Brickthus

What is the power of the pump? It might be too much for the LEGO PF system. I used to use a small car tyre air compressor, nominally 12V, but it needed 6 Amps to start and 4 Amps steady current when driving a pneumatic model through the football inflation attachment. I got a 5-Amp mains-to-12V supply for it but even that wasn't enough. After I broke that one I got a quiet mains compressor that has a 9-litre air receiver. The air receiver is useful because the compressor has to run only 40% of the time. It has a fridge motor. It needed a hose and a tyre-inflator tool to interface with the car tyre football attachment but those parts are relatively cheap. There is a range of quiet compressors alongside the noisy ones. The alternative pure LEGO solution is to make a module of a few mini compressor cylinders on a crankshaft from a motor and make a few of those. I've tried up to 16 compressor cylinders from 2 5292 motors; it needed a big power supply! It is said that, in a workshop, compressed air costs 10x as much as electricity. This is partly because of the inefficiencies of it as a drive method. It means you might need up to 10x the electrical power to drive a pneumatic model with mechanical power equivalent to a PF electric model. Mark

I really hope they include a small compressor for motorisation, as 8049 had. If not then it would be the cab raising that would be the PF motorised function. Of the 4 2H2016 kits, this is the one I'm most likely to buy in multiple; good job it's the cheapest of the four! More pneumatic parts are always welcome, just a shame it doesn't have the 1x11 cylinder too. The real Volvo has an extra function but I guess it would have been difficult to fit 3x cylinders across the arm width. Like the Arocs truck, this set will also have enough pneumatic parts to do automatic machines as started by the alternative model of 8868 in 1991. I also like the orange tubes (3 in the set). A 4M orange tube would be ideal to represent cable conduit on a railway layout, better than the trans-orange bars I have used up to now. A few of the other orange pieces might find their way into my Technic moving BB-8 droid. Mark

Yes, I think you're probably right. There would be too much play in a standard gear selection box. Here's a hypothesis: Think of the rear steering as being like one stage of the Arocs truck steering i.e. there is a right-angle bracket on the holding beam that turns the sideways movement of the steering arm into front-rear movement of the control arm. Next replace the L-shaped bracket with a T-shaped bracket, like the 3x5 T-shape, pivoted in the middle with the 5 along the holding beam and the end of the 3 in the steering arm. Then slide the control arm between the extremities of the 5 along the T-shape: - At one side it does 4-wheel steering. - In the centre it does 2-wheel steering. - At the other side it does crab steering. I noticed that the selector moves across by 2M between each position; not sure how much that is reduced by lever ratio to the movement over the rear axle. Mark

A favourite experiment throughout my childhood was to spin up various things fast on those motors. Wheels, propellers, many things that could generate High Energy Debris! I think we have adequate power from today's PF motors and it's nice to see the XL motor being used more in the BWE but we could do with a Fast motor with less gearing, an "F-motor". I did try taking one stage of gearing out of an M-motor, though it didn't do any better than an unmodified one with 3:1 gear-up; probably too much friction by not being built within tolerance. Perhaps an un-geared L-motor would be better for propellers such as on the Cargo Plane 42025. We also lack an "S-motor" as a Small replacement for the 9V micro motor but that had a unique mechanism whose creator has passed away. I used 4x 47154 9V motors (no-load 4000rpm, loaded 2000rpm) to drive the rotor system of an Open Rotor jet engine model. At 1.3 Amps and 9.15V (fresh battery voltage from the power supply) it managed to overcome the friction in a gearbox like that of the Power Miners Thunder Driller 8960 and contra-rotate the propellers. Regarding the flick/sprung missiles and difference if motorised, think about the Ninjago Airjitzu spinners. Pulling that trigger with the full force of a forearm sends the spinner with minifig pod about 10ft up in the air, but no combination of PF motors on a PF LiPo could launch even the spinner on its own. The only way I could launch the spinner with just LEGO parts was to use 2x PF Train motors geared up 5:1 from a freshly-charged LiPo. I have carried this "flight" experiment over to my moving BB-8 project, with potential to use a flywheel for either steering or stability (see the updates for pics). I spun up a motorbike wheel to about 5000rpm, well into the High Energy Debris region when of course that would not be allowed for kids, even if it were encased in a spherical droid shell. The ring gear is definitely 140 teeth, not 136. Count the teeth of the gears in between: it is driven by 12-tooth cogs so start with 1x12; then there are 8x 2M distances of 16 teeth = 128 (the mesh of 12T and 20T has 16 teeth in 2M distance, just like 16:16 and 8:24), total 140 teeth. LEGO gears no longer aim for multiples of 8 teeth; it used to be that only the differential (28) and bevel (14) were away from multiples of 8 (8, 16, 24, 40) but now we have 12, 20 and 36-tooth cogs. The new turntable has 60 instead of 56; the small turntable has 28. Hence any multiple of 4 is usual nowadays, though 35 per piece to make 140 for the full ring is interesting! How about 8 Cargo Planes, one built and the parts from the other 7 re-used in MOCs of a 2ft-diameter jet engine fancase and a Futuron space station! Makes me wonder if my BWE would become part of a lunar mining operation layout, with the space stations of various factions and my monorail. I have found Technic models in 80s & 90s space faction colours a good use for many Technic panels in black, red, grey, white and blue. With all those tracks there are a few possibilities! The newer tracks make a good ring from 36 to 50 tracks. The older ones would work from 24-40 tracks, though 24 is a bit tight. Mixing the two has interesting results! Mark

