Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Limga

  • Birthday 03/18/1996

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location


  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

1209 profile views
  1. Congratulations @Marxpek! Have fun with Bugatti:) But no mention of runner-ups makes me worry
  2. Thank you! Yeah, it did indeed pull a wheelie for a couple of times when BuWizz has not been discharged much yet:) I can upload all 50Gb of raw video or just some cuts without music to prove that it is real speed indeed. Fun fact is that the contest is about fast cars and it kind of please to hear opinion that the video is speeded up I understand why video may be looking like it is speeded up. Those are not raindrops from rain . You can see that there are some wet and dry areas on video. The reason is simple: there is some kind of "roof" over the place where I recorded the video. The snow on this roof is melting very fast and is making those "raindrops". Here is the screenshot of the video with this "roof", you can see snow over it. Also on video on 1:22 and on 1:34 you can see those "raindrops" with the slow movement of the car and the movement of men that are obviously not looking like speeded up. Thank you! I appreciate your comment since I really wanted to make a good video
  3. Thanks! All video is played in normal speed except for the parts with slow-mo. I too have a feeling that something is abnormal, I guess it is because different cameras I used had different FPS. Thank you! Glad to hear it.
  4. This is my entry for BuWizz Fast Car competition. Features: - RWD with differential - Front independent suspension with positive castor - Rear live-axle suspension with long trailing arms - RC/Buggy motor for propulsion - Servo-motor for steering - BuWizz 2.0 I wanted to make a fast and agile car that will provide some real "turbo" experience of driving. The appearance is much inspired by BJ Baldwin's trophy truck. I recorded video in the last days of March, when we still had a lot of snow and it was a bit of luck to find some clean place to make video. I am still learning how to make good videos and this was a nice experience. If you like my entry, you are welcome to vote:)
  5. Great to hear that you keep working on it! Since SBrick official app always crashes on my iPhone I would love to have a working app on AppStore. I will try it soon. I know many people who don't like SBrick official app since it's limited functionality (e.g. can't use one channel on two gamepad buttons), so I will tell them to ask you make app public on AppStore:) I have two suggestions: 1) First one is to make an option to choose SBrick. It is critical, for example, on a meeting or a competition, where are many peoples with SBricks and there is no option to connect only to yours SBrick. 2) Second one is to make support for two and more SBricks. That would be awesome. I am really willing to pay for an stable app with highly customizable gamepad control profile that allows to control two SBricks. Thank you for your work!
  6. I do think that there will new hubs. Something like this, but narrower and, of course, it will be two monolith parts.
  7. BuWizz 2.0 would be accepted appropriately if it have been announced in a appropriate way. I have backed BuWizz on the Kickstarter, got it several month after it was promised and had no clue that after a while there will be second version so soon. I would like to have a ludicrous mode, I backed the product from the start to have it and now I feel abandoned and cheated in some way. And still no custom profiles, still no gamepad support and those have been kind of promised. Even BuWizz 1.0 has characteristics that are different from the official Tech Specs on the website (battery capacity, e.g.). Also, there is still no information on the mysterious white connector. I really understand all those difficulties when it comes to development of the final product, but still, I think this is an example of bad attitude, especially to the ones who backed the project on Kickstarter.
  8. I have a brand new set sealed in box, but right now I am in another city. Hopefully, I will make a review and scan instructions if there is any:)
  9. That is amazing. I am still have to work out how this cellular automaton machine works, but I understand that cellular automatons are not the easiest things to build from LEGO pieces. Nice work!
  10. One ring to rule them all:) Great work of reverse engineering BuWizz protocols! Will there be downloadable version of .apk?
  11. Wow, nice work! Have you written to BuWizz team? I hope they will share protocols with you.
  12. Why there should be an equilibrium of torque? By what law of physics? Imagine the following situation: we use only one motor to power the inputs. One input is connected directly to the motor and another with gear reduction 1:2 from the same motor. In that case the torque on one input will always be two times higher independently of the load on output. The speed of the system will remain constant anyway, even in that case. I agree, that the power that is produced by the motors is only dictated by the load, but it couldn't be any higher than the maximum power of an input. As usual DC-motor has linear RPM/Torque curve, they deliver maximum of power at half of their maximum rotational speed. They just cannot provide more power than this at certain voltage level, no matter how much current the source can provide. So if motors, for example, can provide maximum 8W each the system just can't have 18W on the output. No matter how high the load is.
  13. Theory couldn't be use in case practice do not confirms it:) Imagine that there is no friction and power loss. Even in that case law of conservation of energy should still be working as it is fundamental law of nature. So, I state that initial calculations of TheMindGarage are not correct. Calculations of JonathanM are not correct, too. What kind of speed do you assume? Proof is simple: try to calculate the same thing but assume that motor A rotates at 2Hz and has 4Nm torque (power is 8W) and motor B rotates at 8Hz and has 2Nm torque (power is 16W). Total power of the two input motors in that case is 24W. According to your calculation we need to average 1/2 and 1/8 and we get 5/16, or 16/5. At 6Nm that'd be 16/5 * 6 = 19.2W. Where does the rest of power go? Law of conservation of energy is still working and in case of ideal mechanism without friction and power loss there is nowhere for power to go. Yes, of course, in real mechanism there are always power loss because of friction, but they can be calculated theoretically, too. Here is the explanation: frequency is the speed. In that statement TheMindGarage is right. Linear speed of the outer point of the gear can be calculated by following equation: V=ω*R, where V is linear speed, ω is angular velocity and R is the distance between the center point of the gear and the outer point (the radius). Angular velocity can be calculated by simple equation: ω=2*π*ν, where π is Pi, mathematical constant, and ν is frequency or number of rotations that occur during 1 second. So there is no point on averaging inverse values. This statement is wrong, too. Why should be there any type of equilibrium in the system? By what rule? When there is 6Nm * 3Hz = 18W power at the output the law of conservation of energy is broken. There is no point to believe that the law of conservation of energy is wrong or not working:) That statement is correct in some way. But we can assume that motor, for example, rotates at 2Hz and has maximum of 4Nm torque on that rotational speed. I think, it is quite obviously that the output will be rotating with 3Hz. If anyone doubts it, let me know, I will provide some drawings and more explanation. So the question is what is the maximum torque, that we can use on the output on that rotational speed? This is another proof that Lipko's statement is wrong. I totally agree with this explanation. It is the implication of the law of conservation of energy. I have the LEGO Speed computer. Some day I will try to provide an experiment that will prove my and sheo's statement:)
  14. I agree. Could be some additional discount for Kickstarter backers at least.