Subject:
|
Re: A brief reflexion on power sources
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:31:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1180 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Ludo Soete wrote:
> > > > (*) - 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.
Especially kids :-)
> > > 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.
Which could double as base for the signalpole (I think). Then its bulkyness
would be in disguise alongside the track :-)
> > > 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.
LOL! :-)
Yes, I intend to attend the show this year. Hope to meet you there!
> > 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.
Neat work!
I am just not comfortable with making my own modifications: I fear the motor
will cease to work once I start soldering things to it... it's a bit irrational,
LEGO being very sturdy and all that. I should take a workshop in train modelling
to gain confidence in this.
Out of curiosity, what do you consider the traction power gain is after these
alterations are put to use?
Pedro
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A brief reflexion on power sources
|
| Some thoughts from someone who has a little experience: Decoders: Should be built into the motor, non removable. Cost for commercial decoders is ~19 usd for a "series 3" decoder with 1/2 function outputs. That is retail. Should be able to make them (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jul-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: A brief reflexion on power sources
|
| <SNIP> (...) DCC allows you a smooth speedcontrol, especially on low speed, but you need a good motor (if possible 5 pole rotor). If you have a higher motorspeed, with you gear down (more than the actual motors - at 9V they go out the curves !) then (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jul-03, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A brief reflexion on power sources
|
| (...) Just connect the motor wires on the motor output from a DCC decoder. As simple as that. (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jul-03, to lugnet.trains)
|
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
|
|
|
|
