General > General Technical Chat

Sharing some project planning phase: A (digital) ELECTRO-MECHANICAL Network

<< < (23/39) > >>

RJSV:
The provably, better approach, changes the rotary switch configuration, of the chained or 'Local', to a situation where the 'chained' signal is constant; never switched.
Going box to box, there could be as little as 2 gears, interfacing the input to the output.  Right now the gear count is eight, and even worse, for avoiding friction, the 'speed-up' then 'slow-down' aspect quickly adds to the total drag.
  This way, each of the columns are not switched, there are three 'TAPs' switched in, which is locally similar to the (current) state of ...:
   Revision 2.0.11.49532, Feb. 4th
haha

coppercone2:
what if the stop applied a break to all the gears? like a whole bunch of pins with rubber on the tip that press into everything to hault it.

RJSV:
   Coppercone2:
   I don't think I wanted that individual stop: but it's just that I realized, each individual gear, maybe, gets into a state where there is no 'immediate' forces but rather just coasting down, along with everything else, along the chain.
   I heard about gears, many years back, dude was saying that ' gears aren't what's doing the work'...that it's really forces on (gear metal teeth) rather than some kind of 'spin' energy...
Something like, he saying ' Gears are just a convince, round in a clever way to bring those 'working surfaces' into contact...


   At any rate, stay tuned, please...more breaking news...
   I've figured a basic change that gets rid of massive gear count (and DRAG!).
  The new idea has the 'chain' from station box to station box, with, essentially NO gear, that being just one continuous shaft (although using couplings of course).
   See photo, there is ONE gear, incidental as the TAP switch being open will leave that gear unconnected.

RJSV:
   The 'switched-in' signals don't make it, back onto the serial network.  For those components in 'switched-in' chains, a couple of gear-downs don't hurt, as this is one instance, not chained.
For example, a 1 to 2 ratio, followed by 1 to 3 ratio giving a total gear-down of X6, could then position the toggle 'motor', with geared-down ease.
As to the question: Why not switch off all of the box, at once?
   That's a (frustrating) circular argument involved.  It's like, channel 'A' cancels 'B', turns out the lights, and goes home..., but who is left, to turn off 'A' s lights?

   But now, using SPST switching, plus that hot-hot 'overflow' special function, it's more reliable, to implement self-disconnect, (hopefully without needing some ghastly flywheel contraption!)

coppercone2:
abrupt interruption of rotation between gears is certainly interesting to think about. When you think about how the deformation from the impact or the 'lurch' from the break might look like something is 'spreading' from the edge of the gear which puts a real spot light on the 'surface energy' as you described.

When a rotating gear has a strong magnetic field applied to it as a break its certainly interesting.. uniform field around the gear when the different parts are at different KE's. Makes it seem like the field should NOT be uniform to give a 'softer break' to the gear.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod