Jump to content


has the 40t gear been discontinued?


35 replies to this topic

#26 Lipko

Lipko

    Posts: 807
    Joined: 30-October 11
    Member: 21244
    Country: Hungary

Posted 03 May 2012 - 08:55 AM

View PostKEvron, on 03 May 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

okay, i get that. by dispersing the sum force over more contact surface, the gear teeth are able to better withstand the force.

...but you don't get something for nothing, right? the greater the diameter, the more input power required to overcome the torque. wouldn't proportionality come into play?

Spoiler

I would definitely go for bigger gears in non-power-funtcion models.



zzzzz.. zzzzz.. zzzzz..
I think all the info is there, but maybe in not a followable manner. Anyhoo, hope that makes sense

Edited by Lipko, 03 May 2012 - 09:55 AM.


#27 allanp

allanp

    Posts: 2063
    Joined: 15-September 06
    Member: 961
    Country: UK

Posted 03 May 2012 - 04:37 PM

I like the 40t gear, it's really ..... erm..... technicy!
Even the best can be made better, but most important is to be excellent to each other and party on dudes!!!!!!

#28 Wiseman_2

Wiseman_2

    Posts: 137
    Joined: 16-July 11
    Member: 19083
    Country: United Kingdom

Posted 03 May 2012 - 06:10 PM

Out of curiosity, when was the last time the 40T was used in a gear train in an official Technic set? I know it's been used on a fair few bikes in the last decade or so but the only set I've seen it in a gear train in lately is the Imperial Shuttle.

#29 KEvron

KEvron

    Posts: 325
    Joined: 01-November 11
    Member: 21283
    Country: usa

Posted 03 May 2012 - 11:36 PM

View PostLipko, on 03 May 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

I would definitely go for bigger gears in non-power-funtcion models.

with four or five arbors making up the drive trains for my clocks, the additional friction, due to the additional mass, definitely adds up. i think the application would determine the appropriate sizes.

Quote

I think all the info is there, but maybe in not a followable manner. Anyhoo, hope that makes sense

a lot for me to try to get my head around, but thanks much for the info.

View PostWiseman_2, on 03 May 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

Out of curiosity, when was the last time the 40T was used in a gear train in an official Technic set? I know it's been used on a fair few bikes in the last decade or so but the only set I've seen it in a gear train in lately is the Imperial Shuttle.

'04, 8439 front end loader. otherwise, it's appeared in a few creator sets, nxt and supplementals.

KEvron

Edited by KEvron, 03 May 2012 - 11:37 PM.


#30 rgbrown

rgbrown

    Posts: 139
    Joined: 09-October 09
    Member: 7746
    Country: New Zealand

Posted 03 May 2012 - 11:54 PM

View PostKEvron, on 03 May 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

[re: larger diameters give less friction] ah, i wasn't aware of this. could you explain?
KEvron
What I was thinking of is that the sliding friction should be less because the teeth are more parallel over the duration of contact. This presumably depends heavily on the tooth profile.

My impression of technic gears is that bevel gears have much greater friction than spur gears, but I've never actually tested this. I keep intending to do some proper measurements, but never quite manage to find the time!

#31 Mark Bellis

Mark Bellis

  • PaB price investigator


    Posts: 476
    Joined: 17-August 06
    Member: 910
    Country: England

Posted 05 May 2012 - 03:52 PM

I have always liked the 40T gear.  It is great for taking a gear train sideways by a large amount.  This is especially useful when connecting to a motor.  I have used it noth as 5:1 reduction from a motor and for 1:1 sideways transmission when using multiple motors to increase the torque on a high-speed axle.  Gearing up by 5:1 for a faster axle is best with these too, since TLG don't have a 4000rpm motor available in the current range.  This is useful for my flight experiments:
Posted Image

The 40T gear has been superseded in the crawler track role to some extent by the new sprockets and 5-wide links.  It looked like TLG were trying to phase out the older chain links (e.g. sets 856, 8851) but AFOLs stepped in to order more of them.  May there always be a motorbike to use that system.

Yes, the trend towards heavier, higher-friction gear trains is bad.  Bad for AFOLs and bad for children learning about basic mechanisms.  If all the friction is taken by the double bevel gears, less power is left for the wheels of each super-fast car that every young lad wants to make.

