knotian

Tassiruam Back to the original question. The EV3 has some restrictions as to number of motors it can control BUT there are ways around it. There is a infra red transmitter that can be used on one port to drive an IR sensor which can control two motors. There is a multiplexer that allows one post to control multiple motors. You can daisy chain EV3's (up to 4) to control multiple motors and sensors. You can go the SBrick route and handle 4 receivers each with four motors. You need to do some basic research and establish the direction you want to go. You need to determine if you want to stay Lego or go mixed or go to simple computers for control like Arduino. You need to choose between staying with the Lego language or go to another. Bottom line -- once you go past the basics there is "The great Unknown". Take your time and choose wisely grasshopper. Ed

The next time you are working with your couplers, and lose one. Then you have looked "everywhere", including under the tables and chairs, swept the floor, etc. Make one last check under any chairs or tables that have metal legs or cross braces. I found one under my adjustable shop stool. It evidently bounced on the floor and stuck to the brace.

Maboo35 - I agree with you. Really detracts from tradition. TLG recent moves baffle me - diversification and new formats spoil the heritage.

I've bought some 4DBrix switches for standard ga and their products and support are good.

I do nothing but technic and have no problems with Stud.io. The view direction being so important to the way movement tools work was confusing at start. HOWEVER they arbitrarily changed the UI in 2.0 and I'm so glad I archived Beta. There must be a reason for all the emphasis people make about renders but I see this as a tool for documentation of an actual build, not to create "art" object that may or may not be built. 'Clutch, stability, collision checking' may interest some but a lot of my large builds do not become stable until completed and collision checking gets in the way of building curved walls big time. I usually leave it off. Being paid for by BrickLink may get it the way of completing the product as a really good tool.

Seasider, OUTSTANDING!!!!! Thanks a lot. Wish I knew this a lot earlier because I could have saved myself a lot of gnashed teeth and head pounding. Now the bruises can heal. Ed

I am building a MOC that for HISTORICAL ACCURACY I'd like to use chain rather than rope/cable to operate parts. The problem is trying to fasten the chain to anything other than chain. I have found that I can fasten the chain, ending in a closed link, by using a 30553 (Hinge cylinder 1x2 locking), and then an axle connected to the object. This is not a "legal" connection, but a jam fit. Does anyone have a way to fasten the open end to a brick, panel etc.? Thanx

Doug, He had an earlier one 606720 and I think this was in an attempt to get bigger and faster. The earlier one's patent shows why the offset bucket. No GBC - It's going with my blast furnace complex. Ed

Doug- It really is a fantastic piece of early engineering. Levers, links, chains, slots and rollers - the whole realm of mechanical work, all driven by one steam hydraulic cylinder. This is the most asinine situation I have ever been in. I have a pdf in front of me that I got from a google search Friday. Google will not find this patent anymore. I went to USPTO search and found it again. The entire link is absurd but here it is. For further info the patent is US 713,987 dated November 18 1902. In case you have not used a patent document before; first are the drawings, then is the text starting with an identification of the part numbers, then a narrative of how things work. The last part is just about what the applicant wants to do. Ed Highlight and click to open. http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=00713987&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%26Sect2%3DHITOFF%26d%3DPALL%26p%3D1%26u%3D%252Fnetahtml%252FPTO%252Fsrchnum.htm%26r%3D1%26f%3DG%26l%3D50%26s1%3D0713987.PN.%26OS%3DPN%2F0713987%26RS%3DPN%2F0713987&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page

Eureka! Went back to the drawing board ( AKA Google) and did more digging. Found patent US 713897a which is the actual bucket patented in 1902. Finally found the mechanism, which was left off the original drawing I found earlier. If you are in to interesting mechanical linkages take a look. TYPO was 713987

When I started this I made a pact with myself (???) to do the drawings in Stud.io as I built. Well finally got the two bridge beams built and drawn. The drawing, step making, etc., takes MUCH longer than the building. Now back to the drawing board to try and figure out how that blankety blank bucket operates. https://www.dropbox.com/s/it4q62jqi2cb62a/100_0720.JPG?dl=0

Windshield wiper I believe

For any computer nerds amoung us. http://www.cr31.co.uk/stagecast/trains/tt7_turing.html

SylvanLS; I agree that building them in parallel is the way to go. Good idea of having pictures of both builds side by side.

You are probably right. But (LOL) it takes me days to get the instructions correct and only an hour or so to do the assembly. I see now why there is a shortage of instructions on MOC's. I'm just being thick headed in, after many rears, doing a set of instructions.

The component of a very large Technic model I am building is large. (302 Pieces) There are two of them, mirror images. What is your opinion? Should I do instructions for both or just have a text saying "Make Two as mirror images". I am assuming that if anyone uses these they will be an experienced builder.

Persevere young grasshopper!

Funny you should ask at this time. I got the notice about Hogwarts Castle being available for VIP's. The first thing I thought of was how much bricklink stuff I could really use vs buying that set with that amount of money.

Sorry about that https://www.dropbox.com/s/t0uzqrd5kdrhmas/100_0719.JPG?dl=0 Ed

I've been using Stud.io ever since it was released. Very Happy with it and the 'integrated' instruction maker is rapidly shaking it's bugs. Two different renderers available. Aside from their reliance on 'patches' rather than complete releases I'm a believer.(It's easy enough to work around so recovery is no problem)

Pagicence Try this https://www.dropbox.com/s/2zcomhma6z3ldh2/100_0719.JPG?dl=0

UPDATE 1 Based on the suggestions I received, I built two alternative Bridge Beams. One using plates and one using panels. I am going to use the nearer one that shows the lighter weight construction of the original to the right where the weight of the carriage is not concentrated. It also makes the beam lighter. Looking at my research again I found that tipping forward was a consideration with a full bucket at full extension. Therefore on the outside of the beam is another track mounted upside down with a set of wheels connected to the carriage. They would only bear on the rails when the carriage started to tip forward. More to come later. Thanks for being interested. FYI the stuff in the background is the blast furnace of my project. Ed

Check out 4DBrix - $60 Good quality and run very well. I have several. They are modular, not one piece which is great, making the reusable in other configurations. Ed

Eric and suffocation, Good posts! There is much open structure as well as enclosed machine space. The open structure will be studless. I built a model with a body made of stacked liftarms and it looked pretty good. In this case I believe weight would become a factor. I'm redoing a deck beam with plates rather than panels and I'll see how it looks / performs.

I'd like a few opinions please. My current work has some massive beams and panels. (See WIP Hulett Unloader) I started off with using Technic Panels. There are really several ways I could build these. 1-Continue to use panels, with lift arms and technic bricks to carry the structural integrity. 2-Use various plates, along with the beams and bricks with the studs on the plates visible. 3- """"""""" with the studs covered with tiles. 4- """""""""" with the plate bottoms showing. Cost wise the panel alternative is the most expensive and also the heaviest. Any comments? Thanx, Ed