Toastie

"Illegal" ... oh my. From the Blues Brothers movie: "Donald: Why not? If the shit fits, wear it." That is my take. Best Thorsten

Wow, no I did not, but do now. Thanks for the note! Did you see this site?: https://www.tindie.com/browse/vintagecomputing/. Do you still have your Vic20? I always admired it back then - this keyboard ... I was on rubber keys ... another thing was that once I could afford (no: I could not, my wife could and let me buy one) to buy a Speccy, I dived into Z80 machine code. Guess I am still somewhat fluent ... As far as I remember, the Vic20 used a 6502 as brain and learning two languages was too much for me. Sorry for posting non-PU-related things here @Hod Carrier. Well, now that I will hopefully have two functional ZX Spectrums (ordered repair stuff, the dyn. 16k x 1 RAM chips and one ULA etc. from the UK - the country of origin of that wonderful machine - but guess what: "Your package has arrived (after one week leaving the UK, as UK Royal Mail told me) in Frankfurt Airport - for non-EU customs inspections". Brexit hits hard) My plans are to hook up the IR tower to the Speccy. Write some code. And then find a way to talk to a BLE hub. Most probably with the help of an ESP32 and @Cornelius Legoino: The ESPs easily do BLE and will certainly laugh about opening a serial port @2400 baud ... Best Thorsten

Do you really want to know? Well, I am a nerd. That's summarizes it best, I guess Best Thorsten

"c) Remove rubber bands on one side" Oh yes! But b) was referring to the build with >train motors<. Taking off the rubber bands from train motors is less efficient. Taking them off from the LEGO or BBB drivers: Definitely! Best Thorsten

I admit: For me, since the 1970s, it was Star Trek (and some other varieties, but Star Wars did - for a long time - not register - it did later though). THE Enterprise. Along with the crew And seeing it on this scale: It makes me wanting to build your model as well - and I sure hope this is OK. From your pictures, make my copy. This is >the< model of the Enterprise I was looking for, for so long. Simply speaking: I cannot do it on my own. But this is it. Thank you very much for sharing! All the very best. Thorsten

What? Wow. 60 years appear to be too long ago, and from a galaxy too far far away - for a company grown that big to keep track of what they made back then. Are you sure you got to the right folks? Was that set some sort "localized" specialty? As in: It was available only on Betelgeuse? Or was it a promotional set only given to the Queen of Denmark? Best Thorsten

Well, I am afraid that won't work. At least not in a straight forward approach. You would need to convert the (IR) serial protocol of the RCX/tower into Bluetooth LE communication. As far as I understood, this is what @Cosmik42's software does: BLE bidirectional communication. Now, one thing would be to lift the RCX com to BL (but not BLE) com via a NXT brick equipped with a HiTechnic IR sensor. Guess they are sold out though. I have two and they work perfectly well in terms of NXT to RCX com. Problem is: Range, as the HiTechnic sensor is rather limited. I solved that issue by making my own IR <-> RF converters (bluntly copying any 38kHz IR signal to RF). Next thing to do would be to hook-up the NXT to @Cosmik42's program. Don't know if that works. But if, you would have access. With regard to the WeDo Hub: I am out. Provided this is a hub using BLE as well: No. As far as I know there is no channel from RCX/serial to BLE via @Cosmik42's software. But then others may know better. What I did, was to get hold of a BLE client for Windows, and then use my own program to talk to a) the RCX'es on my layout via serial IR -> RF RF-> IR -> RCX and to PF via serial IR -> RF RF -> HiTechnik sensor -> NXT then NXT -> HiTechnic sensor IR -> RF -> RF -> IR -> PF. And b) the BLE PU hubs are accessed via the nSoftware BLE client for Windows directly. All runs on VB6/32 bit from 1998 on a Win10/64bit machine with USB to serial converters. Let me know if you want to know more. I have about 10 RCX doing work on my layout. Best Thorsten

Wow, lucky you!!! Now, do you want the RCX' on the trains? Or have them controlling power to (sections) of track? Best, Thorsten

