New pneumatic parts i'de like to see, please comment!

[allanp]

I've probably said some of this before but here it all is all in one place.

Pneumatics, as they are, are brilliant. It's great to see them return in 2010. However, it appears it's return is limited to only one model. I guess TLG are testing the waters to see if todays 10-13 year olds like them. Now personally I think they will very much so (at least I really hope so!) but then there is always room for improvement no matter how good something is. So, to further increase the appeal of pneumatics, hear are my suggestions for what is basically an overhaul of the great selection of pneumatic parts already available.

Motor pump:

Great part but not without it's flaws. For instance, you have to off-set one end half a hole or place it at an angle to make use of the full stroke. Making a compressor out of more than one is also very difficult to make compact enough to fit into a medium sized MOC whilst having them maintain efficiencey and constant flow by offsetting thier working cycles. So what if we were to have something like these three engine parts...

http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2850

http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2851

http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2852

...in a complete assembly with a closed top containing valve and outlet, a little ridge around the bottom to stop the piston coming out and appropiately sealed piston. now i'm not sure but I would guess the surface area of the piston is roughly double that of the piston inside the current pump. This dimention could be tweaked to give double (or slighly more) surface area of the one in the current pump. This means that with a stroke of only one stud (like you get in the current standard technic engine), you achieve the same capacity (or slightly more) as the current motor pump. However the main gain is that it it could be motorised in a much more intuative way, and you could have many of them, for example in a very compact V4 configuration giving as much power as 4 motor pumps! It would also look way cool, like an engine with the pneumatic tubing looking like exhaust ports or HT leads.

Pneumatic cylinder:

Again, a great part, but it's just too darn short for most applications. I mean just look at em, they even look stubby! TLG never intended LA's to be a substitute for pneumatics and I certainly don't consider them as such, but the LA's aren't really long enought either IMHO. Ideally the pneumatic cylinder would come in a range of lengths from a 2 stud stroke to something completely insane like a 32 stud stroke (imagine the possibilities in forklifts and telescopic booms and such!) but if I could only have one length of pneumatic cylinder then I would go for one with a stroke exactly twice (that's 2 times ) the length of the standard pneumatic cylinder. To me this is a natural progression as todays summer sets are generally much larger than the sets of the time when pneumatics were first released. I realise they would require more air to operate because of their greater internal volume, but that is a teeny weeny price to pay

Valves:

There has been talk amongst technic fans, expressing a wish for a PF valve. Whilst this would be sweeeeeeet my prefered alternative to this would be a servo motor with which you could operate the current valve. Servo motors, even small ones, are easily powerful enough to operate a valve and precise enough to even give you propertional control. The reason I personally prefere this option over a PF valve is because you can use it for many other things too like steering, point control, remote controlled gear boxes and so on.

Regaurding the valve itself, whilst a much smaller dead zone and less stiction would be nice, i'm not quite sure how this would affect proper sealing of the valve over a long period of time. So whilst I would like these improvements, I would not like it if it lessens the reliablilty of the valve.

Power steering (eg in a live axle with no mechanical feedback linkage):

Whilst this could be done by a servo motor a pneumatic solution would also be nice as it would add more realism to models of construction machinery and monster trucks and such with their hydraulic steering (not the same I know). I'm not sure what would be required for that yet to make it compact and neat enought for say, a back hoe, it's just a thought.

All this is entirly possible (not sure about the last one) and at low enough cost (not sure about the last two!) to be feasable I think.

What do you think?

Any comments and other ideas are obviously more than welcome

Edited January 1, 2010 by allanp

[Brickthus]

I've probably said some of this before but here it all is all in one place.

Pneumatics, as they are, are brilliant. It's great to see them return in 2010. However, it appears it's return is limited to only one model. I guess TLG are testing the waters to see if todays 10-13 year olds like them. Now personally I think they will very much so (at least I really hope so!) but then there is always room for improvement no matter how good something is. So, to further increase the appeal of pneumatics, hear are my suggestions for what is basically an overhaul of the great selection of pneumatic parts already available.