It was a travesty when the crankshaft axle holes were removed from the 24T gear.  That lost us a unique offset, which is in fact very useful for driving a crankshaft with small pneumatic cylinders, whose travel is less than 2M.  We can hope that TLG would update the design of the cylinder in line with the compressor in Unimog 8110, so that small cylinders could be used with 2M half beams as the crank pieces.  With the 24T gear hole removal in mind, I sincerely hope that TLG will never tamper with the 40T gear design.

The 40T cog has also been the best one for large steam engines whose wheels are suspended off the rails, till the model team 62mm wheel hubs came along.  The latter are smoother but need modification for use in that role.
Posted Image

Mark
Mark J E Bellis - 8mm Scale LEGO Railways, Scenery and Technic. Visit My Brickshelf
Posted ImagePosted Image  Posted Image

#32 KEvron

KEvron

    Posts: 325
    Joined: 01-November 11
    Member: 21283
    Country: usa

Posted 05 May 2012 - 06:34 PM

View Postrgbrown, on 03 May 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

What I was thinking of is that the sliding friction should be less because the teeth are more parallel over the duration of contact.

ah, again! that makes sense. still, more contact surface.

you'd think a thing like friction would be more intuitive. just when i think i've got my head around a thing, reality deals me a slap.

Quote

I keep intending to do some proper measurements, but never quite manage to find the time!

keep us posted.

View PostMark Bellis, on 05 May 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

Gearing up by 5:1 for a faster axle is best with these too, since TLG don't have a 4000rpm motor available in the current range.

you should think about acquiring the 5292 motors that came with the rc vehicles a few years ago:

Posted Image

they don't have quite the rpm's that the train motors do, but they've got double the torque. they're beasts!

and 5:1 brings up another gripe: the ratios which the bevels offer are irregular. 3:1 is the only straight ratio which they provide. i get that they're very useful for transmissions, where the range of the ratios is the critical factor, as opposed to specific specific ratios, but outside of that, who really has use for a 7:3 or 9:5 ratio?

Quote

It was a travesty when the crankshaft axle holes were removed from the 24T gear.

i believe they changed the design because the original was prone to structural failure. regardless, i ordered several from bricklink, just to make sure i have some on hand.

KEvron

Edited by KEvron, 05 May 2012 - 06:37 PM.


#33 CP5670

CP5670

  • In search of litmus paper


    Posts: 2481
    Joined: 02-February 08
    Member: 2646
    Country: United States

Posted 06 May 2012 - 07:28 AM

This gear has been used sparsely for a long time. Even in the 90s, I can only think of two or three Technic sets that included it. It was more common in the 80s and in Mindstorms and Lego Education sets.

I've got a bunch of them but rarely use them. You can usually get similar or higher gear ratios in a smaller space by stacking two sets of smaller gears together, like 12/20 and 8/24.

#34 Mark Bellis

Mark Bellis

  • PaB price investigator


    Posts: 476
    Joined: 17-August 06
    Member: 910
    Country: England

Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:21 PM

View PostKEvron, on 05 May 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

...
you should think about acquiring the 5292 motors that came with the rc vehicles a few years ago:

Posted Image

they don't have quite the rpm's that the train motors do, but they've got double the torque. they're beasts!

...
KEvron

Yes, I have 4 of those.  Having tried 4 PF M-motors, I'm about to try all 4 5292 motors at once on my compressor, which uses 16-cylinder dual crankshaft V-formation and is driving a pneumatic stepper motor.  The PF M-motors managed enough air for 85rpm at 1.2 Amps with the hose disconnected, 1.8 Amps whilst pressurised, so it will be interesting to see whether the stepper motor driver speed can be increased - need more M-motors to drive that faster.  The potential move towards more powerful motors (e.g. RS-380) gathers motivation!  I think my car tyre air compressor might use an RS-540 or similar.

Having seen a couple in YouTube, I will see whether it's possible to drive a pneumatic steam engine without any tether to mains air or power.  It's looking like one carriage for the compressor, one for the batteries!  Whether it will still use 40-tooth cogs for driving wheels I don't know yet.