If this were RWD and remote controlled in any way then the grey parts visible through the panels at the rear either side could be 2x L-motors with one connecting to each rear wheel individually. That would be how I would drive an RC car of this size; miss out the differential gear from the power drive train as a single one (and its bevel gears) can't handle the torque of driving a heavy model. I broke a bevel gear on this much smaller truck! I think it is unlikely to be PF2/Bluetooth controlled because that has a longer time to market, following WeDo2. TLG need to fix the issue of stackable plugs before PF2 gets into consumer sets. I think PF2 will launch as a whole system to the whole range of PF sets in whichever year or half year is the target introduction date; this would include a new pack to replace 8293 for the PF-add-on sets. The WeDo2 hub would not have the power to drive 2x L-motors or similar in order to drive a car of this size; the hub uses 2x AA cells or a single 3.7V LiPo; WeDo is under-powered compared to consumer sets because low power is safe for kids in school for the purposes of the curriculum pack that accompanies the sets. A sequential gearbox would be great. The belts on the paddles seem to indicate such functionality. Is it that function whose drive goes under the driver's seat? I suppose the internal rear end might not have been designed yet. I haven't studied a real car to see what it has inside at the rear e.g. how much of the right type of engine is visible through the rear window compared to other supercar engines; some have a flat engine that would be squatter than a V-engine. I'm no car expert, so I only know that a road-going Porsche typically has the boot at the front so the rear must be full of the engine? Hence the idea that it might not have been installed yet. I welcome the 3x7 curved panels. I have been wanting those to go alongside the 3x7 tapered ones. However, this is the sort of set with a price premium (as shown by the minimalist box art!) so not so much a parts pack in itself. No doubt the same piece shapes will show up in 2017 sets. Looks like we also get 6x wheel arch panels as there are 2 extra ones inside the front wheels. For panel colours I would be happy with black or white. Orange would be bold and interesting but red would be boring. I wouldn't bother with the stickers, whether they were a bespoke design for the production car, a racing version, or this camouflage that we are told won't happen. Nice gimmick to mirror the test car though. Mark

Looks like the ring gear pieces are reversed alternately to make the ring, with 35 teeth each, making 140 teeth for the whole ring. This fits with the cogs used to drive it - 12-tooth cogs at either side (6M each between the ring gear and the centre) and 8x2M distances between them at 16 teeth per 2M. Given that the new turntable has 60 teeth (and there is one at the base for turning the output conveyor), an epicyclic gear of 60+20+60 could be made. This is quite a low ratio compared to 56+56+56 that fitted in a 168-tooth Hailfire Droid wheel. Time to think of MOCs that could use a quadrant gear! I also notice the doubled-up white torque gears near the motor. If one of these trips on high torque then the other will also trip straight away as one cannot handle the full torque of two (5-10Ncm). The video on Brickset didn't show whether the vertical shafts rotated whenthe tracks were moving. Since there are 3 I suppose it's one for the turntable and 2 for the tracks, with a scheme similar to previous excavators to get the track drives through the centre of the turntable. I applaud the larger Technic sets; it's something I've been lobbying for for a while. I'm likely to buy one set but I wish the many 3x11 panels alongside the conveyors were not dark blue as it's not a colour I find useful. White, Red, Black or Grey and I could use the panels from multiple sets. I suppose with that quantity there is a case for them making the majority of a model on their own but they don't fit the older space theme colour schemes. I might keep those for Technic and use the other colours more for Technic-built theme models, as I have done with the white panels from several 42025 Cargo Planes. Mark