Motor pump:

Great part but not without it's flaws. For instance, you have to off-set one end half a hole or place it at an angle to make use of the full stroke. Making a compressor out of more than one is also very difficult to make compact enough to fit into a medium sized MOC whilst having them maintain efficiencey and constant flow by offsetting thier working cycles. So what if we were to have something like these three engine parts...

http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2850

http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2851

http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2852

...in a complete assembly with a closed top containing valve and outlet, a little ridge around the bottom to stop the piston coming out and appropiately sealed piston. now i'm not sure but I would guess the surface area of the piston is roughly double that of the piston inside the current pump. This dimention could be tweaked to give double (or slighly more) surface area of the one in the current pump. This means that with a stroke of only one stud (like you get in the current standard technic engine), you achieve the same capacity (or slightly more) as the current motor pump. However the main gain is that it it could be motorised in a much more intuative way, and you could have many of them, for example in a very compact V4 configuration giving as much power as 4 motor pumps! It would also look way cool, like an engine with the pneumatic tubing looking like exhaust ports or HT leads.

Pneumatic cylinder:

Again, a great part, but it's just too darn short for most applications. I mean just look at em, they even look stubby! TLG never intended LA's to be a substitute for pneumatics and I certainly don't consider them as such, but the LA's aren't really long enought either IMHO. Ideally the pneumatic cylinder would come in a range of lengths from a 2 stud stroke to something completely insane like a 32 stud stroke (imagine the possibilities in forklifts and telescopic booms and such!) but if I could only have one length of pneumatic cylinder then I would go for one with a stroke exactly twice (that's 2 times ) the length of the standard pneumatic cylinder. To me this is a natural progression as todays summer sets are generally much larger than the sets of the time when pneumatics were first released. I realise they would require more air to operate because of their greater internal volume, but that is a teeny weeny price to pay

Valves:

There has been talk amongst technic fans, expressing a wish for a PF valve. Whilst this would be sweeeeeeet my prefered alternative to this would be a servo motor with which you could operate the current valve. Servo motors, even small ones, are easily powerful enough to operate a valve and precise enough to even give you propertional control. The reason I personally prefere this option over a PF valve is because you can use it for many other things too like steering, point control, remote controlled gear boxes and so on.

Regaurding the valve itself, whilst a much smaller dead zone and less stiction would be nice, i'm not quite sure how this would affect proper sealing of the valve over a long period of time. So whilst I would like these improvements, I would not like it if it lessens the reliablilty of the valve.

Power steering (eg in a live axle with no mechanical feedback linkage):

Whilst this could be done by a servo motor a pneumatic solution would also be nice as it would add more realism to models of construction machinery and monster trucks and such with their hydraulic steering (not the same I know). I'm not sure what would be required for that yet to make it compact and neat enought for say, a back hoe, it's just a thought.

All this is entirly possible (not sure about the last one) and at low enough cost (not sure about the last two!) to be feasable I think.

What do you think?

Any comments and other ideas are obviously more than welcome

There is one small alteration I would make. I would make the mini compressor and small cylinder each have a stroke of exactly 16mm, so that this model would work better with no strain as a cylinder goes over top dead centre.

It is important that most elements should be simple enough for 7-year-olds to understand. That's the minimum age for a set that has contained pneumatics before.

The versatility provided by the simplicity means that we advanced users can create more complex devices from the simple elements.

For instance, different pump/compressor types are better in different applications.

Here is a swash plate pump, to which I have added more compressors than the 2 in the pictures. The PF XL motor is ideal for it as it needs lots of torque.