View PostCP5670, on 06 May 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

...
You can usually get similar or higher gear ratios in a smaller space by stacking two sets of smaller gears together, like 12/20 and 8/24.
Yes, albeit with greater friction.  I don't like the amount of friction in the double bevel gears.  It's the softer compound that causes some of it.  That was a hangover from the z24 contrate gear.  One thing that's better is that the bevel gears are more rigid than the contrate gear, which was redesigned at least twice over the years in order to stop the face bending relative to the axle support.

Also I actually like the fact that a 20-tooth gear can slide on an axle.  I used it in the gearbox of my rail crane:
Posted Image
The pic shows the worm and one of the 8-tooth gears that engages with it so that the worm can move the 3x3 frame left and right.  The 20-tooth gear slides by 4M, meshing with each of 4 12-tooth gears in turn, or two at once if you stop in the right place.  This drives two winches, jib raising and turntable functions.  Folder here.

I agree that sliding is not often so useful.  I had to file a helicopter 8-lobe CV joint gear to allow it to slide for my Apache's full rotor control.

Mark
Mark J E Bellis - 8mm Scale LEGO Railways, Scenery and Technic. Visit My Brickshelf
Posted ImagePosted Image  Posted Image

#35 DarkShadow73

DarkShadow73

    Posts: 654
    Joined: 06-October 10
    Member: 13640
    Country: USA

Posted 13 May 2012 - 06:25 AM

Geez, never realized there was so much controversy over this gear, the only sets I have them in are the Front-End Loaders and there were just there for articulation of the front and rear sections of that model...wow guess I better hang on to them...

View PostKEvron, on 03 May 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

with four or five arbors making up the drive trains for my clocks, the additional friction, due to the additional mass, definitely adds up. i think the application would determine the appropriate sizes.



a lot for me to try to get my head around, but thanks much for the info.



'04, 8439 front end loader. otherwise, it's appeared in a few creator sets, nxt and supplementals.

KEvron

Do indeed miss the motor, much larger and more torquier than the current PF motors...still have 3 of them but you have to use the old battery boxes, either the large bulky one or the smaller PF type one but with the 2 stud power connector cable with them...

View PostMark Bellis, on 09 May 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

Yes, I have 4 of those.  Having tried 4 PF M-motors, I'm about to try all 4 5292 motors at once on my compressor, which uses 16-cylinder dual crankshaft V-formation and is driving a pneumatic stepper motor.  The PF M-motors managed enough air for 85rpm at 1.2 Amps with the hose disconnected, 1.8 Amps whilst pressurised, so it will be interesting to see whether the stepper motor driver speed can be increased - need more M-motors to drive that faster.  The potential move towards more powerful motors (e.g. RS-380) gathers motivation!  I think my car tyre air compressor might use an RS-540 or similar.

Having seen a couple in YouTube, I will see whether it's possible to drive a pneumatic steam engine without any tether to mains air or power.  It's looking like one carriage for the compressor, one for the batteries!  Whether it will still use 40-tooth cogs for driving wheels I don't know yet.


Yes, albeit with greater friction.  I don't like the amount of friction in the double bevel gears.  It's the softer compound that causes some of it.  That was a hangover from the z24 contrate gear.  One thing that's better is that the bevel gears are more rigid than the contrate gear, which was redesigned at least twice over the years in order to stop the face bending relative to the axle support.

Also I actually like the fact that a 20-tooth gear can slide on an axle.  I used it in the gearbox of my rail crane:
Posted Image
The pic shows the worm and one of the 8-tooth gears that engages with it so that the worm can move the 3x3 frame left and right.  The 20-tooth gear slides by 4M, meshing with each of 4 12-tooth gears in turn, or two at once if you stop in the right place.  This drives two winches, jib raising and turntable functions.  Folder here.

I agree that sliding is not often so useful.  I had to file a helicopter 8-lobe CV joint gear to allow it to slide for my Apache's full rotor control.

Mark


#36 KEvron

KEvron

    Posts: 325
    Joined: 01-November 11
    Member: 21283
    Country: usa

Posted 13 May 2012 - 05:46 PM

View PostMark Bellis, on 09 May 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

I'm about to try all 4 5292 motors at once on my compressor

two words: safety goggles.

KEvron



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users