aeh5040

I strongly suspect dust is to blame, although like everyone else I have no definitive proof! I find compressed gas dusters somewhat useful for Lego, but really I think the only solution is keeping models in sealed cabinets.

Indeed, it looks like exactly this in the video. Nice find!

Perhaps it would help to articulate a bit more what your goals are. Are you trying to get as close as possible to the original while saving money on parts? Or use modern parts where it is a clear improvement? Or make a modern model that is inspired by the set, etc etc.

3:10 5:6 4:4 1:3 6:2 2:1

That's very nicely done. It's interesting what a big effect the rudders have.

The 2sqrt(2) length can be either the hypotenuse or the shorter side. The other side is 2 or 4 respectively, achievable with a standard liftarm.

The middle section has two pin holes that are exactly 2 sqrt(2) apart. It can be used to make isosceles right triangles in many ways.

Give it some time...

Indeed, that's definitely also a possibility, although I always think of it as a bit inelegant!

Of course you can use normal 7Ls with a +oo pin plus a , but it does work out nicely with the thin ones.

There is a remarkable exact bracing of a regular nonagon: and a 2-4-5 triangle has an angle within 0.2 degrees of that of a regular pentagon:

There was a lot of activity involving self-working pneumatioc logic 10 years ago or more. Kevin Clague has some incredibly sophisticated walkers: https://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=kclague Likewise Mark Bellis: https://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=82738 This was the smallest fully pneumatic walker I could come up with and here is a larger one that carries its own air bottle: My tower of Hanoi solver uses pneumatics in an automatic repeating loop, although it is actuated mechanically. (It could in principle be done by pneumatic logic, but I encountered too many problems when I tried. Eventually I hope to finish a fully mechanical version).

I assume that the first is intended to refer to Slithy Toves by me. It seems to be an axiom of today's world that any intellectual property with any value will be stolen. Unless you can afford a team of lawyers there is very little you can do about it. I don't believe in karma but I deal with it by reminding myself what is important. I design and build to make myself and others happy, not to make money. It's highly unlikely that I could make a living out of it, and I have a decent job that does that. So I'll continue to make ideas and instructions available for free to anyone who wants them.

Congratulations! I did indeed make one of these over 10 years ago. I like how compact and robust yours is. The next challenge, which I still have to get around to addressing, is to make a fully mechanical multi-segment counter or clock along the same lines. The main difficulty of course is making a carry mechanism that is able to supply enough torque to operate the display. I think each digit would need its own access to the power source, which would somehow get triggered when a carry is needed. Still trying to find the perfect mechanism for that!

I agree on all this. The comparison with 8480 definitely feels appropriate, which is not something I would say lightly! I too hope it sells well. I have been concerned that the theme is evolving into something different, with all the complexity being pushed into the app. I can understand the motivation for that, but this wholehearted return of mechanical wizardry is very welcome indeed. Let's hope that message gets back to TLG.

I'm not sure what the ultimate goal is (although the picture looks intriguing), but if you want them perfectly in sync I'm virtually certain the best option will be simply to physically connect the motor outputs. This should be done before gearing down, and ideally I think the motors should share electrical power. That way any electrical and mechanical power should automatically balance each other, compensating for any differences in motor characteristics.

There is a switch marked on/off on the left side, towards the back.

Yes, 852 was amazing - I was absolutely enthralled by it as a child. I can't imagine how I would have felt about this beast...!

I for one am pretty excited about this set (more than I've been about a set for a while, really). So long as there is no major unforseen flaw, I am beginning to think of it as a spiritual successor to the remarkable (for its time) 852 and the legendary 8480...

I'm surprised by how insecure the attachment of the new 5-way liftarm appears to be (given the weight of the rotor). If I'm interpreting it right, the square hole in the centre slides onto the vertical liftarm, and the only thing holding it in place vertically and stopping it from wobbling is the offset connector just below it and the offset axle running vertically through one of the holes. Judging by the other arms, it is a pin hole not an axle hole, but who knows? Perhaps the square hole is a very tight fit, which would help with wobble?

I'm surprised by how insecure the attachment of the new 5-way liftarm appears to be (given the weight of the rotor). If I'm interpreting it right, the square hole in the centre slides onto the vertical liftarm, and the only thing holding it in place vertically and stopping it from wobbling is the offset connector just below it and the offset axle running vertically through one of the holes. Judging by the other arms, it is a pin hole not an axle hole, but who knows? Perhaps the square hole is a very tight fit, which would help with wobble? I agree, the evidence in favour of genuine cyclic now looks very strong!

So, looking at the latest videos, I was wrong about this bit. The elevator drops back under gravity (slowed by the counterweight), rather than getting lowered by the other side of the chain. A bit of a disappointment, but now I come to think about it, the system I was imagining would be tricky to implement, because there would be nowhere for the gear support to go...

Really hoping you're wrong here too! I don't know but I think there is some reason for optimism. In the mechanism picture from the box, the "swash plate" seems to be tilted at quite a big angle, but the whole rotor does not seem to be tilted at a significant angle.

Yours. I think I had four blades. But the gearing system was essentially the same. It was also pre- small turntables! I recently thought about doing a monster version using Osprey blades too...