|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
And now I feel stupid for seeing "click to add discription"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a close up of one of my modules.
I'm hoping to connect all the miter gears and sprockets (the lower sprocket is attached to the wheel) to the shafts with setscrews to limit machining.
From the bottom of the wheel to the top of the module is about 6" (not including the vertical shaft!)
Can you see anyway to make this simpler?
Comments appreciated.
06-07-2006 09:31
Greg Needel
|
Originally Posted by from description
This is a close up of one of my modules.
I'm hoping to connect all the miter gears and sprockets (the lower sprocket is attached to the wheel) to the shafts with setscrews to limit machining. From the bottom of the wheel to the top of the module is about 6" (not including the vertical shaft!) Can you see anyway to make this simpler? Comments appreciated. |
06-07-2006 18:28
=Martin=Taylor=|
Originally Posted by Greg Needel
1) why don't you uses gears instead of the sprocket and chain for the last reduction? With this design you will need proper alignment of your shafts anyway and I can't see that chain being fun to fix if it ever breaks.
|
|
Originally Posted by Greg Needel
3) how are you attaching your rotating plate to the wheel framework? it looks as though you are going to need access to the inside of this module for adjusting your miter gear alignment. A bolt hole pattern on the slim edge of your top plate, if you made that a touch smaller so it fits inside would seem to be a good solution.
|
06-07-2006 18:49
NoodleKnightIt's not so much tension that causes chain de-rail/breaking, its alignment. #25 is more finicky because the chain is a lot smaller, correctly tensioning the chain helps some but if your alignment between sprockets is out of whack, the chain will hop off. #35 is a lot more forgiving, even if you had a noticable amout of slack in the chain, as long as your alignment is held true (and since it's housed in a box frame) it's not going to cause any real problems, unless you really hate backlash.
+1 on the keyway, pins and setscrews will only fail at this stage of the reduction, if you're having a hard time getting the machining done I can connect you to a few people =P.
As for that miter gear, I'd suggest just machining sleeves that sit on the shaft to prevent the gear from moving in any direction, if you make the gear adjustable in position then under the right circumstances it'll adjust itself (I'd actually just machine sleeves for the entire shaft, then you'll never have to worry about alignment during testing/competition). Then again, if you weld it in that works too, make sure you keep the keyway in there.
06-07-2006 18:52
sanddragI think your programmers would be more happy if those were gears in there (less backlash). 
06-07-2006 19:02
NoodleKnightIsn't simplicity one of the key elements of this design?
It doesn't look like you can directly swap the chain/sprocket element with two gears, so you're going to at least need 3, which means you'll need to add in another shaft and its bearings to support it, which means more machining, on top of the gear/gear stock you have to buy and machine as well.
Anyways, shouldn't the encoders be measuring data off the wheel/the shaft that it's connected to? If so I don't see backlash being a problem, unless you're doing dead reckoning, which I'm sure our programming mentor has something to say against =P.
I'm not advocating to keep the backlash, though, if you can get rid of it then that's good.
06-07-2006 19:41
DonRotolo
|
Originally Posted by NoodleKnight
Isn't simplicity one of the key elements of this design?
It doesn't look like you can directly swap the chain/sprocket element with two gears, so you're going to at least need 3, which means you'll need to add in another shaft and its bearings to support it, which means more machining, on top of the gear/gear stock you have to buy and machine as well. |
06-07-2006 21:11
James114Is there any interference where the chain is going to be? I think from this angle it looks like the chain is going through the side plates... if it were there.
06-07-2006 23:00
Nuttyman54
|
Originally Posted by Don Rotolo
Not sure why you think you'd need a third gear in there. Can't you just reverse the motor (in programming)?
Don |
06-07-2006 23:52
NoodleKnightNuttyman54 got it right, its a matter of distance rather than motor orientation.
07-07-2006 13:54
Madison
|
Originally Posted by NoodleKnight
Nuttyman54 got it right, its a matter of distance rather than motor orientation.
|
07-07-2006 14:34
Greg Needel
|
Originally Posted by Nuttyman54
I think the third gear isn't so much for the reversal as it is for the distance. Looking at the distance between the two sprockets, you'd need the third gear as an idler just to make it reach.
|
07-07-2006 23:47
=Martin=Taylor=Thanks for the feedback.
One more question for you:
The vertical shaft is welded to the top plate. The top plate is 1/2" thick. Is this excessive? Would 1/4" plate work just as well?
09-07-2006 19:57
negfrequencyits a great design, and if you go about it right you can get complete direction control with only effecting your weight (i hate that constraint)