Longer Pneumatics

[allanp]

Ok, so in the support for the XS motor topic, the idea of longer pneumatics was mentioned. So before that topic gets hijacked i've started this new topic. Now I think this should go a little differently to that topic. Whilst I would love to add my support for an XS motor, I don't think it would be wise to do so until various aspects are agreed upon first, such as output speed, dimentions and connectivity. Therefore I think we first need to discuss what are the specific details of this idea of longer pneumatics to hopefully be submitted for production. What options does having these open up for us?

So, just to start things off, I think it should be identical to the current standard design, with ports and attachment points staying the same, the only change is that it is longer. A stroke of around 7 studs would be great (as opposed to the puny 3 stud stroke we have now).

So what do you guys think? Would you like to see other changes apart from being made longer like having the ports come out at an angle or having different/additional attachment points? What length of stroke would you like it to have? If you could have a whole range of sizes, what would they be?

Edited November 11, 2011 by allanp

[Alasdair Ryan]

Great to see a topic started by yourself Allan ,i would love to see longer rams unlike an xs pf motor or a servo someone could make one quite easy with plastic,i did have a go as you know but my modeling stuff was out of date.I must order some more and try again.

Web page

I think 7 or 8 studs long but keep it the same diamanter of width.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Alasdair Ryan

[DLuders]

How long do you want? See LegoTechnicModel05's Pneumatics webpage:

[matias bendtsen]

electro magnetic valves would also be great, instead of those big valves with motor.

Edited November 11, 2011 by matias bendtsen

[allanp]

Great to see a topic started by yourself Allan ,i would love to see longer rams unlike an xs pf motor or a servo someone could make one quite easy with plastic,i did have a go as you know but my modeling stuff was out of date.I must order some more and try again.

That's a pity, was looking forward to seeing your results, ah well at least you tried

electro magnetic valves would also be great, instead of those big valves with motor.

That would also be great althouh personally I would prefere a servo motor with which we could intuitively make our own RC valves that are very controllable and precise and also use it to make many other functions RC more intuitively like steering, gearbox control, train singnal switching and much more. Now back to the cylinders

How long do you want? See LegoTechnicModel05's Pneumatics webpage:

That's what i'm asking you (if you do want them longer that is). how long would you like them dluders? What other changes would you like to see and would you like a range of lengths?

[GuiliuG]

Personnaly, I think that it would be usefull to can fix the pneumatic cylinder like the la ( or the old one). I mean, fix them in a solid and unmovable way.

[timslegos]

I would like cylinders that have the same body length as 2 large cylinders put together but have a longer ram. I think that since most people use the double cylinder in MOCS, having a simplified cylinder that is pretty much the same as 2 large put together would work well.

tim

[allanp]

I would like cylinders that have the same body length as 2 large cylinders put together but have a longer ram. I think that since most people use the double cylinder in MOCS, having a simplified cylinder that is pretty much the same as 2 large put together would work well.

tim

So you are saying the same body length as two cylinders, and by longer ram I guess you mean that it would have a stroke that is longer than two times that of the current one. This would be exactly right because whilst the body of the current cylinder is 6 studs long, you only get a stroke of 3 studs, meaning the ends of the cylinder take up 3 studs. Therefore a cylinder with a body length of 12 studs, which is twice that of the current one, would have a stroke of 9 studs, which is three times the current one. So would I be right in saying you want a stroke of 9 studs?

[timslegos]

So you are saying the same body length as two cylinders, and by longer ram I guess you mean that it would have a stroke that is longer than two times that of the current one. This would be exactly right because whilst the body of the current cylinder is 6 studs long, you only get a stroke of 3 studs, meaning the ends of the cylinder take up 3 studs. Therefore a cylinder with a body length of 12 studs, which is twice that of the current one, would have a stroke of 9 studs, which is three times the current one. So would I be right in saying you want a stroke of 9 studs?

Yeah that sounds about right.

tim

[davidmull]

I think we do need longer but also not too long or the will be useless in some models , I was thinking 5-6 stood long would be great!

[zewy623]

i say make a longer one, but with the 1m width of the mini pneumatics

[dhc6twinotter]

I'd like to see a pneumatic cylinder with a 7-9L stroke. Also add an axle and pin hole at the bottom (like the LA's), and an axle or pin hole about mid way up the cylinder.

And we need a servo motor.

[zewy623]

how about making the mini la's into pneumatics... and regular la's into pneumatics...

[nielsvdv]

I would like to see a 7 stud long. Making the body not longer than needed, using a full stroke.

The base needs an extra stud, making it 3 studs wide, more suitable for studles building.

How to make it 3 studs wide? take the normal cillinder and add to the sides in lenght this:

http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=32017

Then you can easely mount it even fixed.