Is the Croc driven with the PoweredUp L motor + 2I/O Hub? Then you are all set. And as @Lok24said: This is all for PoweredUp only, and in this case specifically for the PoweredUp L motor. The PoweredUp train motor does not have any other extra in it (as compared to 9V and PF train motors) other than a resistor telling the hub what it is, when you connect the PU train motor to a PU hub. The PU L motor has a "rotation sensor" and some signal shaping etc. electronics in it, which is recognized by a PU hub when you attach the motor. All PU devices identify themselves in one way or the other (but unequivocally) when you connect them to a PU hub. The PU train motor does nothing actively - it just passively pulls a one of the connection lines down (or up, don't remember), telling the PU hub "I am a dumb motor". BTW using this wiring scheme you can hook up any motor to a hub - but you won't have any speed regulation (etc.) means, as you signal "dumb motor" to the hub. Best Thorsten

I really, really like to emphasize on this. To be quite honest, this has bothered me from day one running trains across a "curvy" track. Back then, I had 16 curves and some straights. And then all that grew. Nevertheless: Using plain vanilla 9V motors OR PF train motors and some longer train, it always turned out to be almost stalling in tight curves and running pretty fast on straights. There are two approaches for resolving that issue: a) Provide power. Add PF XL's - as many as "needed" to overcome the problem. b) Provide a brain. Here is the reasoning: At full speed (i.e., apply full controller voltage to >train motors< with no PWM) - at least for me - resulted in flying off the track. Particularly when approaching the curve from a stretch of straight track. Everything in between: Slow - fast - slow - fast ... This means that train motors can do it, but need control. Problem: Train motors (even PU) have no rotation sensors. Solution: Use an RCX, a rotation sensor, and train motors, load RobotC into RCX, program a PID algorithm, and off you go. Lot of work. Lot of fiddling. But fun. Solution two: Use the PU L motor and a PU hub of choice. You just need the "Set speed" (not "Set power") command - and full-blown PID speed control is invoked. Without noticing. When your train is really too heavy: Use two. But: The PID algorithm in the Hub is really cool. There is even one more: You can select acceleration/deceleration profiles: Starting speed (lets say "0%"), final speed (lets say "60%"), time to go from start to final, press "start" and the train slowly and steadily, regardless of "obstacles" like curves, does that. Or: Set speed (not power) to 5%. Your train will move around your layout with exactly that speed. I honestly believe that all that is at least compensating for a little of the price tag of PU motors with rotation sensor and feedback electronics. Best Thorsten

With all the best wishes for 2021. And maybe as some sort of "tag" to some displays showing minifigs or androids (dead or alive) on the front page of this forum. Happy New Year to all of you! Best Thorsten

Yeah - with a Star Wars banner.

Well, I understood the BLE client server model this way: the hub is a server which, well, serves its clients by providing services: This is from the LWP doc: "The LEGO Bluetooth 3.X Hub Profile consists of a single Bluetooth LE GATT service. The service allows users to read info about the LEGO Hub (name, battery level, etc.) and to interact with any sensors and motors connected to it." So clients need to discover what services are available and then sign up for or use these. As my ESP32 is doing exactly that (it asks the hub what type of motor is present and signs up for RSSI and bat level updates and then issues the appropriate motor commands - to be served ...). Since messing around with CPM and UNIX/V systems I was always a little fuzzy about who is who regarding client/server models. Oh well, this is not the topic here and you guys already found your way I guess. Best Thorsten PS.: Just saw the video @Smotek7 made: Very nice work indeed!!! So in this case the ESP32 is the server and the App is the client, I believe ...

That is what I don't know. I am using Legoino to program the ESP32 as client and access hubs as servers. On "my" ESP32 side, there are buttons (start/stop/etc) and a display (very tiny OLED) to let me know what is going on. As far as I understand, @Smotek7 wants to use the PU App as client to access the ESP32 as server (which then throws switches etc)? This may be incorrect though. Best Thorsten

Hi Rasto, I am a bit confused. I am using the ESP32 as a client for the Hub as server. The ESP32 is directly talking to the Hub. I believe there is a way to connect to the LEGO app as well, but folks as @Lok24 do know much more about that! As far as I have any minute knowledge, it would be to test communication of the ESP32 with a Hub. Sorry for that. And good luck on your project!!! Best Thorsten (BTW: When you hit the @button and then further keys, select the user-name entry you target from the drop down list provided. Then the user selected gets a notification right away, even when not following a particular thread)

