Carsten Svendsen

Yeah, I tried setting two motors to 30% speed and hardlinked them and they seemed to run perfectly fine. I am very aware of a PID regulator and if one is built into the Hub, it's pretty darn good. I've done enough manual fiddling to even attempt it lol Indeed the linking should be done before the gearing. All the gearing are as you see in the pictures. The motors will connect straight onto the 20T bevel gears with a 12T gear. Good idea with the same power source. Maybe if I'm doing it this way, I don't even need the control Hub, I could just straight up use power functions as I originally intended. I'm not sure how to understand this comment, but you will all have to wait and see what this is.

To give some context, this is what I'm working on. There's an input on all four corners, and the red end is fast, the blue end is slow. I need to have all these inputs running at the same speed or the whole thing stalls as soon as load is added. I've spent a good week getting all the gearing done in the corners. It's goes 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 and then 1:5. The clutches are there to get everything lined up and to not break anything. So unless it's possible to get motors to run 100% the same speed and rate 100% of the time, then I will be hard-linking all the inputs together with old fashioned steam engine linkages.

Shit, did you X-ray that? Perks of certain jobs eh?

This is what I have come to terms with. I will be linking the motors together with liftarms on 5 diameter circle. Preliminary tests show it'll be fine, but we'll see when I'm done. There's quite a lot of rebuilding to do. I see what you're doing. Comparing the tacho of one motor to the other 3. This is a very intensive task for the cpu, I don't know how good the processor is in this thing, but I'm also not confident it will work. If anything, just compare the tacho of 3 motors to 1 other motor and go from there, though I'm pretty sure that it's not going to be flawless and will quite likely go out of sync fast.

No that doesn't work at all. The motors are all jumpy and non-fluid motion so that's terrible. I just need simple stuff. An on/off button to start or stop the motors as one. They should all act as one motor control-wise, same speed, same tacho, same everything. Stay in sync. It's a real pain on the phone, it's so small. I wish there was a PC app for it. It's a real deterrent honestly. Maybe someone can help me in some python? I found a site where I can see the block description. Honestly lego? This shouldn't be necessary. https://racingbrick.com/powered-up-code-block-guide-full/

I have an application where I need 4 motors to turn at the exact same rate at all times. They've got built-in rotary sensors but I can't seem to figure out how to program it on the app. Frankly it would be nice with tooltips or text on the buttons rather than meaningless pictures. I also know that they have a constant current function, but even if I set all of them to the same speed, eventually they will go out of sync which is not good. Is there a way to make them stay synced at the same speed?

Your link works fine, I had a skim through the PDF and it is quite detailed and well done. Seems like the exhibition went well :)

If this is consistent, then it is good news. TLG might have trialed with different plastics, and the non-click pins are terrible to use. If they don't click, how can you know it's inserted properly? Still, I hardly doubt it, you probably just got a set with pins from the storage unit from a few years ago.

Good luck clicking that together though

Cool, I like kinetic sculpures. Needs more fine tuning though. The bird in its entirety should probably be moving up as the wings go down. It's just physics. Not at the end of the motion ;)

It seems to me like it's not possible to strengthen the joint. Instead you have to brace the joint. You could only do this one way really, which is connecting both wings mechanically together. Perhaps something like this, where the impact is minimal and can be hidden in the main block, especially with some SNOT techniques to make it seamless? Asking for help in the technic forum is a good though as we are all very technically inclined with many complicated problem solving skills. The downside is that our solutions are generally at least one stud thick, mostly always at least two. Finding a solution that looks good in a system build to achieve a perfect angle is not impossible, but making it sturdy as well in 1 stud thickness, or less like here? Quite difficult. Your only solution will be a brace of some kind and while it may be noticeable, I don't think it'll be an eyesore if you do it correctly.

Ah I was wondering that as well as the steering wheel has spokes on the back which would interfere. Also, they're quite deep and bulky. I don't have the facilities to test it out physically, but this does seem quite plausible. Thanks Edit: This looks really great imo. I'll go with the solution on the right

Hmm, that could work alright, I'll try it out. Thanks

Amazing mate, the only way to test something properly is by having it run constantly and you have found some weak spots to iron out. I hope people were impressed with it at the event, I sure am. Good luck with using technic in Stud.io, it's a pain in the back and nothing seems to snap. Lots of parts without snapping too. I'm sure you'll figure it out.

How about we allow unlimited scrolling, like Reddit, Twitter, Facebook and other sites. Just load more topics as necessary. I seem to remember this was the way like ten years ago on this forum so why was that removed?

I can't do the twisty thing with tiles and plates, obviously not everything can be recreated in lego. I played around with your idea of using round plates and I do like the looks of this. Because they're plates, it's also a lot easier to put in two different axles as I need to. The width is pretty much perfect, probably slightly wider irl due to tolerances. Diameter is about 6.5 studs on the widest across, so close enough to 7 with what it is. I just worry that there's too much mass in here and that it will create difficulties operating. Edit: I just saw in a this solution and I would like to know what ring piece that has been used? Maybe I can do something similar

Yeah those pieces were my very first thought back in the day but it didn't work, as you said, they have way too much twist. Also they are too short, so I'd have to extend them 1L which I don't think is sturdy enough and also doesn't look great. I have seen that teqnigue with augers as well, I'm just not confident in the sturdyness of it. Right now I've got ribbed hoses around an axle, but I've cheated and used glue to make it stay in place. The blades definetely looks nice, but as they have a pin hole instead of an axle hole, this would make it impossible to stay in that shape while spinning. Also they are way too big. I had a thought of using flex hoses but on a twist (studio can't twist hoses), but then I don't know what to fill the void in the middle with so.... Maybe I'll just post in the system forum if I can find the right category

Hi all, I'm looking for possible solutions to building this rotor in LEGO. It doesn't have to be technic specifically, as I hardly know any advanced pieces or techniques outside of technic. Diameter = 7L, Length = 11L not including axle at the ends. It is for the currently white pieces rotating, I'd like to make the design better, but need ideas. I'm also always stumped when I meet anything auger. What is the best way to make augers? These would be Length of 5L and Diameter of 3L

Just large sistema boxes really. There's a divider for straight vs modified panels, and a box each for large and small wings

Cool, dunno about your problem, but I suspect (looking at the picture) that the 7 volts comes from the EV3 unit?

Honestly either configuration is fine, the motors are locked mechanically regardless. The only issue you might have is that in the yellow setup, you need the motors to run in opposite directions which needs a reverser switch. And yes, knob gears are not for load transmission, use bevel gears. You could use a differential, but you'll likely lose some power there.

In the middle like this

does it matter if the motor is running continuously? You could just make the gear rack slightly short at the top, thereby making sure the lift doesn't climb higher. Gravity will easily get it back on track in reverse. You could add a spring or a tensioned lever at the bottom for the inverse effect.

Wow, I can't believe this. This is basically the one thing that's pounded into your face in every instruction

Have you tried installing a plate to raise the clearance between crank axle and engine block?