} > I'd look at the bearings, bea..."/>

Re: Help needed: kinetic sculpture

Dear Mac:
cross-posting to sci.engr.mech (there are some cookies over there too)


I'd look at the bearings, bearing "race", and bearing plate (the turntable). Take a look at a lazy-susan for details. Is the plate "housing" the bearings (at the same level as the centerline) free to rotate as the bearings roll? Are the upper an lower plates metal, so that the bearings don't "embed"?
If you remove the turntable, does the clockwork mechanism operate to allow the weight to fall?
I would concern myself with the bearings that end up supporting the weights. The first driven shaft will be under tremendous strain.
Thats my first pass. Hopefully others will have other good ideas.
David A. Smith
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message

How about modifying the escapement to be a conical shape. It would unwrap starting at the wide end, and drive your 1:4000 gear set. This would essentially give you a better initial gear ratio, perhaps 1:500. As the device sped up, the cord would be coming off a smaller and smaller diameter, thus increasing the gear ratio significantly. For giggles, you can use a shape other than a cone to produce a more sudden change from acceleration to maintenance.
You are going to have to look at how much force you need to move your sculpture and how much you have available in the weight.
You might also consider using several weights on several cords, rather than just one.
If it were a little earlier at night, it might be interesting to consider some governor style mechanism which would apply energy only if the flywheel was going too slowly.
Michael
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Smith referred this note to sci.engr.mech.
Here's my six pennyworth: Engineering is a numbers game. If you would provide some numbers, you would get helpful answers. Turning things takes power. Not electrical power necessarily, but power just the same.
The number you need to tell us, is the torque needed to turn your zoetrope shaft at a modest clip.
Torque is a force times its distance from the shaft. So if you mounted a temporary pulley on the vertical shaft, and ran a cord from the pulley, over a fixed pulley and down to a weight, you could add weights to the string, untill the shaft began to turn.
The pulley radius and the size weight you used, would be a measure of the power requirement. Give it a try
Brian Whatcott Altus OK
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:30:02 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T: snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com> wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian, Thanks for your thoughts. I like the idea of getting back to fundamentals, fundamentals I can understand <smile>. I will try your idea and try and get you the numbers you asked for. So, the diameter of the vertical shaft pulley, the diameter of the fixed pulley, and the weight required to turn the table at the desired pace. Anything else? Thanks very much, -Mac

degrees
chime
attached
as
in
the
turntable
I
back
you
rotate
allow
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The shaft pulley radius, the weight motivating it, and the speed at which the shaft turns, is a complete description of the power requirement. Go for it!
Brian W
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:31:07 GMT, "Mac"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
N:dlzc, The bearing I'm using is a high quality ball bearing with metal plates. I don't think it is introducing the bulk of the friction. When I spin the turntable by hand it moves quite smoothly, and slows very gradually. When it does come to a stop, it actually reverses direction for about an inch so I don't think there's much "sticktion". I did think about using a thrust bearing but felt it would introduce more friction than the ball bearing. When I remove the turntable the weight does fall, rather quickly as a matter of fact. Could the bevel gears be at fault? I'm employing a step-up 1:2 bevel gear set (although I don't know that it was designed for stepping-up). Might it be the changing of vertical rotation into horizontal that is causing the excess friction? I believe I will start by reducing the gear ratio at the bevel gears to 1:1, add more weight and go from there. I'm interested in what Brian had to say and will reply to his post as well. Thanks so much, -Mac
message

chime
as
you
rotate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
N:dlzc, The bearing I'm using is a high quality ball bearing with metal plates. I don't think it is introducing the bulk of the friction. When I spin the turntable by hand it moves quite smoothly, and slows very gradually. When it does come to a stop, it actually reverses direction for about an inch so I don't think there's much "sticktion". I did think about using a thrust bearing but felt it would introduce more friction than the ball bearing. When I remove the turntable the weight does fall, rather quickly as a matter of fact. Could the bevel gears be at fault? I'm employing a step-up 1:2 bevel gear set (although I don't know that it was designed for stepping-up). Might it be the changing of vertical rotation into horizontal that is causing the excess friction? I believe I will start by reducing the gear ratio at the bevel gears to 1:1, add more weight and go from there. I'm interested in what Brian had to say and will reply to his post as well. Thanks so much, -Mac
message

chime
as
you
rotate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dear Mac:

Good.
This is the "backlash", that causes/allows the short reverse motion.

There will be a component of force that is nether coaxial with the turntable, or the host of gears, due to the bevel gearing. It is at the lowest torque position, so it is as small as you can make it, based on where it is in the drive train. But the choice of bearing may have "overspecified" (in some sense) the degrees of freedom. I would recommend that an axial type bearing be used to offset this loading (by the bevel gear-set), and thrust type bearing be used to support the "turntable/zoetrope". You could probably do both with the type of bearing used on the front axle of a rear wheel drive car (tapered roller).

