|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
After seeing the other inverted low profile gearbox, I decided to look into the general design, as well as take my first step into PTO options on gearboxes.
Specs:
High speed: 17.69fps
Low speed: 6.49fps (ha......)
Weight: 11.49 lbs
I didn't calculate anything for the PTO. Basically, the gearbox was to get familiar with PTO mounting so when I make future designs, at least I know how to do it.
If anyone wants to look at the model, it can be found on the grabCAD:
https://workbench.grabcad.com/workbench/projects/gcOhfXOehYETdalk4HNJ_3A0HceTxrt6Dv4ytxedJppYkO#/space/gcy-RpuR7fueMhPxpys8KUh7yF1NwcTEWAlStxFm6c3ypj
11-06-2015 04:50 PM
jkelleyrtpOh wow that's a sleek profile, good job! 11.5 lbs, a PTO, 3 cims, a 2 speed and it looks like it can rest in the chassis. Are the plates symmetrical or do you have to build the gearbox in reverse to put it on the other side?
11-06-2015 06:26 PM
KohKohPuffs|
Oh wow that's a sleek profile, good job! 11.5 lbs, a PTO, 3 cims, a 2 speed and it looks like it can rest in the chassis. Are the plates symmetrical or do you have to build the gearbox in reverse to put it on the other side?
|
11-07-2015 12:01 AM
asid61|
I might have to make a gearbox in reverse because I have configurations for countersunk screws for the standoffs.
|
11-07-2015 04:59 AM
Greg Needel
Looks great! The one thing that I would consider adding is an easy place to mount an encoder.
Keep up the good work.
11-07-2015 05:37 PM
KohKohPuffs| If you hand countersink or countersink on the mill you could just make two configurations of the plate for counterinks/machining purposes only. |
|
Looks great! The one thing that I would consider adding is an easy place to mount an encoder. Keep up the good work. |
11-07-2015 06:59 PM
RobotsThatWorkIf the front and back plates are not the same, why not get rid of all the extra holes in the front plate? and maybe lighten it a little more (haven't decided if thats a good idea or not though)
But why cant they be identical plates? If they can be identical, we can add the countersink with the mill and just cut 2 identical copies for the front and back plate. Much easier
11-07-2015 07:16 PM
Aaron Ng| As for the encoder, I do believe I need to add a gear and a shaft for that. At that point, wound't it be easier to mount encoders to the wheel shafts? |
11-07-2015 07:55 PM
KohKohPuffs|
If the front and back plates are not the same, why not get rid of all the extra holes in the front plate? and maybe lighten it a little more (haven't decided if thats a good idea or not though) But why cant they be identical plates? If they can be identical, we can add the countersink with the mill and just cut 2 identical copies for the front and back plate. Much easier |
|
Perhaps you can add small gear on the output shaft. sdp-si has a ton of gears for your choosing. Broach a small one and you can fit it on the output hex shaft where you have a spacer. you might have to make a small plate to mount the encoder, else you cant mount the gearbox directly to the 2x1 (which is what i am assuming you are doing) Or gear it directly to the CIM gear. Looking at your CAD, there seems to be space right next to the CIM. It would solve the problem of needing a dedicated plate just to mount a encoder, but it would make life difficult for your programmers. |
11-07-2015 08:20 PM
Aaron Ng| I think I see what you are talking about: those shafts that have the gear directly driven by the CIMs. |
11-07-2015 08:45 PM
RobotsThatWorkOk then if the plates are the same, don't bother making another configuration. Not worth the effort.
Also, is there an advantage to putting the encoder on the gearbox itself? I feel like putting it on a wheel shaft yields more accurate information for coders to determine stuff like distance traveled, etc. since its reading how much the wheel has turned, which directly determines how far you are moving. no math involved(which leads to slight inconsistencies with whats expected vs. whats actually happening). Thoughts?
11-08-2015 02:01 AM
Naveed Riaziat|
Ok then if the plates are the same, don't bother making another configuration. Not worth the effort.
Also, is there an advantage to putting the encoder on the gearbox itself? I feel like putting it on a wheel shaft yields more accurate information for coders to determine stuff like distance traveled, etc. since its reading how much the wheel has turned, which directly determines how far you are moving. no math involved(which leads to slight inconsistencies with whats expected vs. whats actually happening). Thoughts? |
11-08-2015 03:03 AM
asid61The debate on whether encoders should be placed in the gearbox or on the wheel came up recently in another thread. In the end I took away that placing it in the gearbox is both safer and gives less backlash (thus is easier to apply controls to).
You could put something like an S4 encoder on the end of nearly any shaft in the gearbox it seems. Just put a hole in the end of a shaft and add a set screw.
11-08-2015 03:39 AM
KohKohPuffs|
The debate on whether encoders should be placed in the gearbox or on the wheel came up recently in another thread. In the end I took away that placing it in the gearbox is both safer and gives less backlash (thus is easier to apply controls to).
You could put something like an S4 encoder on the end of nearly any shaft in the gearbox it seems. Just put a hole in the end of a shaft and add a set screw. |