Versatility is an essential property of LEGO parts. The moment we go to ready-made car chassises (as we have seen in several incarnations in recent years), the moment we begin to take away the skill of building a car from the user. The same goes for pneumatics. How many of use really understand how pneumatics work? How many of us want to be more than users of the product? For every box there is someone int he LEGO community who will take it apart to see what's inside it in order to exploit the properties of the device components. This is currently not necessary with pneumatics but it would be if a single motor-compressor were made. Any such motor-compressor would not be right for all users and would be an AFOL-specific product anyway, so not commercially viable. Therefore it should never happen. I got a car tyre air compressor for £20 and set it to 20-25psi, which is the right pressure for LEGO pneumatics (other than engines). A cheap commercial product does the job without the need for expenditure by TLG. The compressor takes 4 Amps at 12V, which a LEGO device could never provide (the new DC train transformer is limited to 700mA at 10V).

You can make a double length cylinder already, with the joining parts from the 8421 crane. I admit the 3.5M travel is an odd length but that's legacy from the original 1991 parts. The 64mm cylinder should have been made in the 2-port system, but I guess cost got in the way.

If I had a magic wand, I'd make a 4-port valve to replace this set of 4 valves in a pneumatic 2-pipe reverser. That would shrink pneumatic logic systems considerably. However, commercial valves come in 3/2 and 5/2 varieties, as well as others, so it's not commercially viable for TLG to make the 5/2 valve. Seeing them on rides at Legoland, they're not much bigger than the existing LEGO valve.

What we really need for the small cylinder and mini compressor is a custom length thin liftarm that makes the most of the existing device stroke at minimum cost. That might be cheap enough to be considered by TLG, especially if it could be a new cam piece with other applications.

Now that a pneumatic servo is possible (

), I invite you to build one, try it and find that a new LEGO servo is unnecessary! You can use a PF medium motor with LA or worm drive to control it (on the red beam), to set a remote pneumatic valve to any position you like!

I have steering, crane jib and steam engine applications in progress.

The NXT motor is also able to act as a servo motor.

Mark

[Anio]

Yeah, longer pneumatic cylinders would be great.

But for compressor and valves, I think the current ones are quite good.

With Sariel's autovalve, you can make very efficient pneumatic systems.

For example, Nico71's dozer : http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=3364140

Underhood, there are 2 motorized compressor and 2 valves. Everything is remoted controlled. And you see, it's quite small.

Building Technic MOCs requires to rack one's brain, otherwise, it is not Technic anymore !

I must also say that I'm a bit feed up to see PF everywhere...

[allanp]

Oooooh lots of good comments there thankyou Mark

There is one small alteration I would make. I would make the mini compressor and small cylinder each have a stroke of exactly 16mm, so that this model would work better with no strain as a cylinder goes over top dead centre.

That's a good idea

It is important that most elements should be simple enough for 7-year-olds to understand. That's the minimum age for a set that has contained pneumatics before.

I agree with you

The versatility provided by the simplicity means that we advanced users can create more complex devices from the simple elements.

For instance, different pump/compressor types are better in different applications.

Here is a swash plate pump, to which I have added more compressors than the 2 in the pictures. The PF XL motor is ideal for it as it needs lots of torque.

Versatility is an essential property of LEGO parts. The moment we go to ready-made car chassises (as we have seen in several incarnations in recent years), the moment we begin to take away the skill of building a car from the user. The same goes for pneumatics.

I completely agree. That is why I do not want an all-in-on motor-compressor thingy or anything like that. Just a pump that's more intuative when it comes to motorisation (like not having to account for that half-stud off set) and just as a bonus for AFOL's, and anybody with more than one pump, can be staggered in a more compact way like the pistons in a technic engine. Your compressor is great and very impressive, but just how big would an excavator be if it had to carry that inside of it!

How many of use really understand how pneumatics work? How many of us want to be more than users of the product? For every box there is someone int he LEGO community who will take it apart to see what's inside it in order to exploit the properties of the device components. This is currently not necessary with pneumatics but it would be if a single motor-compressor were made. Any such motor-compressor would not be right for all users and would be an AFOL-specific product anyway, so not commercially viable.

