Grader

[Kumbbl]

incredible - very well done :thumbup:

Especially the pneumatic functions and their remote controlling are outstanding

and yes, the wheels are too small but this is criticism at very very high level

[technicfan]

Very nice, do you have any pics of the compressor and autovalves setups?.

[Alasdair Ryan]

Very nice, do you have any pics of the compressor and autovalves setups?.

I think it might be based on seriel's one?

[KirTech LAB]

Very nice, do you have any pics of the compressor and autovalves setups?.

Compressor:

I did not use autovalves. I tried a lot of valve constructions and i use rather compact variant shown below. Its width is 4 studs, but i use a little trick so i mount 3 valves within 9 studs.

The "mode switch" with shutter:

Edited October 12, 2015 by desert752

[timslegos]

I like your valve mechanism, its super compact!

tim

[Blakbird]

I did not use autovalves. I tried a lot of valve constructions and i use rather compact variant shown below. Its width is 4 studs, but i use a little trick so i mount 3 valves within 9 studs.

I think we are talking about the same thing. By "autovalve", I just meant a motorized valve controlled remotely. This seems to be exactly what you did. I'm not aware of anyone having made a valve that is actually automatic, although I've seen automatic pressure regulators.

[dr_spock]

Nice work. I like your valve design.

[Someonenamedjon]

Too bad TGL won't make bigger wheels!

[Zerobricks]

Too bad TGL won't make bigger wheels!

He could use the new motorbike wheels, in pairs?

[Doc_Brown]

Massive grader! Man, thats huge, great job! :thumbup:

[Junpei]

Are the new motorcycle tyres wider than Power Puller wheels?

[Someonenamedjon]

He could use the new motorbike wheels, in pairs?

Rims wouldn't look good.

[KirTech LAB]

Are the new motorcycle tyres wider than Power Puller wheels?

No, Power Puller wheels are much wider!

[Junpei]

Rims wouldn't look good.

You could use some discs (might be kinda expensive in LBG tho..) I think 10x10 will fit.

Edit: Maybe a bit smaller.

Edited July 27, 2013 by TwentyLeggedHen

[KirTech LAB]

I want to share some ideas about increasing a quantity of independent functions in Power Functions system.

Sorry if this theme was discussed previously. And very sorry for my English!

Several receivers tuned to the same channel and connected by the classical scheme will execute commands simultaneously. In order to make its operation independent we should separate the reception of control commands between these receivers. The easiest way to do it - to turn one receiver on and the other off. For simplicity i’ll consider two receivers tuned to the same channel. In this case, each receiver is connected to its own Battery Box (BB), and for their turning on and off we can use a separate motor (M), which will be called the mode switch (Fig. 1). The mode switch turns off one BB and turns on a second at the same time.

Fig. 1

The best variant for this motor connection - to use a third separate BB, but this is not always acceptable because of the large mass and size of the BB.

Instead, we can use two motors with mechanical link as shown at Fig. 2. However, such a system may contain some issues: the emergence of a dead zone (if both BB will be turned off), the establishment of the equilibrium state (the opposite situation - the second BB is turned on, and the first did not have time to shut down.) You must also provide a way to disable both BB at a time, until the model is gathering dust on the shelf.

Fig. 2

Tempting solution is to use the Control Switch 8869 with a control motor (Fig. 3). This will remove the additional BB. Unfortunately, such a system will not work, because the polarity switch, though not powered motors in the neutral position, but the receivers are turned on at any position of the switch.

Fig. 3

How many independent functions can be obtained in this way? If we’ll donate one channel of a receiver to the mode switch, we get 13 useful functions. Mode switch can also be combined with useful function, such as the compressor, because it is indifferent to the direction of rotation of the drive shaft - then get 14 functions.

The same result can be achieved using only one BB and without turning off the receivers. To stop the receiver to receive commands from the RC unit we must interrupt line-of-sight between RC unit and receiver. This can be done by installing shutters on the model, and using mode switch that will close alternately different groups of receivers. If you need periodically switching between modes, it is convenient to use a rotating disk with slots.

Using the RC unit with speed control, you can simultaneously act as both receivers - and "active" and "closed" - just issue the necessary commands before the next change of the mode. Since this control unit operates with a single command, the motors will work even if the link between control unit and the IR receiver is interrupted.

The disadvantage of both approaches is increasing of the number of IR receivers.

Using motors in conjunction with the details which are the heart of gearboxes, we can also significantly increase the number of independent functions in our models. A good example is the excavator 8043, which uses a 4 channel to perform 6 useful functions (Fig. 4). By a simple extension of this scheme, we obtain 14 functions.

Fig. 4

With a challenging extension we have two to the power of eight = 256 functions. Thus one engine is distributed to the actuators, as shown in Fig. 5 (here is shown three-stage system with eight functions on the output). The limitation of this system - at any time is carried out only one function.

Fig. 5

I am sure there are many other possibilities to increase the number of functions – all is in our hands and inventiveness!

Edited October 12, 2015 by desert752

[dhc6twinotter]

Great post! Excellent diagrams as well! Thanks!

I want to share some ideas about increasing a quantity of independent functions in Power Functions system.

Sorry if this theme was discussed previously. And very sorry for my English!