Really impressive, both for shape and effects. I'm making a moving one about half size; .Mark

OK, after another significant update to the model, I've posted the first video! The body is now larger so it fits much better with the size of the head. After about 60 hours' work there is still a lot of work to do and a long way to go, but at last something works reasonably well and I have a good idea how to improve it. Mark

I posted another update. I have applied one of my flight experiments to the project, using PF train motors to get a flywheel to spin very fast. The flywheel drive configuration is capable of making a Ninjago Airjitzu spinner take off under PF LiPo power. I also upgraded the drive system, using XL motors and wheel bearing frames to simplify it. Time to build up the sphere at a slightly larger size before some more tests! Mark

I have experimented with pneumatic compressors of up to 16 LEGO compressor cylinders. I have used a car tyre air compressor set to 25-30psi but broke it. That used to need 6 Amps starting current and 4 Amps steady current at 12 Volts. shows it powering my continuously variable pneumatics experiment.Its output was a little more than 6 hand pump cylinders powering my Pick and Place Robot. For its replacement I got a professional quiet compressor so I can use it in the house during those late evenings of LEGO building! This has plenty of air for a pneumatic stepper motor. Unfortunately the new price for these is around £280 but I got a reconditioned one. I'm in Derby, UK. I've not done much GBC, more "have-a-go" as I have so many projects. Here's a small one I made (a lot) earlier, and also a .For the UK there might be 1 or 2 other GBC enthusiasts in the Brickish Association at www.brickish.org Mark

Really nice. How well would the sphere roll, supposing you could make the head stay on top? Mark

Really good; some parts of the images made me think it was a real bus. Perhaps the wheels, especially the steerable ones, could do with hub caps of 24mm pulleys, as crane 42029 has. I would support your bus as a prospective Technic set on LEGO Ideas; we've not had a Technic bus yet. It's something I once had a go at and decided it would be too heavy in bricks but the recent Technic panels solve that problem. It would just need a few tweaks to make the most of the number of functions, like a multi-function gearbox to make the same PF motors drive motorised doors and engine cover, you know the way Technic sets usually do. You need to aim for one function for every £10 or for every 100 pieces in the model. So far I guess you have 2x steering, differential gear, engine, 2 doors so that's 6, but does it have suspension? Other than that, you have good selection of Technic pieces so an alternative model for the set could be quite different and be another selling point for the set. Mark P.S. my current Technic project on LEGO Ideas is a BB-8 droid; lots of work to do!

True for large Technic MOCs but, without parts sticking up, this might be more useful as the basis of a train turntable. Mark

I guess the level of evidence to attract votes depends on the type of project - some concepts get lots of votes without a single LEGO brick being used! There are also a lot of LDD-based projects on there. I might grow the body a bit. The next size up would be about half scale to the "real" droid. It will leave more room for counterweights and steering mechanisms. I have a few things to try. I still want a buildable Technic BB-8 even if my own MOC turns out not to be a complete solution by the end of the time limit. I note that Sphero already had a sphere product moving before they made their BB-8 so it was an easy step up with a short development time. TLG would take 2 years and 50 prototypes for a decent Technic BB-8, so it's no wonder there was not LEGO one last Christmas and don't be surprised if it takes me a while! I will also need some stronger magnets. I had some strong sewing magnets years ago so I will look for some. As long as they are packaged in a non-swallowable piece then it would still be safe. They might be in a weight-block package so that would not be a new piece; still keeping all the rules though I notice the Ghost Busters Fire House set used a new fireman's pole piece! Mark