I agree, like I said I wouldn't want a pre-built motor-compessor unit anyway, it's boring having it done for you and kinda undermines what technic is about.

Therefore it should never happen. I got a car tyre air compressor for £20 and set it to 20-25psi, which is the right pressure for LEGO pneumatics (other than engines). A cheap commercial product does the job without the need for expenditure by TLG. The compressor takes 4 Amps at 12V, which a LEGO device could never provide (the new DC train transformer is limited to 700mA at 10V).

Well using a non-lego, pre built all in one compressor thingy is just cheating . And again, how big would a model have to be to carry one of those inside it.

You can make a double length cylinder already, with the joining parts from the 8421 crane. I admit the 3.5M travel is an odd length but that's legacy from the original 1991 parts. The 64mm cylinder should have been made in the 2-port system, but I guess cost got in the way.

Yeah but that is such an ugly and unrealistic solution. To build a backhoe or excavator of any decent scale you have to double up every one of them, which is just pants! In fact whenever I build a MOC I end up doubling up the cylinders. Thats one extra cylinder, two extention peices, a couple of axles, a couple of t-pieces, extra tubing and so on that's not really necessary. Why not just make some that are longer to begin with seeing as todays models are generally larger than they were when pneumatics were first introduced.

If I had a magic wand, I'd make a 4-port valve to replace this set of 4 valves in a pneumatic 2-pipe reverser. That would shrink pneumatic logic systems considerably. However, commercial valves come in 3/2 and 5/2 varieties, as well as others, so it's not commercially viable for TLG to make the 5/2 valve. Seeing them on rides at Legoland, they're not much bigger than the existing LEGO valve.

Such a reversing valve (if I understand it's function correctly) would be great on a telescopic handler or a monster truck to switch between steering modes (4 wheel steer, crab and so on) but you're right, I don't think it would be that viable.

What we really need for the small cylinder and mini compressor is a custom length thin liftarm that makes the most of the existing device stroke at minimum cost. That might be cheap enough to be considered by TLG, especially if it could be a new cam piece with other applications.

I'm always up for new lift arms and cam pieces!

Now that a pneumatic servo is possible (

), I invite you to build one, try it and find that a new LEGO servo is unnecessary! You can use a PF medium motor with LA or worm drive to control it (on the red beam), to set a remote pneumatic valve to any position you like!

I have steering, crane jib and steam engine applications in progress.

The NXT motor is also able to act as a servo motor.

Yes I could do those things. But then I'm a AFOL with money to spend on NXTs and the hundreds of parts needed to do one task. But if TLG wanted to add that kind of functionality to their products then a servo would be a simple, cost effective way of doing that IMHO.

[allanp]

Yeah, longer pneumatic cylinders would be great.

But for compressor and valves, I think the current ones are quite good.

Yes definately they are good already I like them alot. The valves are pretty much perfect as they are but I think there is still room for improvement when it comes to the motor pump. Afterall, only the best is good enough

With Sariel's autovalve, you can make very efficient pneumatic systems.

For example, Nico71's dozer : http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=3364140

Underhood, there are 2 motorized compressor and 2 valves. Everything is remoted controlled. And you see, it's quite small.

That's a great little dozer!

Building Technic MOCs requires to rack one's brain, otherwise, it is not Technic anymore !

Oh yes, that's one reason why I love it! I'de never wish to make it any easier, just more intuative like the new 5x7 and 5x11 beams do brilliantly.

I must also say that I'm a bit feed up to see PF everywhere...

I agree. Technic should always be technic and not just some other electronic toy. They got the balance right with the 8480 space shuttle, 8868 air tech claw rig and 8258 crane truck. Not looking good for this years excavator, but we have yet to know for sure.

