Subject:
|
Re: Automated shunter/switcher
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:33:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5323 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Matija Puzar wrote:
| |
On 2007-03-21, Brian Davis brdavis@iusb.edu wrote:
| |
The one I always liked the best (can’t find it right now... ah, here it is I
think) was Gronk:
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/moc/?n=2683
|
So, inspired by Gronk’s idea of having the whole mechanisme in the engine,
I finally managed to create something that seems to be working, while still
not standing in way of the original design (except for the lowest part at
the rear, but I can live with that.
<http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/matija/Town/Trains/Di2841/Decoupler/decoupler01.jpg
|
--snip--
Hi Matija,
Very quick work getting a working decoupler in such a tiny space. I thought you
may have bitten off more than you could chew but it seems I’ve happily been
proved wrong. Awesome.
| |
P.S. Question to an UK/US-person: Uncouple(r)? Decouple(r)? Doesn’t matter?
|
Well I’m not UK/US but I’m certainly a native speaker... so long as the
Australian version is acceptable I would say this (and I may be a bit wrong but
this is my understanding): a device which is there to decouple things is a
decoupler. If, however, a yardman accidentally leaves a bolt out of the
connection then he has left it uncoupled. The de- prefix implies an action
whereas the un- prefix implies an absence.
Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Automated shunter/switcher
|
| (...) I finally managed to create something that seems to be working, while still not standing in way of the original design (except for the lowest part at the rear, but I can live with that. (6 URLs) Magnets are coupled sideways, giving it enough (...) (18 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