Several receivers tuned to the same channel and connected by the classical scheme will execute commands simultaneously. In order to make its operation independent we should separate the reception of control commands between these receivers. The easiest way to do it - to turn one receiver on and the other off. For simplicity i’ll consider two receivers tuned to the same channel. In this case, each receiver is connected to its own Battery Box (BB), and for their turning on and off we can use a separate motor (M), which will be called the mode switch (Fig. 1). The mode switch turns off one BB and turns on a second at the same time.

Fig. 1

The best variant for this motor connection - to use a third separate BB, but this is not always acceptable because of the large mass and size of the BB.

This is something I've wondered about, but I never experimented with a setup like this. If the motor were connected to the battery boxes in such a way that both battery boxes were on for a brief moment, this may work. I think it would be fine if all IR receivers were on for a brief moment. An IR receiver would be wired to both battery boxes though, and I don't know that an IR receiver will handle twice the amperage.

With a challenging extension we have two to the power of eight = 256 functions. Thus one engine is distributed to the actuators, as shown in Fig. 5 (here is shown three-stage system with eight functions on the output). The limitation of this system - at any time is carried out only one function.

Fig. 5

I am sure there are many other possibilities to increase the number of functions – all is in our hands and inventiveness!

I'll be using a similar setup for a future project that will have 16 or 17 functions. I will be using a dual gearbox.

Another option is to use a bank of PF switches between the receiver and motors. 4 PF switches could be connected to a receiver (two per channel) with a motor connected to each switch. A motor would move the position of the switches. With two switches on, the other two will be off. It would be sort of an electronic "gearbox". This is something I will be using on a future project.

If pneumatics are being used, multiple valves can be linked together to create a pneumatic "gearbox". Also a setup I will be using on a future moc.

[KirTech LAB]

Another option is to use a bank of PF switches between the receiver and motors. 4 PF switches could be connected to a receiver (two per channel) with a motor connected to each switch. A motor would move the position of the switches. With two switches on, the other two will be off. It would be sort of an electronic "gearbox". This is something I will be using on a future project.

Good idea!!! Unfortunately i don't have so many switches :)

[KirTech LAB]

Reflecting the last variant with 256 independent functions I’ve devised a compromise method of increasing quantity of functions with several functions control saving. This method has two disadvantages: model size increasing and disastrous increasing of IR-receivers quantity.

So, let’s go back to the idea with shutter (it gives us 2 modes with total 13 independent functions and requires 7 IR-receivers). And now we add the second shutter controlled by another PF channel. Two shutters must be placed one under another, moving in perpendicular directions and the bottom shutter must be twice narrower but twice longer than the top shutter. Now we have 4 modes with 2 mode switches, total 24 independent functions with 6 functions at each mode. And yes – we need 13 IR-receivers :(

We can increase shutter quantity:

- 3 shutters – 8 modes – 40 functions – 5 functions in each mode, 26 receivers;

- 4 shutters – 16 modes – 64 functions – 4 functions in each mode, 34 receivers;

- 5 shutters – 32 modes – 96 functions – 3 functions in each mode, 67 receivers;

- 6 shutters – 64 modes – 128 functions – 2 functions in each mode, 67 receivers.

Of course it will be monstrous construction, but I think the system with 2 shutters has a right to life :)

[filsawgood]

Awesome model! I admire!

[grum64]

This thing's awesome! I admire the lengths you've gone to to ensure it's safe transportation.

I have to admit though that the last few posts though very interesting are beyond my abilities or complete understanding but I guess that's why you guys create the amazing things you do and I've only MOC'ed a wheelchair and struggle trying to get a few bricks to reassemble a Cobra ;-) ;-) ;-)

Never mind, practice, besides being fun, will eventually make something akin to perfection.

[TheItalianBrick]

This thing's awesome! I admire the lengths you've gone to to ensure it's safe transportation.

I have to admit though that the last few posts though very interesting are beyond my abilities or complete understanding but I guess that's why you guys create the amazing things you do and I've only MOC'ed a wheelchair and struggle trying to get a few bricks to reassemble a Cobra ;-) ;-) ;-)

Never mind, practice, besides being fun, will eventually make something akin to perfection.

My friend, according to your life story you are the most able LEGO builder I've ever heard of!!! :tongue: :tongue: None can do what you do!!!! you are impressive!!!

[grum64]

My friend, according to your life story you are the most able LEGO builder I've ever heard of!!! :tongue: :tongue: None can do what you do!!!! you are impressive!!!

Thank you. I'm humbled and spurred on to be a better builder by your comments.

[KirTech LAB]

Thanks! Yes, the transportation of this monster was a problem. I am constructing much bigger MOC now and i really don't know, how will i transport it... maybe the model will move without human help...

[udo]

Dear Forum,

I am very much interested to learn more about the Mode Switch with Shutter and how to separate the reception of control commands between receivers as posted KirTech Lab.
Unfortunately, I am not able to see the pictures. I wonder, is it just me or is it the same for all members. If the latter, who can I ask to fix it?

Many thanks,

[Michael217]

3 hours ago, udo said:

I am very much interested to learn more about the Mode Switch with Shutter and how to separate the reception of control commands between receivers as posted KirTech Lab.
Unfortunately, I am not able to see the pictures. I wonder, is it just me or is it the same for all members. If the latter, who can I ask to fix it?

I also encountered such a situation, photos are poorly uploaded. You can contact the author of the model. https://www.youtube.com/@kirtechnic