Hi Nicolas, it may help to explain further: What do you mean by box 070? Do you talk about a set? From the good ol'days? As far as I know, a preceding "0" was not used ... but I may be wrong ... There are folks around here, who know a lot about the history of LEGO. Best Thorsten

Dave, your whole setup is beyond belief - so many nice and clean arrangements - structure wise; so many wonderful models - it is all an art piece. Wow. But the "smoke" really does it for me. So close; I can really hear her - knowing from my youth how that sound goes. Depending on load and incline. This is so cool. I don't mind drilling and doing things that purists will never do (which is 100% OK!) - but this is so much more! Thanks for sharing! All the best Thorsten

@Phoxtane & @Amoreternum & @Lord Insanity Sorry, I missed that joke entirely - good to know BTW once upon a time I had to synthesize para-terphenyl in an advanced organic chemistry lab - it was a 6-step route. Started out with 3L of "I forgot" and failed miserably after the 5th step which had a product yield of 0% . Well p-terphenyl is dead-cheap ... even as a student I could afford to buy a sample and uhm ... well ... but don't tell anybody. On the other hand, I believe after 35 years this criminal act is falling under the statute of limitations - I sure hope. Otherwise, I may still inquire in the Oval Mirror for a pardon. Well, that experience was another reason why I turned my back on OC rather early on and finally became a physical chemist with some love for theoretical chemistry. As they say: Molecules with more than three atoms are highly suspicious ... Also: I just checked on Wikipedia: I believe the stuff used in the transformers were PCTs, right? I don't know, but they talk about the poly-chlorinated terphenyls. Whatver: Way too many atoms assembled together ... Best and again: Sorry for not getting it. All the very best Thorsten

And a couple of people >fight<. Right now. As they have done in the past. And will do in the future. For maybe a better world, >they< envision. What is this: Some sort of LEGO religion? Just because they announce what they are planning renders it as set in stone? And be the wonderful future? And most importantly: Prone to any kind of discussion? Criticism? Alternatives? BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Google, Amazon, Siemens, and on and on and on - have all pledged they will make this world a better place. So far: Needs work. Serious work. They all currently just make money. Big time. A year ago, BWM waged the notion of the impossible electrical car. As of now they promote the electrical car as the one and only option for the future. Things do change. But sometimes the "things" need a very, very serious kick in the butt. I believe in pointing out things. In discussing with no - zero - obligation. No TLG religion. To be honest: To get them into a better position. I would hate to see them drowning in competition. And that is why I like furious discussions here on EB. And not all that: They are wonderful, and will make it to eons of time, but rather: Very clear and bold criticism. To accomplish your goals you have pointed out so nicely. Telling them they are the best is, as far as I man concerned, not the way to go. Best Thorsten

Huh? How does that "blend" create "smoke"? Asbestos are fibers - rock solid fibers never ever evaporating, they were meant to prevent things to get oxidized - and then Lead? For heaven's sake, why would you want to use such a metal to create smoke? And then engine oil as binder ... it simply does not make >any< sense. It also sounds like adding Uranyl acetate would add a cool greenish glow to it. Wow. Best Thorsten

Well, this is what needs to be done. You need to find a way to modularize the beast. As you would do in MLCAD: Build the sub-models first, the assemble these to a "higher" level sub-model and then get it all together. I believe the challenging thing is to find a way/approach/visualization that seriously downsized sub-models are clearly shown to connect to either the next level sub-model (being then downsized again for further final steps). Good luck on this one! All the best Thorsten

You can also check on the sum friction of all coupled carriages by removing the engine and tender, put them on a section of straight track with some support underneath (e.g., a wooden board, whatever) and then slowly elevate one side of the board to create a ramp. Then note at what elevation the carriages begin to move. The higher the worse the friction is. This is a very rough estimate, as you just "determine" the relative static friction, but it gives you an idea. Best Thorsten

Very good idea! Best of luck, Thorsten

@Phil B: When the motor has cooled down again, it "works" again (for some period of time) right? If so, I recommend opening the motor and take the thermistor out. Make sure before closing it again, that it actually works; sometimes the contacts may need some bending. Best Thorsten @Phil B: Sorry forgot: There are no crazy friction forces present on this train, right? Otherwise, the motors may get too hot.

Davide at it again. It is unbelievable. Wonderful. PUp at its best - but much more importantly: Bricks and plates at their best. Thank you very much (again) for sharing!!! All the very best, Thorsten