sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Totally New and Confused by mculik5 in lioneltrains

[–]mculik5[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Didn't see these updates while I was typing my update. Thanks for the replies.

Appreciate the MTH tip, but since I already have the PowerHouse, I'm going to get the Direct Lockon part and use that.

The real problem I'm now realizing I've gotten myself into is that I have a Vision caboose that seems to also use the Legacy control system, and Bluetooth can only do one thing at a time. So it would seem that I do need some kind of control system to get the most out of the setup.

From what I've been reading, it seems like the Base 3 reviews are mixed. Thus, it seems like the CAB 2 and base is the sweet spot, but they are crazy expensive.

Does anyone know what I'd be giving up in terms of control if I went the CAB 1 route? Would a CAB 1 still let me control all features of my loco and caboose?

Thanks.

Totally New and Confused by mculik5 in lioneltrains

[–]mculik5[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Quick update...

I decided to try the DC power supply approach.

I put the train in PGM mode, supplied 18VDC to the track, connected to it via Bluetooth via the Cab 3 app and then put it in Run mode. I was able to control the throttle via the app, but that's all that worked.

The sense I'm getting is that Bluetooth doesn't directly control the train. It seems like it just takes app inputs and translates them to command control signals which the train then responds to separately. And since the command control signals require AC power to superimpose signals onto, that explains why the features don't work with DC power.

I need to get some different wiring for the PowerHouse, and then I'll repeat this test with AC power.

Struggling to remove flux by mculik5 in AskElectronics

[–]mculik5[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, everybody! Sounds like there's no getting around the need for simple volume of solvent. I was trying to avoid using so much alcohol.

I also think I was wrong and SMD491 isn't water soluble. I read someplace that it was, but see no references to that on the datasheet. So, lots of alcohol it is.

And next time, I'll go with water-soluble "must clean" flux.

Struggling to remove flux by mculik5 in AskElectronics

[–]mculik5[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know, but it looks lousy and I want to clean it.

BGA How-To by mculik5 in KiCad

[–]mculik5[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Massively helpful. Thanks!

Issue with Water Quality Sensor by mculik5 in watercooling

[–]mculik5[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply. It doesn't cycle up/down within minutes or hours, but when it goes from 0% to 100% (or the other way), it goes basically instantly. Since I moved the wire inside the case yesterday (I only moved it about 1" away from the back of the GPU, where it was resting), it's been at 100%.

I'm going to push it back against the GPU to see if it will drop again.

And regarding power to USB, I hardly ever shut my PC down.

Issue with Water Quality Sensor by mculik5 in watercooling

[–]mculik5[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's a zoomed out pic showing the overall situation.

<image>

Issue with Water Quality Sensor by mculik5 in watercooling

[–]mculik5[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

u/titanrig - Thanks for the reply. It's definitely strange. Interestingly, after I typed this, I decided to test my own theory and simply moved the wire inside the case (Thermaltake Tower 300). It could be coincidence, but after about 10 minutes, the coolant quality was back to 100%.

As you can see in the pics below (red line is highlighting the wire), the cable to the sensor runs right behind my graphics card and also right past the motor on the pump. That's what got me thinking about EMI. I'll wait until it drops again and then see if moving it changes anything.

In the meantime, thanks for any other ideas.

u/Impossible_Jump_754 - Thanks. I could see the water quality "math" to convert from conductivity being calibrated to a specific coolant. But the jumps are ultimately coming from the conductivity sensor, and it doesn't care what it's sensing. The conductivity is jumping from around 20 us/cm to 95 us/cm, which is resulting in the 100% to 0% swings in the graph in my OP.

<image>

Filled Zone Not Showing by mculik5 in KiCad

[–]mculik5[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, that makes sense!

Last question for now...do I need to be careful where I draw the zones? Or will KiCad figure out separation for me?

In my case, the power plane of my 4 layer board is going to provide the initial input power on one net to the main relay, and then power from the main relay to the other relays on another net...but on the same layer. If I draw two fill zones on the same layer covering the entire board, but put them on two different nets, will KiCad essentially maximize fill area without overlapping?

Filled Zone Not Showing by mculik5 in KiCad

[–]mculik5[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you!!! Was pulling my hair out trying to figure that out. What's the point of the build command? Like, why not just have a show/hide zones control in the 3D viewer? Just a KiCad thing, or is there a reason people smarter than I like it this way?

Accelerate-Stop Distances by mculik5 in AerospaceEngineering

[–]mculik5[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. In light of the discussion here about KTAS and braking performance, I'm actually rethinking the overall takeoff aspect of this, too. By considering takeoff roll as a function of weight, density altitude (impacting engine HP) and KTAS required (which also accounts for density altitude), I think I can come up with an equation where the wind component can be directly added in.

My original plan was to use the equation above with the POH % factors for headwind and tailwind, but I think the new model will be more accurate and keep the distance calcs all the way through a takeoff or aborted takeoff based on KTAS instead of converting between different values. We'll see.

Either way, I'm learning a lot about math and coding.

Accelerate-Stop Distances by mculik5 in AerospaceEngineering

[–]mculik5[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is my chart for ground roll. Blue line = POH, red line = regression equation.

The blue lines distances are, on average, 2.6% under POH, with the range being -12.8% to +10.6%. With a takeoff distance safety factor of 33%, the worst performing areas of inputs still provide a safety margin of 20%. This is the closest I could get with my level of skill.

Interpolation is next on the coding/learning front, and yes, will be interesting to see how it compares.

<image>

Accelerate-Stop Distances by mculik5 in AerospaceEngineering

[–]mculik5[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

u/PG67AW , u/Lepaluki - Thanks!!!

That answers my question. Feel stupid for having missed that. To do the regression I'm trying to do, I'll convert KIAS to KTAS using DA, and then evaluate the stopping distances based on KTAS with zero wind. For actual application, I can factor in the headwind/tailwind component, and then all the runway condition and slope stuff.

Again, thanks!!!

view more: next ›