Recent Posts61
General stuff / Re: Picking things back up
« Last post by webby2 on December 04, 2023, 04:20:51 am »I have a build error that I did not know about. I have 8 sub-systems with a part that connects to all of them and they all are supposed to be in sync with their motions and stuff, well somehow either a design error or a slicing error or a Freecad error, the systems are sort of indexed so that they all only line up when the parts are put together in one orientation and that still does not work nicely. The system is supposed to allow for a free rotation between all the parts but as the system rotates it starts to bind and that spring loads the actual parts so there are 4 positions that it wants to stop in. This is not a good thing for me.
This test-part was setup so that I could use it for testing 2 different thoughts on how to transfer the work.
One way would require that I flip the input and output functions at the appropriate time while maintaining a constant reactionary condition. I could see Bessler using something like this for his wheel since Gravity is directional it would provide a means to facilitate the flip and then he might be able to use the constant reactionary condition as his actual output.
Another way, which I am preferring to use, has a constant input and constant output and no flipping required. It needs a little better relational control and I think I should use a couple of limiters.
I have made my parts somewhat weak so that I can see the forces acting upon those parts, they bend and flex and it is this bending that I am using as a visual guide for the build. Obviously the final build parts will be stronger.
Another reason I chose to use 8 sub-systems is because each one can only pass a smallish amount of torque, 8 working together means I could pass 8 times as much before failure, hence the chain and sprockets to not only pass the output via the chain but the chain was supposed to keep all the parts in sync.
What I am seeing from my flawed test-bed, going for the constant setup, is that the forces and directions are doing what I was expecting. I have taken what should be an external rotation and stopped it and turned it into a virtual rotation.
I still need to design the feedback system that is needed between to parts, one moves a little relative and the other moves more, this work is the feedback I need to build for.
This test-part was setup so that I could use it for testing 2 different thoughts on how to transfer the work.
One way would require that I flip the input and output functions at the appropriate time while maintaining a constant reactionary condition. I could see Bessler using something like this for his wheel since Gravity is directional it would provide a means to facilitate the flip and then he might be able to use the constant reactionary condition as his actual output.
Another way, which I am preferring to use, has a constant input and constant output and no flipping required. It needs a little better relational control and I think I should use a couple of limiters.
I have made my parts somewhat weak so that I can see the forces acting upon those parts, they bend and flex and it is this bending that I am using as a visual guide for the build. Obviously the final build parts will be stronger.
Another reason I chose to use 8 sub-systems is because each one can only pass a smallish amount of torque, 8 working together means I could pass 8 times as much before failure, hence the chain and sprockets to not only pass the output via the chain but the chain was supposed to keep all the parts in sync.
What I am seeing from my flawed test-bed, going for the constant setup, is that the forces and directions are doing what I was expecting. I have taken what should be an external rotation and stopped it and turned it into a virtual rotation.
I still need to design the feedback system that is needed between to parts, one moves a little relative and the other moves more, this work is the feedback I need to build for.