Point Motors

Babbage is good and I guess his coder was an elementry computer.

Mechanical computing in your query ; as I understand it , has a result.

What is your idea of the mechanical result switching the point ?

QUOTE (Donone @ 5 Oct 2008, 14:51) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If anybody is going to suggest that binary coding cannot be used in mechanics, then look at the 'Teletype' If you remember the old fashioned football scores on Saturday evening. The keyboard is entirely mechanical and by operation of some, say 60, keys, 8 bars encode this at right angles into binary movement, i.e. which combination of the eight bars move. This is done with cutouts in the top of the slider bars.
No that won't work here but, something a little simpler and smaller and more limited??
A mechanical decoder.

***

Your primary question is neither new nor unique, and the answers already provided give you most practical options if you choose to pursue them.

but your follow on posts simply cloud things:

To be honest, looking across all your posts, the problem you have is nothing to do with point control at all... It is aspiration and budget allocation really - sacrifice the purchase of one loco and coach set and you have most of your budget problem solved

....Actually if as you have as indicated in other posts just bought an ECOS before solving this issue then you never had a budget problem in the first place... only a budget control or timing problem really .

--------------------------------

As to simultaneous control via mechanical links, why not simply make up a test and try it your way.

I think that you will find that as a simple experiment on a test bard it will work but as a concept applied to a layout in place, your cost in dollars saved for solenoids merely becomes huge increase cost in time, engineering and precision set up or manufacture to mechanically automate multiple turnouts that are a good distance apart...followed by increased maintenance compared to electromechanical options... and to buy the quality of parts needed, budget will not really be saved long term!

So... is it really a saving: I do not think so.

(and yes of course loops are of course a positive example of possible simultaneous throw, except that a passing movement as often used on real railways in single track territory requires each end to be independent, and that a loop in prototype is actually more often than not a minimum of three turnouts, as on double track territory the exit end will be protected by a third turnout which directs an overruning train to a dead end lead, and on single track, there is likely to be a dead end lead BOTH ends....).

Certainly winding coils will take far far less time, frustration and money than purchasing parts for mechanical linkages.

and:

Re winding a simple coil: If your skills are good enough for reliable mechanical links or even to consider making a mechanical matrix based control then you will have absolutley no trouble modifying a common low cost level-winding fishing reel to wind your solenoids nice and evenly ...and easily for you!

Any "hands on" true Audiophile can do it perfectly, so I guess as an "electronic engineer" as you introduced yourself you should have no trouble at all.

You said "If anybody is going to suggest that binary coding cannot be used in mechanics etc etc..." What is that all about?

Frankly nobody would bother suggesting anything about mechanical encoder possibilites - of course they aren't new and did and do still exist - and why would anybody care to dispute it or bother with your comment... I thought it was help and advice you were looking for.

(by the way, the electromechanical (old world) or electronic (current) device that takes very few wires and makes them do many things is an encoder, not a decoder - MERG have an excellent kit for one, available to members).

Actually, given the style of some posts and the comments quoted above I wonder really if you aren't just fishing already...

Richard

I can't actually describe this because it doesn't exist but...
Basically having a motor/solenoid/stepper ??? to operate links or whatever, once they have been selected (chosen) as the ones to operate (by binary or whatever mechanically, by another two or more motors as discussed above.
I cannot draw on here (and probably couldn't anyway) but there would be a selection of links going to points waiting to be connected to the main gubbins/wheel/bellcrank set or whatever (favourite word).

Crudely, if you could imagine a piece of flat metal round or square or triangular with holes and the links above waiting to drop in the holes. The other two solenoids?? would select which links dropped in the holes and then the main solenoid operates and pulls those selected links. They are then lifted clear by releasing the solenoids to zero (binary)and another binary selection drops one or more of the links into the holes again and then the main operated again, but of course different links have now been selected which go to different points.

Remember that I am asking if anybody could/would/thinks etc. etc. it could be/has been done.
Babbage's result was numerical, mine is which of a selection of points will operate, using one final solenoid to operate all those selected.

If its not possible, then it will become apparent in the next few minutes.

Well Richard, you seem to tread a very precise path with everything. One often starts out with a question that then leads to responses. Those responses oftem guide/drag the original off course and down another track, unintentionally, and so it goes on.
If one must always obey the rules of question and answer I don't think things progress.

So! It went off 'track' and off subject. Nobody had to respond. You chose to! Everybody could have stayed 'in the box'. Everybody could have said I was a time wasting fool and in fact I virtually invited it.

This is not to say I don't agree with your long lecture, I do actually, but things go off track and often one is trapped in a sequence.
Of course what I have ended up saying is stupid. I hope you haven't done anything similar.

By the way... an encoder takes 1 only of several independent inputs and produces a coded output which (in the case of BCD for example) would consist of four outputs, some on and some off representing the position of the single input chosen.

A decoder does the opposite and takes a code in, say four (some on some off) and ends up sending a signal down one only of several available outputs.

Therefore a decoder (not an encoder) takes in a few and gives out one of many things, but only one at a time.