WeDo has always used low voltage. It used to drive from 5V USB, now it seems 3V AAs or 3.7V LiPo would be enough power to turn an M-motor. This is OK for kids in school, a nice, safe, low speed and no serious loads for the motor. I did manage to interface WeDo with NXT on both the motor ans sensor ports so that the NXT could communicate with the WeDo software in both directions. However, WeDo is fairly primitive in line with its age-related educational purpose. The WeDo tilt sensor sets different resistance values depending which way it is tilted (4 orthogonal directions). In a sense it's a bit like what could connect to an RCX sensor port or NXT sensor port pins 1 and 2 for an analogue sensor. Possible to make a circuit to control a PF motor in response to it but that might be a bit bespoke. I did once do an RCX/NXT switch multiplexer of a similar type but different values: I think the idea of 6 wires for PF2 is that PF, WeDo and Mindstorms can have common cable format. Other people have said the Mindstorms cables are not flexible enough; the new ones will fix that issue by being as flexible as current PF cables. The stackability (or not) of the cables is an issue - I want to hear more about that. I don't like the idea of having to hack around with a device containing a socket; cutting a plug-to-plug lead for PF and adding 12V plugs for custom connections was easy but going inside a block would be more difficult. If it's a plug-to-plug system then there are still incompatibility issues such as plugging an NXT sensor into a motor port. The pins would have to be assigned to input and output in the protocol, just as PF has a protocol that I have followed when designing circuits for it. There is the opportunity to increase the functionality of PF with 6 wires. Obviously 2 wires will still be 9V and 0V but there could be 2 motor drives or 4 LED drives on one cable; a future PF multi-colour RGB LED in a 2x2 brick could do all the colours, if we persuaded TLG to make one. I tried hacking with some Christmas lights but the LEDs were 2-wire with a colour rotation chip in the LED package, not the 4-lead devices I had hoped for; those are more expensive and not in Christmas light sets. Not making further PF LED bricks like an alternate one for a police car or railway signal was poor IMHO; it would have needed only a different-colour 2x2 brick to differentiate it from the original both-on LED brick. I hope TLG will facilitate some backward compatibility with PF and with NXT/EV3 cables, or I will be doing a lot of this: Mark

At last! It has taken 9 years for those axle-and-pin-hole pieces to find their way into sets! I suggested them as long ago as 1997 and saw a few at Billund in 2007. Now all we need is axle-and-cross-hole ones, angled ones with 2 axles or 1 axle and 1 axle hole, and combinations! Not sure about the trend of brightly coloured axles in the larger kits. They are fine for the smaller kits, to get kids used to the different sizes, but we still need black and grey axles to make those pieces insignificant to look at in MOCs. Having bought 2 of 9396 I found the blades less useful than I had imagined. They are for show only, having no taper and negligible lift even when pitched as 9396 did. Of course dual-rotor pitch control in this set would have been unwieldy, as we have seen in a few MOCs in recent years. I had considered how the complement of white panels fits with my MOC plans. there are few uses for the tapered panels but I found a use for 64 of them. The Fire Plane is a better source for those, having 7, which makes me wonder if this set, with 2, is using up the stock so that they empty the bin by the end of next year. Thanks for the review Jim, I will probably buy at least one. Mark

When 12V trains were still current products, there was a spares pack with a long wire (3m) and plugs. The advice was to use this to make more connections to the track for long runs, in addition to its uses for point and signal control. Other models railways are similar. I have books that advise each section to be powered separately with wires from the control panel. The same is true of Scalextric. The older system had jump leads designed for long tracks. The idea is to connect one end to the section of track next to where the transformer is connected, then connect the other end to the far side of the circuit. So there's nothing unique to LEGO in voltage drops! Mark

On seeing that there was no working LEGO BB-8 Droid on the shelves at Christmas 2015, and only ready-made products from other companies that would not hold my interest, I decided to do what I could to redress the balance. Here is my project to create a moving Technic BB-8 droid with Power Functions. The aim of the project is to make a driveable BB-8 droid with Power Functions that the user would build from instructions like a normal Technic kit. I will leave programmability as an option for EV3 experts to do in another project. SInce one of the criteria for viability as a LEGO set is the price point, I am aiming for £100, similar to the Cargo Plane 42025. Even with the motors I hope it will end up no more expensive than the Crawler 4x4. The Sphero product is £130 so my project needs to demonstrate equal value to the user for that sort of price. So far I have a Technic sphere with an internal mechanism to roll it, though I am making improvements before making a video. I started with a tiny head for the first prototype, then a rather squashed head for the second one. Now, with the first update to the project I have a much better head shape. The head also has a self-levelling mechanism. The sphere, made with Technic axle joints and panel pieces, is a bit uneven, so I have improved that too. The updated head is designed to cope with some unevenness. I hope to get it to roll reliably soon, so that I can post a video for a further update. There will be more updates throughout the year as I make improvements. Please would you take a look and support the project. Remember that you will be supporting the idea of a driveable LEGO Technic BB-8 droid that the user can build themselves; I will get as far as I can this year, or in any time extension that is granted following your support. Many thanks! Please spread the word and share with your friends. It will take a lot of support for us to let the LEGO company know we want them to produce a moving BB-8 droid in a set! Mark

