the case that the
> introduction of that new engine box with the same shape but internal
> modification could mean as well the upgrading of the motor device itself?
> It's been 13 years since the last introduction of new trains material; isn't
> it time to start thinking "new" again?
My personal opinion is : If you want to go DIGITAL, you need a new motor
concept. The smaller model train engines (like a shunter) don't have a flywheel,
but the motor rotor act as a flywheel.They have a relative high R.P.M and this
is geared down to a speed close to the real live model, this result also in a
higher torque (example: the new 9v technic motor
http://img.lugnet.com/ld/71427c01.gif )
Also the better digital controlled motors (see MAERKLIN) have a rotor with 5
poles instead of 3, this result in a smoother rotation of the motor and allows
slow speed with a minimum of trouble.
So i see it like this :
1) a 5 pole rotor motor for smooth operation at low speed
2) higher R.P.M for the motor and gear it down (as in the old time) for higher
torque.
3) a 8 pole connector where the following 4 wires are connected: Left wheel
contact,left motor contact, right motor contact, right wheel contact. By
bridging the first two and last two you make the connection as the actual
motors. Remove the bridge and place a DCC decoder on it. see:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=180360
I used following connectors (AMP)
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=180366
and connected the upper pin with the lower pin, so creating a double contact for
reliability.
4) place the DCC decoder inside the locomotive body (not the motorblock) so that
you have easy acces to the extra outputs for locomotive front & rear light,horn,
wagon licht, ...
5) heavier motorblock for better grip on the track.
Ludo
>
>
> Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A brief reflexion on power sources
|
| (...) Especially kids :-) (...) Which could double as base for the signalpole (I think). Then its bulkyness would be in disguise alongside the track :-) (...) LOL! :-) Yes, I intend to attend the show this year. Hope to meet you there! (...) Neat (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jul-03, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A brief reflexion on power sources
|
| (...) Oh, I know that. I meant with the same design in size and outer shape. The interior of the motor would have to suffer adaptations, but hopefully none of these would mean the new design would require the modification of the older trains to fit (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jul-03, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
13 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
|
|
|
|