Finally not every train layout must follow prototypical practices, some simply want a bit of fun from life, instead of having to follow every rule and castigate others for not doing so.

You may choose to respond or not, as you please! I will try to only ask sensible, solvable questions in future and will think carefully before I do so.

Don

I really think your making a mountain out of a mole hill on this.
Ok I can understand exactly where your coming from but there are numerous ways of moving points all detailed in this thread.
Your now trying to re-invent the wheel...or should I say get fellow forum members to do it.

As you've bought the ECoS and want shuttle routes and future PC control then you need something reliable and will interface with said controller/PC

This to me means using tortoise/fulgerex or the standard twin coil type motors with an accessory decoder.
Yes they are expensive....isn't most things to do with hobbies
What most modellers do is buy a few to start off with then add more to it later as money allows.

Obviously the replies given don't answer you specific questions or give you the design of a completely new way to move points.
Your last few posts have just over complicated things where it's really not needed, no doubt thinking out loud as we all do
Why not just buy a few components and see what you can come up with, at a price that works for you?

QUOTE So! It went off 'track' and off subject. Nobody had to respond. You chose to! Everybody could have stayed 'in the box'. Everybody could have said I was a time wasting fool and in fact I virtually invited it.

Oh and by the way your a time wasting fool, go buy some point motors and run some trains

Thank you wiggy25. You are right as of course was Ricard.

My final point in ?defence? is as I said above, I soon realised from the comments and suggestions that there was not a hope of anything sensible in mechanics that would be cheaper than the point motors. My problem was that when someone asked for clarification or made suggestions or the like I got sucked in further to a futile chain of events, that I could only have stopped by being rude and not replying or being rude and saying I think that is the end.

I apologise to all concerned and will be more ???whatever in the future. get me outa here.

I think that is an 'over and out'.

QUOTE (Donone @ 5 Oct 2008, 20:16) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Despite your last comments, that is an interesting innovation. Unfortunately in my case, I require non-manual control, but it does show what can be achieved.
Thanks

***Don't get excited.

I can't be bothered with arguments.... I offer advice all across the day every in several world time zones and do so to be helpful, no more, no less. I generally hard practical advice and answers devoid of bulls**t, and while I do have an occasional short fuse or twisted sense of humour on I generally simply can't be bothered playing word games... Its my way.

If you need automation + low cost mechanical then you really are very limited in possible applications: If you really don't want to wind solenoid bobbins, and can't geet your head around reworking old drive mechs, then the most likely low cost option that will fit the bill for you is definately memory wire, which should be less than 2 GBP per point.

All it needs is low current with a little regulation so it can't be overheated - an easy project, mainly mechanical and CAN be used for more than one turnout at a time.

You can get it at reasonable cost from here http://users.skynet.be/pro-rail/ukindex.htm

There is another example of use here http://home.cogeco.ca/~msmodels/memwire/

Richard

As far as economic point motorisation is concerned, with a large layout this was a factor for me. I have adopted the Fulgurex motor, as it is double ended, and will therefore drive any pair of points in crossover configuration which of necessity always work together. With the Fugurex costing circa £10 in the UK, I get nice slow motion movement for the price of WHAP! solenoid per point action. (A scissors would also only require one motor to drive all four points: all routes set straight, all routes set crossing. Not prototypical, but economical.) This near halves the number of point motors and DCC accessory decoder outputs required, with additional consequent economies in wiring and installation.

Some object that the Fulgurex and similar design motors are noisy. Many are as purchased. A little running of the motor, and ensuring that the mechanism is free moving, then a jollop of thick grease on the moving parts before installation; and operating them on 6 - 8V, rather than 12 - 14V, and the noise level is very much reduced.

@Robert Stokes
This was meant for you but I forgot to add your name
QUOTE Despite your last comments, that is an interesting innovation. Unfortunately in my case, I require non-manual control, but it does show what can be achieved.
Thanks

@Richard
Thank you for the links, I will certainly follow them up, I have no experience of memory wire though I have heard of it in various fields.

@34C
I must confess I haven't looked at Fulgarex, the price frightened me, but I will because several people have mentioned them. One of my problems is not knowing what is compatible with what before buying. Much of my track and pointwork was bought ten years ago or more.

Thank you all for your assistance on this subject.
[Edit] I have just visited Richard's links and the wire is very interesting, just to experiment with if nothing else.

Hello all, I decided to take up the challenge here and provide hopefully enough of an idea that then anyone who is actually serious about exploring electro-mechanical point control using just one point motor can actually get on and do something.

Concept is taken from a turntable with indexing to align a point motor with its appropriate wire in tube partner. I have shown 5 but if you really want to do 40 I can see no problem with that either.

Hopefully the plan view sketch (5 seconds work) will make the idea / concept fairly plain to see.