[Bricktrain]

I agree. Technic should always be technic and not just some other electronic toy. They got the balance right with the 8480 space shuttle, 8868 air tech claw rig and 8258 crane truck. Not looking good for this years excavator, but we have yet to know for sure.

Personally I think that there is a place for all types, it is good to have a variety, some fully PF, others pneumatic and even manual models, it would be boring to have all one style.

I would like a PF operated valve also, while it is possible to do without it, it would make it much simpler and more compact.

[Jetro]

If I had a magic wand, I'd make a 4-port valve to replace this set of 4 valves in a pneumatic 2-pipe reverser. That would shrink pneumatic logic systems considerably. However, commercial valves come in 3/2 and 5/2 varieties, as well as others, so it's not commercially viable for TLG to make the 5/2 valve. Seeing them on rides at Legoland, they're not much bigger than the existing LEGO valve.

You've got me curious. Are you saying LEGO made such a valve for internal use?

[allanp]

Personally I think that there is a place for all types, it is good to have a variety, some fully PF, others pneumatic and even manual models, it would be boring to have all one style.

You know, I never thought of it like that. I do like it when a set has lots of PF but it always seems to come at the cost of complexity. I guess it's too much to ask to have both cost wise

I would like a PF operated valve also, while it is possible to do without it, it would make it much simpler and more compact.

Do you mean a servo like thing operating a standard valve or a complete motor valve unit? Either way would be great!

[Bricktrain]

Do you mean a servo like thing operating a standard valve or a complete motor valve unit? Either way would be great!

The problem with a servo operating a valve is you need to reverse it to centre the valve or a return to centre mechanical arrangement. whereas a dedicated PF operated valve could be made to operate only when switched on, like a solenoid.

You know, I never thought of it like that. I do like it when a set has lots of PF but it always seems to come at the cost of complexity. I guess it's too much to ask to have both cost wise

I guess cost does come into it, but also the more PF you add the less complexity is needed. But there are exceptions like my crane with 8 PF remote functions and 21 pneumatic rams, working suspension on 10 wheels, 8 driving thru 7 diffs and 6 steering. Raised boom is 1750mm high and if lifts 8 boat weights easily. I dont want to think about cost, I soon plan to rebuild the chassis again using the new diffs and liftarms so may finally finish it then.

[allanp]

The problem with a servo operating a valve is you need to reverse it to centre the valve or a return to centre mechanical arrangement. whereas a dedicated PF operated valve could be made to operate only when switched on, like a solenoid.

Well a servo does automatically return to centre electronically, it does so when you set the "joy stick" on the remote to centre.

I guess cost does come into it, but also the more PF you add the less complexity is needed. But there are exceptions like my crane with 8 PF remote functions and 21 pneumatic rams, working suspension on 10 wheels, 8 driving thru 7 diffs and 6 steering. Raised boom is 1750mm high and if lifts 8 boat weights easily. I dont want to think about cost, I soon plan to rebuild the chassis again using the new diffs and liftarms so may finally finish it then.

Now that sounds really nice but yeah, waaaaaaay too expensive for TLG.

[Bricktrain]

Well a servo does automatically return to centre electronically, it does so when you set the "joy stick" on the remote to centre.

That would work well then, but I thought that would need a proportional controller?

[Brickthus]

You've got me curious. Are you saying LEGO made such a valve for internal use?

Sadly not a LEGO piece!

I saw an industrial 5/2 valve driving a metal cylinder to move the arms on an owl.

The valve was supplied with 1 air pipe and 1 wire pair to control it.

2 pipes to the cylinder.

There were cylinders of different lengths and girths on the ride.

It shows how useful a short fat cylinder would be, if there were an application where we couldn't use a travel reduction lever.

As part of the ride scenery, the owl was made of sheets of chipboard.

Mark

[allanp]

That would work well then, but I thought that would need a proportional controller?

Yes it would, but that's no biggie!

I think it would work very well, just like one used for steering an RC car. You could use it for that aswell and many other things.