Ludo Visser

Eurobricks Knights
  • Content Count

    503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Ludo Visser

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)
    Technic
  • Which LEGO set did you recently purchase or build?
    Set 42054

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.bricksafe.com/pages/ludo

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Extra

  • Country
    The Netherlands
  • Special Tags 1
    https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/public/style_images/tags/technicgear2.png
  • Special Tags 2
    https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/public/style_images/tags/technic_pneumatic.png

Recent Profile Visitors

2270 profile views
  1. Ludo Visser

    [MOC] Scania P220 Skiploader

    Wonderful build! Like Model Team, but with more functionality, well done I'm having the same internal debate on suspension in Model Team-like builds. It's an interesting feature, but a hassle to squeeze in, while the added value can be argued about. Glad you managed though, it's a nice plus!
  2. @Jim can the "community future direction"-part of this discussion be split into a separate topic? I agree with @howitzer that the scope of this topic is not suitable for this, indeed, very important discussion...
  3. A question to those of you in favour of allowing CaDA models here:- Currently, CaDA seems to offer only pieces that are functional copies of LEGO models, but may have different colors. Hence, a CaDA model, like the model in this topic, can be recreated fully in LEGO, albeit maybe not in the exact same colors. What if CaDA starts introducing pieces that do not exist in the LEGO inventory, e.g. even-length beams, or 5x5 panels, etc.? Do you still feel such models belong here? (This is the slippery slope I'm afraid of, @Bartybum).
  4. Then I would urge you to contact e.g. @Jim and, if he agrees, to start a discussion about it in the Technic subforum. In that way the community can voice their opinions on the matter.
  5. If the forums are to be more accommodating, then have that reflected in the site policy. That is what that policy is for. It cannot be that a handful of users decide that it is acceptable to go against the site policy, just because they unilaterally decide that it is a "special case". If trying to defend the site policy makes me a "hard-line, black and white elitist", then so be it. If the policy is changed to allow clone brands across the forums, I will accept it (and leave). Until then, as far as I'm concerned, this is a LEGO fan site, and not a CaDA fan site.
  6. Then I would maybe have been fooled and not noticed. But the point is moot: the community rules are clear, in my opinion. It's a LEGO fan community, not a generic construction toy community. Deliberately violating the community rules and hoping that nobody notices doesn't make sense to me. Just to be clear: it is a cool model. Not per se my style, but I can see the skill of the builder. But if we're starting to allow LEGO clone products on the subforums, I foresee it's a slippery slope downhill. Personally, I think allowing custom parts, custom lighting, etc. is already too much, but apparently there was a community need for that. If clone products are going to be allowed, I'm out - no longer the community I'm looking for.
  7. I was (one of the) reporter(s). Thanks for your contempt for me and this community. Just as you should not push Samsung phone topics on an Apple fan forum, you should not push non-LEGO brands on a LEGO fan forum. It's rude. If you read the Site Guidelines, you would have read there: (Emphasis mine). So there is a place for discussing CaDA, MouldKing, etc. on Eurobricks, but it is not the LEGO Technic subforum. This Community section is the place for such topics, so it has been correctly moved. If you feel unhappy about that, you might want to consider a different community to join.
  8. @lmdesigner42 Cool, thanks for trying! I forgot about this little experiment, glad to know theory agrees with reality I wonder if there's some use case where this singularity can be actually useful, maybe something where you'd put a ratchet normally...? The rotational direction (or better: direction reversals) definitely plays a role: I guess the weirdness of stiction forces has something to do with that, but I'm not a mechanical engineer. Maybe someone more qualified can enlighten us.
  9. Ludo Visser

    Tractors and stuff, the great WIP topic

    I really like that first one, the blue old-school tractor. Reminds me of wat Technic once was before all the studs disappeared
  10. Ludo Visser

    [MOC] Smooth transmission 2 speed automatic gearbox

    Very interesting and a useful application of the "magic" differential! In case you missed it before: the "magic" is in the torque multiplication in the loop of gears. This multiplies the internal friction, causing the gears to bind up. If you drive the 16z-side of the differential with a 16z gear (instead of the 24z-side with a 8z), the effect disappears, without fundamentally changing anything in the gear layout of the setup! I have posted some analysis here:
  11. Ludo Visser

    Meshing any two gears on a regular grid

    You're right of course. Not sure what I was thinking there. With two plates between bricks the holes are in system, so two plates plus the bit under a hole in a technic brick is 8 mm or 2.5 plate. Putting zero or one plates between two bricks thus gives you 0.5 and 1.5 plate distance between the holes, or 0.2 or 0.6 stud respectively (one plate is 0.4 stud).
  12. Ludo Visser

    Meshing any two gears on a regular grid

    I thought that was interesting. Would be nice to have it extended to 0.5 stud spacing, since that's rather easy to do with the various connectors we have nowadays. "Back in the days" you'd sometimes see offsets created by having two technic bricks with zero or one plate between them, creating 0.2 and 0.6 stud offsets respectively, so that would be interesting to see also. And don't forget the 14-teeth bevel gear; I believe it can be meshed with the 24 teeth, if I remember correctly.
  13. Ludo Visser

    42078 Mack Anthem Mods and improvements

    I'd try two 2x1 jumper plates with only a 1x1 headlight on the outermost, or on both (so two headlights on each side). +-+-+ |.|o| +-+-+
  14. This helps. I finally got some time to figure out how this works. The transfer ratio from the left to right is 1 - 2/N, where N is the ratio between the differential ring gear and the driving gear. Here N = 24/8 = 3 and we have a transfer ratio of 1/3. Conversely, the transfer ratio from right to left is the inverse, so 3. If you try carefully enough, you can verify that the mechanism is back-drivable with a transfer ratio of 3: ---> [ 1 - 2/N ] ---> 1 2 N = 3: w2 = 1/3 w1 T2 = 3 T1 If you try to impose a velocity on axle #2, you feel 3 times the torque that is present on axle #1, including the internal friction of the mechanism. The reason why it is so hard to back-drive is that the gears bind up internally, because they need to overcome 3x the internal friction of the mechanism. If you add more gears, it'll get even more difficult to back-drive. If you change the 8z for a 16z on the other end of the differential, you have N = 1 and the ratio is -1: direction is changed, but 1:1 speed and torque ratios. In this case the mechanism is back-drivable and feels the same independent of which axle you drive. I'm curious to see N = 2, which is a singularity. In theory you should be able to rotate axle #1 and nothing would happen on axle #2, while conversely axle #2 should be immovable. For N = 2 you'd need to have an 8z mesh with the 16z ring gear of the differential, or a 12z with the 24z ring gear, without introducing any change of direction with respect to the mechanism shown above. Should be doable with some u-joints or something.
  15. Ludo Visser

    Land Rover Series II 88 1958

    Wow, that is absolutely beautifully done! Just love those old Defenders and this is an excellent representation. Well done!