The LEDs shine up from under the disk and through the hole only when the hole is aligned over the correctly lit LED. This means that when you make Wire in Tube (WIT) target number 2 (press button, DCC, PC, whatever) this sets the motor off rotating the disk until the hole falls over the LED and the light shines through and hits the Light dependant resistor thus cutting the motor drive circuit. This has aligned on the opposite side a point motor of some sorts ( I have shown a coil / solenoid type but if it is only one it could even be a Tortoise and still remain at the GBP40 budget). I trust this makes some sense. Go and build it and report back I say The target size and shape can be adjusted for any innacuracies in the LED/LDR combo.

PS, to save even more money you could mount the LDR directly over the hole on the disk saving on LDRs.

QUOTE (Lancashire Fusilier @ 6 Oct 2008, 11:40) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hello all, I decided to take up the challenge here and provide hopefully enough of an idea that then anyone who is actually serious about exploring electro-mechanical point control using just one point motor can actually get on and do something.

Concept is taken from a turntable with indexing to align a point motor with its appropriate wire in tube partner. I have shown 5 but if you really want to do 40 I can see no problem with that either.

Hopefully the plan view sketch (5 seconds work) will make the idea / concept fairly plain to see.

The LEDs shine up from under the disk and through the hole only when the hole is aligned over the correctly lit LED. This means that when you make Wire in Tube (WIT) target number 2 (press button, DCC, PC, whatever) this sets the motor off rotating the disk until the hole falls over the LED and the light shines through and hits the Light dependant resistor thus cutting the motor drive circuit. This has aligned on the opposite side a point motor of some sorts ( I have shown a coil / solenoid type but if it is only one it could even be a Tortoise and still remain at the GBP40 budget). I trust this makes some sense. Go and build it and report back I say The target size and shape can be adjusted for any innacuracies in the LED/LDR combo.

PS, to save even more money you could mount the LDR directly over the hole on the disk saving on LDRs.

***Nice ... very neat idea.

I love a challenge:

LDRs work fine and I like them for detection of many things but here's an easier option which is also easily switched: deletes all WIT, solenoid and all LDR and replaces with one microswitch + 5x basic memory wire mechs.

each WIT 1 to 5 replaced by simple on/off memory wire mechanism.

each can be active closed (or passive closed - its up to you) - whichever U choose, its option states are to insert and withdraw a small "plug" (bit of rod) thru hole in turntable side centred for each exit track... (one state = flush with side of TT, other is withdrawn).

plug can be anything running in any plastic tube at all. A bit of small reticulation pipe or a cheap ballpoint pen pen barrell with any old easily workable material for the plug would probably do. Fancy boys can use brass tube and rod.

Turntable deck has matching rod lightly spring loaded to pop into any available non plugged hole that acts on a microswitch to turn TT motor on and off... this has tiny wheeled tip or smooth ball end end surface which rubs gently on turntable side wall as it rotates.

when hole it is in already is activated then the memory wire mech pushes the plug/plunger in the deck out and therefore closes the microswitch and starts the motor. ie it closes a microswitch and starts the turntable rotating.

The deck is no longer held by the pin which is now free of the hole and the motor is running.

To auto index, activate the track it is at to start it for a moment, then activate whichever track you want it to stop at to make that track memory wire mech withdraw its plug.

When deck reaches hole, plug drops in to lock it and the microswitch turns off TT motor at the same time.

Benefits: basic so simple tools to make it. just holes, screws and a bit of ingenuity. very low cost. You could even turn ball end pin in a battery drill if needed. failsafe + uses only on off switches + low cost mem wire mech's. very positive action for track alignment
downside. Need to be very accurate in hole layout. definately install radial tracks after install TT in place!

Have fun

Richard

Nice one Richard. I knew there must be a memory wire solution however I got stuck on the 40 units side of thing.

Well Donone, over to you now to run with it I reckon as there is enough conceptuals here to actually provide exactly what you asked for in your first few posts - single mechanism point control for 40 points at less than AU$2.50 per point. Time to get building hey?

QUOTE (Lancashire Fusilier @ 6 Oct 2008, 15:48) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Nice one Richard. I knew there must be a memory wire solution however I got stuck on the 40 units side of thing.

Well Donone, over to you now to run with it I reckon as there is enough conceptuals here to actually provide exactly what you asked for in your first few posts - single mechanism point control for 40 points at less than AU$2.50 per point. Time to get building hey?

***Time U dropped by for a cuppa Paul

Richard

Serious out of the box thinking, I never could get the hang of that!

Don, your only vindicated when you've built it and we see photos of it all working

Just cutting a slice of humble pie as we speak

Cracking idea though!

Well, we have to have a laugh!

I've read posts on another forum where it gets very heated.
We are all trying to help each other out, so there is no point in getting worked up about anything.

I really didn't see that solution anywhere, and I'm supposed to be an engineer

Plus when I'm wrong I will say so, not that I'm wrong now of course, I just didn't see that idea

I reckon we need to get a 'Tongue in cheek' smilie!

Anyway you've got till Sunday, a week should be ample time to build, test and market the idea (with all 40 points I might add!) we need to see it so we can copy it before any patents pending and thus get charged for it!