View Single Post
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-12-2004, 00:48
henryBsick's Avatar
henryBsick henryBsick is offline
Why wait for the last 20?
AKA: Henry B. Sick
FRC #0125 (NUTRONS)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Bahston, MA
Posts: 645
henryBsick has a reputation beyond reputehenryBsick has a reputation beyond reputehenryBsick has a reputation beyond reputehenryBsick has a reputation beyond reputehenryBsick has a reputation beyond reputehenryBsick has a reputation beyond reputehenryBsick has a reputation beyond reputehenryBsick has a reputation beyond reputehenryBsick has a reputation beyond reputehenryBsick has a reputation beyond reputehenryBsick has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to henryBsick
Re: pic: Version 1.1

Weight issues from my critique point.
The third shaft is the output shaft and is geared down from the second shaft's spur gear by what seams 1:2 maybe 1:3. There isn't a whole lot of reduction and a lot of weight. Possibly eliminating the third shaft and making the second shaft longer to attach a sprocket... but then that wouldn't work because the shaft moves and the sprocket would need o be mobile. SO maybe if you made the first shaft move with a spur gear straight from the CIM the one of the 2 gears on the first shaft. That would make the first shaft mobile and you could then attach a sprocket to the immobile (laterally, not rotationally) second shaft. In essence that would reduce the size of the big middle spur gear originally on shaft 2 and the gear it connected with on shaft 3 would no longer be necessary.
Its kind of a radical change, but just an idea of other possible means to reduce weight.
Also, the hubs on the gears can be reduced. a lot. They are pretty huge massive in the pic. a simple trip to the "digital lathe" could fix that.
my $.02
Good luck with version 1.2 Arefin.
__________________
Mechanical Engineer
Digital Lumens
NU ME: 2011

Last edited by henryBsick : 01-12-2004 at 00:51.
Reply With Quote