Posted November 13, 201113 yr Hello people, this is my first topic so wish me luck! Ok so i was reading about the xs motor topic and the longer pneumatic topic, and i was thinking, so i made this to discus all ideas of power functions! My first idea was for a new battery box, one(s) like we have now, but have more power. Someone at TLC (name excapes my mind right now, plus this was a while back) The battery box can power 2 XL- Motors or 4 M- Motors or 1 XL- Motor, and 2 M- Motors and any combination of lights and RC... well for alot of us (us as in AFOLs that make MOCs all the time) use multiple (as in 3 or more) xl motors and tons (maybe sometimes too excessive) lights, huge rc remotes using multiple (again 3 or more) rc receivers, or any combination that would destroy the battery box (on huge mocs, ones that use like 4 ir receivers and like 4 xl motors and the excessive amount of lights and tons of m motors, would right out slaughter the battery box) so i was thinking of making a battery box that could hold alot of functions, yes it would be bigger, but its better than using multiple battery boxes! anyone with me on this??
November 13, 201113 yr Well I'm not with you, the LEGO 60€ is very decent and bigger is the same as more space. You could also just get a battery box from your local electronics store of course for C or D cells.
November 13, 201113 yr LEGO's rechargable batterbox is fairly expensive and can still only provide for two XL motors, so a larger one would be welcome indeed. - Sok.
November 13, 201113 yr Author well i mean one meant for technic, like the one that comes in the motor set, and where i live theres not many electronics stores that will sell a battery box, and the nearest hobby store that has one that might be good enough is over 2 cities away from me, plus for people like me who dont know how to rewire the cables to make it match lego's pf connectors, it wont work and where would we get a conversion cable? and thank you Sok for agreeing with me Edited November 13, 201113 yr by zewy623
November 13, 201113 yr Author @KEvron 3 way swith for??? are you meaning like a polarity switch that can switch between 3 functions??
November 13, 201113 yr 3 way swith for??? are you meaning like a polarity switch that can switch between 3 functions?? like when you have two wall switches in a room which control the same light. that's a 3-way switch (i believe they call it a 2-way switch on the other side of the pond). it should have a contact button like sensor bricks and sounds bricks have, though, rather than a toggle like a wall switch. KEvron
November 13, 201113 yr I would live receivers and remotes with more than just 4 channels!!! MOCs are so limited by only being able to have 8 remote functions! tim
November 13, 201113 yr I support the idea of having more than 4 IR channels for PF. But it should definately be compatible with the existing IR receiver and remotes. Edited November 13, 201113 yr by le60head
November 13, 201113 yr Author @le60head that makes no sense... you need the new remote and receiver to get the extra channels.
November 13, 201113 yr Servo's and new receiver's with more ports,you will need a new remote for this as well .
November 13, 201113 yr Author @grohl your idea for the proportional remote controller, there already is one! the speed rc controller http://brickset.com/detail/?Set=8879-1
November 13, 201113 yr @le60head that makes no sense... you need the new remote and receiver to get the extra channels. Hey there! Sorry, didn't explain clearly what i had in mind: The new receivers & remotes should be backward compatible IMO. It would be a pain to use the NEW receivers only with the NEW remotes. Wouldn't it be more convenient if the new remote for example can use the existing channels 1-4, and be able to operate on 4 more channels (5-8 for ex). I'm not sure if the IR signal could support more than the existing 4 channels though :) P.S. Can someone please explain what "proportional" rc means? Does it mean that spinning/pushing the control lever/wheel by X degrees results in the motor spinning the same amount? Thanks in advance! Edited November 13, 201113 yr by le60head
November 13, 201113 yr Author @le60head ok i see what you mean now. and in the simplest terms i can think of for proportional, without using the dictionary term, is like the speed rc controller. on the speed you can set how fast a motor turns, on regular you cant, basically its setting how much power goes to the motor, but with lights it doesnt work.
November 14, 201113 yr I'd like to see PF remotes/receivers using RF instead of IR. I vote for servo motors. A PF pneumatic valve would be nice as well. Having 4 channels doesn't really bother since there are ways around this. Models become more complicated with more than 8 functions, but that is all part of the fun. Edited November 14, 201113 yr by dhc6twinotter
November 14, 201113 yr I'd like to see PF remotes/receivers using RF instead of IR. YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!! Radio waves are sooooooo much better than infrared waves! The funny thing is im learning about this stuff in my Chemistry class, who would have though school is helpful! . tim
November 14, 201113 yr Some ideas: - Micro PF Motor, enough torque to work as a stearing motor - RF instead of IR - Battery box with integrated IR/RF receiver - Linear Actuator with integrated motor - Solenoid powered Linear Actuator - Servo Motor - Servo linear Actuator
November 14, 201113 yr @grohl your idea for the proportional remote controller, there already is one! the speed rc controller http://brickset.com/detail/?Set=8879-1 I am sure you did not try to control a car or other vehicle with it. It is USELESS. It has a long delay. When you turn fast it does not go as many steps as it should and vice versa. It is good for trains and other functions but not for propulsion and steering.
November 14, 201113 yr I'd like to see PF remotes/receivers using RF instead of IR. True, i just got my hands on a RC-buggy Radio control remote & receiver unit and i love it! It's much more responsive, and has longer range. They're great, but they're much more-expensive than PF remotes & receivers. The reason I personally like PF is because it it relatively cheap. Although the lag does bother me sometimes, i'd stick with Infra Red due to it's comparably lower price. I agree with grohl, that the existing IR PF remote control with the speed-control remote is not suitable for cars as it is now. I do not have an idea how it can be improved. Keep the topic hot! Greets, legohead Edited November 14, 201113 yr by le60head
November 14, 201113 yr I am sure you did not try to control a car or other vehicle with it. It is USELESS. It has a long delay. When you turn fast it does not go as many steps as it should and vice versa. It is good for trains and other functions but not for propulsion and steering. And very good for propulsion and steering on heavy and slow vehicles.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.