The LEGO servo motor works by the duty cycle of the signal sent on the C1 and C2 connections, provided that the 9V and 0V connections have sufficient voltage to operate the motor and its internal circuit. The position depends on the proportion of the supply voltage set by the duty cycle, not on the absolute voltage. Whilst a traditional servo has continuous position based on duty cycle with an analogue feedback control, the LEGO servo motor has positions 0-7 in each direction set by the fixed duty cycle levels from the alpha chip in the IR Receiver or LiPo battery with a digital feedback control. A wiper on a circuit board inside the servo motor makes contact corresponding to the position and this is compared with the input duty cycle to determine whether the motor needs to move. I think if a variable duty cycle independent of the supply voltage were applied to C1 and C2 then the servo motor would respond when the duty cycle reached each threshold. More voltage than the supply voltage could hurt the servo motor. Whether it has enough intelligence to avoid trying to exceed its end-stops is something I have not tested. When used as it is meant to be used, this would not occur because the signal input would be a proportion of the supply. Certainly supplying more + or - codes by IR is trapped by the alpha chip in the IR Receiver so that the applied duty cycle would not exceed the supply voltage. I have used an NXT and IR Link sensor to operate two servo motors from a PF IR Receiver. The NXT can put out any of the PF codes so it can do + and - codes but also absolute speed/position codes. I used the absolute codes in a sequence that moved by 1 position at a time and also 2 positions at a time, as a servo test routine. I have also set the absolute speed of a train using codes from the NXT. Mark

I decided I could not build a decent truck in the timescale, so I posted my ideas here, which you are all welcome to try. Please post pictures if you do. Although some simple LEGO parts exist for a gas turbine, notably in Batman sets, they would be too small to represent an engine of the power needed in a hybrid truck i.e. 300HP. I was also considering driverless skytrucks, which might look like the frame of a reach stacker (adaptable to pick up 20ft or 40ft containers) with lift fans along the sides and a couple of gas turbines with generators at the rear. That might be a bit beyond this competition. A skytruck would be like the Amazon drone delivery concept but for containers! It would not need to land to pick up or drop off the container. It would have spare lift fan capacity to cope with unbalanced loads - no balancing procedure like loading current cargo planes. Probably no wheels! I was a bit disappointed to think that the competition might focus more on aesthetics than on engineering with Technic functional building excellence. I hope the functionality of our entries will be good enough for each to be made into a Technic kit if the Mercedes-LEGO partnership wants to do that. The more pneumatics the better! Mark

During the development of early PF parts in 2006-7 I did experiment with an early prototype M-motor by removing one set of planet gears. This increases the speed by about 3x. However, it is not so optimal at getting the best power and torque out of the motor. It was also a bit temperamental. It does raise the possibility that TLG could supply a motor on that basis; I would hope for an L-motor with a single set of planet gears. It would have about 1200rpm but the torque would be lower. In terms of uses it would be better for aircraft propellers, not cars, though a typical propeller speed is 1600rpm. This means a motor more suited to wheel drives should be chosen. The motor from 8421 crane is no longer supplied but was the best for direct wheel drives. An RS380 motor might not be too powerful for LEGO, but the revs are so high that a proprietary gearbox down to 4000rpm would be advisable, before using any LEGO gears in the geartrain; otherwise a high wear rate of LEGO gears would be expected. An RS540 motor is certainly too powerful - see separate thread. Mark

