allanp

If you have two facing each other you may not have to remove the springs as they tend to cancel each other out, mostly they do anyway. You will still get some resistence from them when they are facing eachother at an angle due to the movement of the crank. But this can also be emininated using linkages.

Could you have two hand pumps opposing each other. This way the springs should cancel each other out and whilst the motor would still technically be pumping one at any given time, you would get double the air flow.

Has anyone seen the internal gearing of the old micro motor? I wonder if it is done by harmonic gear reduction due to the weird noise it made, the massive amount of reduction and the likelyhood of it breaking.

Yes that's the kind of motor i'm talking about, but hopefully with more than 3 steps.

We really need a proportional servo, which means if you move the stick a little, the motor moves a little. When you release the stick the motor moves back to it's original position. Perfect for controlling steering, gearboxes, pneumatic valves and so on.

Servo motor and also an L motor with no internal gearing down.

They were not very strong when retracting as they relied on a vacuum to do it. They were also bendy due to the loose fit around the top (there was no air seal) and the rod was plastic, not steel. In anycase i'de like to see them a tad longer, between 7 and 9 studs length of stroke seems to be the most popular so far.

It was only single acting i'm afraid.

@ Davidmull Thanks . I remember over on technicbricks they asked a designer about the possibility of longer pneumatics. His responce was that longer pneumatics are always on their minds however, up to yet longer rams have not been deemed to bring about the most new possibilities. Of course I disagree with that. But they are thinking about it. I don't think it will take 10,000 votes to pursuade them. I think if we can come up with enough uses and show our support then it's entirely possible we'll get them. I don't think they would have anymore risk of recalling these than they would of any new pre-assembled part. @dhc6twinotter (switching the holes round is a good idea me thinks) and nielsvdv, the only real problem with having extra mounting points half way up is not really a big problem, it just comes down to easthetics. However being able to have fixing points here would obviously make them even more versatile. Looking at the front rams of a bulldozer you can see they are mounted in the middle of the rams, not the end. As this is technic, functoinality beats looks therefore, I guess they would be better with these extra fixings. Just two more things tho: 1) Where there is a thicker part of the cylinder wall, there may form an indentation on the inside walls as the plastic cools after moulding, so it may not be possible to maintain a good seal. 2) What does everyone else think of having the extra mounting points in the middle? Would they look right on a backhoe or excavator? Would they get in the way more times than they would be helpful?

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?

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!

This is just fantastic! Love it!

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.

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.

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?

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?

I do agree with you Perry that 10,000 is probably impossably high, however I think the fact that we are discussing our ideas here and voting for them elsewhere is giving a clear message to TLG that this is what we want. They do read these forums and I am sure the ambassadors are also relaying our ideas to TLG but I doubt they are able to tell us anything in return. So fear not, there is still a point to all this discussing and voting even if the target is unlikely to be reached due only to the nature of that which we are voting for.

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

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?

Well you've persuaded me (who ever could have predicted that from me ) , off to start a new topic before we go off topic here!

So are you waiting till christmas too? Cos that's what i'm doing and it's driving me nuts, my mate who lives but a couple of miles away, has already got one! aaaarrrrggggg!

I think before I inadvertantly hijack another thread (which I think I may be in danger of doing, again! ) I must suggest that this thread be kept to the small motor.

Is that a servo motor you are refering to? Personally I would prefere a proper servo motor that can be controlled remotely to a small motor.

I'm thinking I might go, not sure yet, haven't been to a con before I think it's time I showed up. Very strangely (for me) my red hawk rescue helicopter is still built, maybe I could bring that. And perhaps demonstrate my working jeep hurricane if I can be bothered to finish the bodywork. Right now tho my mind is on a huge non lego related project that has taken up all my free time. I'll think about it more after crimbo.

I'm not sure I can say I support it until we can agree on the exact size and output speed. For me it would need to be a maximum of 3x3x3 but smaller would be better with an output speed of no greater than 30 rpm.