The bearing I was interested in mostly, was the bearing that actually supports the weight. I didn't see another weight on the other end of the same chain, did I? Because there shouldn't have been one...
By the way, please add your response inline, or at the end (as I have adjusted this). We all try to respond to posterity, as much as to you. And it reads better (and appears a little more curteous) this way. I'm not intending to thrash you, just to charge you with 'nettiquette...
David A. Smith (and thanks Brian!)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message

not
David, My apologies, I will follow in line. Just to clarify, there was/is just the single weight on the chain. No counterweight. I would like to thank you and the others for your time and suggestions. You have been a great help. With some elbow grease and a little luck this piece of sculpture will be realized yet. -Mac
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dear Mac:
...

I don't mean to be restrictive...

OK. My memory sometimes fails me.

Let us know where it can be seen, and when. When.
David A. Smith
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You need a better turntable/ bearing. You don't just have a friction problem, you have a 'runout' problem.
When the turntable reverses, it's telling you that there's a 'hill' that it can't climb with the available torque. It stops, then it rolls back down.
Your extreme speedup gearing also, extremely, reduces the drive torque that the gravity power unit can deliver to the turntable.
When there's not enough torque available to climb whatever infinitesimal hills exist in the turntable, the mechanism stalls.
For a zero- power device like you're trying to build, you need bearings that are way better than 'high quality'. You need AFBMA class 'dead nuts'.
You can't even give up the torque required to drive a seal, or even a little bit of grease. To lubricate the mechanism, use a drop of turbine oil in ~ a liter of volatile solvent. Apply a very small drop of that mixture to each bearing, and let the solvent evaporate.
-Mike-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi Mac, One question, Does the zoetrope spin easily when all is connected? (such as trying to wind up the weight?)
when you had said it will break a chain before it spins.. It actually sounds like you have a gear locking up (incorrect mating of the gear teeth maybe?) (or not enough clearance for easy motion?) Just a thought.
} > > Hello group, } > > I am in need of assistance. I have been pushing a deadline for a show } > > but } > > now I don't think I will make it. } > > I am a professional sculptor who prefers kinetic artwork. This } > > particular } > > piece was inspired by "The Time Machine" by H. G. Wells. Now my degrees } > > are } > > in Art, not engineering...thus the problem I am having. } > > Essentially, I want to spin an object using a weight driven clock } > > movement. } > > About 30 RPM would be great but anywhere around that would suffice. I } > > have } > > removed all escapement components from the movement, along with the } chime } > > gears, leaving only the main drive gears. I have attached one of a } > > matching } > > set of bevel gears to the escapement wheel with the mating gear attached } > > to } > > the turntable. To better illustrate all this I uploaded a special page } > > to } > > my website with pics and drawings. This page can be accessed here: } > > www.macs.studio.web1000.com/temp_page.htm } > > As I explain on the web page, I was hoping that the zoetrope would act } as } > > a } > > sort of flywheel and that the weight driven movement would only be } > > required } > > to "maintain" the horizontal rotation of the zoetrope. I was sure that } > > if } > > enough weight/pull were applied to the mechanism, the friction would be } > > overcome. I have applied enough weight to actually open up the links in } > > the } > > chain and still the rotation is not maintained. The gear ratio from the } > > weight-driven gear (again, this is all on the web page) to the turntable } > > is } > > something like 1 : 4000 so I know that leverage (or a manifestation } > > there-of) is the problem. } > > I'm thinking I may have to completely re-think the drive mechanism. I } > > should mention that, in the interest of integrity, this sculpture needs } > > to } > > be driven by a clock movement, not motorized or any such thing. } > > If I bring my gear ratio down by a factor of 2 or 4, would this help? I } > > would like the turntable/zoetrope to turn for 12 or more hours before } > > needing rewinding but I may not be able to reach that. If I bring the } > > gear } > > ratio down by a factor of two and employ a pulley system, I can get back } > > my } > > duration. } > > Thanks for your time and let me know if you have any suggestions. If } you } > > prefer to email me, remove "whatapain" from my address. Otherwise, } > > simply } > > post. } > } > I'd look at the bearings, bearing "race", and bearing plate (the } > turntable). Take a look at a lazy-susan for details. Is the plate } > "housing" the bearings (at the same level as the centerline) free to } rotate } > as the bearings roll? Are the upper an lower plates metal, so that the } > bearings don't "embed"? } > } > If you remove the turntable, does the clockwork mechanism operate to allow } > the weight to fall? } > } > I would concern myself with the bearings that end up supporting the } > weights. The first driven shaft will be under tremendous strain. } > } > Thats my first pass. Hopefully others will have other good ideas. } > } > David A. Smith } > } > } }
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Spaceman, As the gearbox (clock movement) runs quite nicely without the turntable in place, I assume there is no binding. Thanks for the reply -Mac
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
} Spaceman, } As the gearbox (clock movement) runs quite nicely without the turntable in } place, I assume there is no binding.
That is why you need to have the turntable in place and make sure that "all" parts can freely spin.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The bevel gears make good, solid, no-bind contact. When I spin the turntable by hand (manipulating fom the turntable end of the gear train), all works rotate quite freely. Thanks
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.