If you want the peripheral gears not to need to rotate with the turntable then this is one way to do it: The tan cog on the right is the reference in the rotating frame, relative to the frame that is static. The yellow cog on the left is where the pitch change motor would be. The pitch of the 2x6 plate "propeller blade" remains constant as the tan cog rotates, until the yellow cog rotates to change it. When the yellow cog rotates it moves an idler gear around the left turntable, relocating the chain on it and stepping the peripheral drive relative to the rotating frame reference. During this time the parallelogram flexes to accommodate the chain movement. Other methods are explained in the patent US8096106. In effect the propeller blade pitch has a stepped position control. On this model the worm provides a no-back mechanism to take propeller pitch force off the mechanism. It would be easy enough to add several more blades around the circumference to make a full propeller. The small mechanism at the top is the prior art - the state of the art before I moved it forward. An essential novel element of the patent is the continuous rotation of the chain with the rotating frame of reference. Mark

Remember that real railways have very little track at the 40ft radius of L-gauge standard track!. For the UK it makes a 'Pacer' DMU difficult. I use a wheel steering technique for long 4-wheel wagons. This has enabled me to stretch the wheel base from a fixed 14-15M to 19M. I sued a balance of belt tensions between the coupling turning and the wheel turning to get proportional steering of the wheels. It is also quite successful at reversing down a siding as long as the last car (usually the brake van) has the 2 wheelsets linked as in the lower wagon image. Mark

Looking at the Mabuchi Motor website: An RS540 motor is too powerful for LEGO. 2.4A no-load current is prohibitive. An RS-380PH motor would be better. Taking the 3270 version: This has a 4.5-15V voltage range, nominal voltage 12V, ideal for the PWM range of PF with a bit to spare. (The nominal 6V of the 4045 version seems too low but could be tried as its maximum is 12V). No-load speed is 16400rpm, so high efficiency at half that i.e. 8200rpm, just 4x the loaded speed of a 47154 Technic motor. In the speed range for a jet engine model but would need gearing otherwise. No-load current = 0.37A, well-within PF LiPo capability. This would leave 0.43A for driving the model before the LiPo tripped its current limit. 2.28A at max efficiency needs a power supply but is possible (I use a dual 30V 3A bench power supply at home). Stall current of 14.0A would need heat management but I would never drive it that hard. Even my car tyre air compressor took only 6A to start and 4A steady load, driving pneumatic models; it heated the compressor outlet more than the motor. 13mNm at max efficiency, up to 95.2mNm stall torque compares to ~35mNm stall torque for LEGO motors i.e. nearly 3x the torque. Output power up to 19.2W compares to 8W for a 12V train motor at 0.667A, so 2.5x the power of any previous LEGO motor. I used nearly 12W for one model so 19.2W is about right for the next step. Fixing centres of 16.0mm would suit LEGO spacing. Not so sure on space for the right cog though. Would need a means of attaching to an axle. It is useful to be able to run a model on safer low-power batteries because then a demo at work would not need extra safety tests. Might be possible to connect up 2x LiPos with diodes. I have used diodes with PF before, when matching gearmotors to train motors. Mark

OK, looks like 12-tooth mesh with 36-tooth LEGO cog would work reasonably well. Better have a supply of 36-tooth cogs for predicted wearout though! How well does the shape of the metal cog match the shape of a LEGO 12-tooth cog? What is the typical speed and voltage for this motor? I expect faster than LEGO motors, which is good, but is it meant to be 9V or 12V for extended running? What is the no-load speed of the 27-turn motor? Halving this value will give the optimum loaded speed, at which maximum electrical power is transferred to mechanical power. I see you have an RC motor driver and battery pack. Might be too powerful for LEGO parts. What is a typical RS540 motor current (they usually go only by turns and not electrical parameters)? Would a LEGO LiPo motor driver be OK with the load? It is limited to 800mA output. I guess that means the current limit could keep it safe for the LEGO parts, so that only the 36-tooth cog would be prone to wearout? What about motor heating? Is it too hot to touch, or too hot for the adjacent LEGO parts? I think my old car tyre air compressor uses an RS540 motor, which would have been from a car 12V supply (up to 14.4V but low duty cycle as they are supposed to stop after inflating one tyre). It might be worth trying to liberate the motor to drive jet engine models! I did try harnessing a dremel-like drill but 135W was too much for LEGO models and at 10,000rpm it melted the axle! Hence the best alternative I have so far is 4x 47154 Technic motor at 4000rpm no-load (2000rpm loaded) using 1.3 Amps at 9.15V. I also have a new compressor with a fridge motor for plenty of pneumatic power! Mark