If you would like to mount it, it needs to have a good support, because... well... it is 7 studs long, you probably gonna ad a lot of weight or pressure on it, for example a crane.

do you guys think this is a good idea?

[allanp]

I would like to see a 7 stud long. Making the body not longer than needed, using a full stroke.

The base needs an extra stud, making it 3 studs wide, more suitable for studles building.

How to make it 3 studs wide? take the normal cillinder and add to the sides in lenght this:

http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=32017

Then you can easely mount it even fixed.

If you would like to mount it, it needs to have a good support, because... well... it is 7 studs long, you probably gonna ad a lot of weight or pressure on it, for example a crane.

do you guys think this is a good idea?

So are you saying that the current one, with it's 2 stud wide mounting is no so good for the studless system of usually having odd number widths? Hmmm. What about having it only 1 stud wide, like the bottom of the clear "hydraulic" cylinder, and make the underside fit quite tight to a beam so that by just mounting it onto a beam, it becomes fixed, like this:

Using this method, Some of the stress can be taken from the axle and directed straigt to the beam supporting it. It also means you can expand it to being two or three studs wide by using half or normal bushes and so mounting it fixed or free is easy and strong and allows for more flexibilty. Would you be happy with something like this nielsvdv?

Edited November 12, 2011 by allanp

[DLuders]

On his Brickshelf gallery, Barman (Barry Bosman) posted 9 ideas about future Lego "Parts to fit with pneumatic system." Here are some of them:

[Alasdair Ryan]

It becomes fixed, like this:

I like the idea of that , but i think it would need to have movement in the bottom cylinder. (your pic shows that it would be flush with those beams which will not allow any movement in the cylinder.)

[timslegos]

What exactly does this do?

tim

[Alasdair Ryan]

What exactly does this do?

tim

It's a Pneumatic valve so you can control things like a pf switch (dont know why this good be helpful) or a gear box (that sound more useful).

[allanp]

I like the idea of that , but i think it would need to have movement in the bottom cylinder. (your pic shows that it would be flush with those beams which will not allow any movement in the cylinder.)

Well you could put a 4l axle though the bottom with a half bust either side to retain the same width of the current one, allowing it to rotate freely.

[allanp]

I quite like his valve

but I think I would prefere one that is pretty much the same as the current one except with the ports coming out the back instead of the side making it better for placing many valves side by side. It would also be nice if the dead zone was smaller and the airways in the moving switch part were shaped so that moving the valve a small amount only allows a small airflow and moving the switch a large amount allows a larger airflow, like in this rough sketch:

Those tapered exhaust airways allows the airway to more gradually increase in size as you move the lever allowing better control of pneumatics.

Heres one of Barmans cylinders, it also includes axle holes half way up as mentioned by dhc6twinotter.

Edited November 12, 2011 by allanp

[davidmull]

I quite like his valve

but I think I would prefere one that is pretty much the same as the current one except with the ports coming out the back instead of the side making it better for placing many valves side by side. It would also be nice if the dead zone was smaller and the airways in the moving switch part were shaped so that moving the valve a small amount only allows a small airflow and moving the switch a large amount allows a larger airflow, like in this rough sketch:

Those tapered exhaust airways allows the airway to more gradually increase in size as you move the lever allowing better control of pneumatics.

Heres one of Barmans cylinders, it also includes axle holes half way up as mentioned by dhc6twinotter.

Nice idea Allen but the pin/axle hole in the middle takes the look off the ram and u dont see this in real life ether,

For someone big into pneumatics I'm very surprised also that u can wait till Xmas to build ur unimog ha

[allanp]

Well personally i'm not quite sold on the added attachments on the side either, I posted the illustration made by barman cos it was also suggested by dhc6twinotter, so I guess thats two votes for and against added attachments on the sides.

Yeah, the wait is testing my will power! Christmas to me is a celebration of the birth of the messiah! but this year it's also about possibly the greatest technic set to ever roll across the floor!

[dhc6twinotter]

I was just thinking an axle or pin hole in the middle would make it easier and stronger to mount pneumatic cylinders when used for outriggers.

Also, having a pin hole and axle hole at the bottom would make it easier to mount two cylinders together for an even longer stroke.

I agree that the valves should be redesigned with the ports on the back. It would be so much better.

[allanp]

I was just thinking an axle or pin hole in the middle would make it easier and stronger to mount pneumatic cylinders when used for outriggers.

Also, having a pin hole and axle hole at the bottom would make it easier to mount two cylinders together for an even longer stroke.

That's a good point. What do you think of this?

I quite like this actually because not only does it make it easier to fix two end on end (which I don't like cos it's ugly and unrealistic, but to have the option is nice), it also allow more possibities for mounting fixed or freely. Would this not also allow you to mount pneumatic cylinders when used for outriggers?

I agree that the valves should be redesigned with the ports on the back. It would be so much better.