MechMate CNC Router Forum

Go Back   MechMate CNC Router Forum > Common Assemblies & Parts > Driving Mechanisms: Rack/pinion, gears, screws, belts & chains
Register Options Profile Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #151  
Old Wed 16 September 2009, 13:17
obuhus
Just call me: Dmitriy #68
 
Kirov region
Russia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald D View Post
Dmitriy's design seems to have all the bearings (or one wide bearing) on the outboard side of the reduction unit.
Gerald, you are confused with length of a shaft from the bearing to a gear wheel? In my case the shaft is made of stainless steel. For a usual steel there is more reliable configuration, but more bulky.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old Wed 16 September 2009, 13:55
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
I am a little bit worried about the flexibility of the shaft. It is quite a long distance from the bearing to the pinion gear. There is no real difference in the flexibility of stainless steel compared to usual steel - the vibration frequency will be the same. It will be interesting to see if you get good cutting results.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old Wed 16 September 2009, 14:26
bradm
Just call me: Brad #10
 
Somerville(MA)
United States of America
Would something like a simple sintered bronze sleeve in the opening by the pinion gear help or hurt?
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old Wed 16 September 2009, 14:41
obuhus
Just call me: Dmitriy #68
 
Kirov region
Russia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald D View Post
I am a little bit worried about the flexibility of the shaft. It is quite a long distance from the bearing to the pinion gear. There is no real difference in the flexibility of stainless steel compared to usual steel - the vibration frequency will be the same. It will be interesting to see if you get good cutting results.

Gerald, I thought of it. For myself I have chosen a variant with stainless steel - there was at hand suitable preparation. And design more graceful. But the second variant obviously is stronger. And quality of processing we will see when will earn
Attached Images
File Type: jpg SS&US-belt-drive2.jpg (26.7 KB, 2213 views)
File Type: jpg SS&US-belt-drive1.jpg (21.7 KB, 2212 views)
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old Wed 16 September 2009, 23:41
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradm View Post
Would something like a simple sintered bronze sleeve in the opening by the pinion gear help or hurt?
It would remove the concern about flexing. But then that bronze sleeve becomes the most heavily loaded bearing in the system and needs to be upgraded for long life. Which puts you back to having a standard bearing there in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old Wed 16 September 2009, 23:43
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
I think this picture at E-Z router is new. Might give some ideas; the shaft is static.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old Thu 17 September 2009, 01:44
obuhus
Just call me: Dmitriy #68
 
Kirov region
Russia
It seems to me, I have thought up an absolute variant of a reducer. It has a possibility to protect a belt and pulleys from a dust. In drawing I have designated a cover a blue line.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg SS&US-belt-drive3.jpg (32.5 KB, 2220 views)
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old Thu 17 September 2009, 02:10
javeria
Just call me: Irfan #33
 
Bangalore
India
that is a good design - but for motors with different height it might be problem. so need to decide what depth it will be.
may be that can be left as a motor dependent variable.

also since the plate is laser cut on the pinion side a flange and bolt arrangement might not be necessary on the shaft case, we can just have the casing of the shaft match with the hole in the plate and make it go thru.

RGDS
Irfan
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old Thu 17 September 2009, 03:23
sailfl
Just call me: Nils #12
 
Winter Park, FL
United States of America
I like the way they did the stops.

But back to the belt drive plate, it would seem to my thinking that having the shaft that drives the pinon is less likely to have problems if it has two plates with bearings on each side of the larger toothed pulley.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old Thu 17 September 2009, 03:50
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
I forgot the picture of the drive gear.
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old Thu 17 September 2009, 04:00
sailfl
Just call me: Nils #12
 
Winter Park, FL
United States of America
I was too quick with my comment about the link not work. Sorry!
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old Thu 17 September 2009, 16:18
Greeny
Just call me: Greeny
 
The North
United Kingdom
I like the idea of a fixed shaft with only one motor plate.

The small pinion limits the shaft size though, i wonder if something like this would work?
Attached Images
File Type: gif fixed shaft.gif (10.5 KB, 2244 views)
File Type: gif fixed shaft1.gif (11.2 KB, 2250 views)
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old Thu 17 September 2009, 19:31
smreish
Just call me: Sean - #5, 28, 58 and others
 
Orlando, Florida
United States of America
...or you could weld the small pinion to the larger and just use the smaller diameter shaft.
That would make all your parts off the shelf and a simple "bolt" on like shaft for the assembly.

Just thinking outside the box.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old Thu 17 September 2009, 21:26
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
We have a space constraint caused by our gantry and y-car end plates, which at present nearly touch the grub-screws in the pinions. (Due to the heap of guests in our house, I cannot access the cross-section drawing right now)
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old Fri 18 September 2009, 04:39
Greeny
Just call me: Greeny
 
The North
United Kingdom
The interference issue seems to rule out fixing the pinion in the pulley.
how about this?
(pulley wheel is now narrower, for a 10mm belt)
Attached Images
File Type: gif fixed shaft 2.gif (11.4 KB, 2223 views)
File Type: gif fixed shaft 2 dims.gif (11.1 KB, 2222 views)
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old Fri 18 September 2009, 06:13
Greeny
Just call me: Greeny
 
The North
United Kingdom
Or maybe,
Attached Images
File Type: gif fixed shaft 3.gif (8.9 KB, 2224 views)
File Type: jpg widget.jpg (11.2 KB, 2240 views)
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old Fri 18 September 2009, 06:24
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
I think the overhang beyond the bearing is too much, and I don't really see the advantage in having a single plate.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old Fri 18 September 2009, 08:47
Greeny
Just call me: Greeny
 
The North
United Kingdom
I was mainly thinking of weight, but i suppose a single plate would have to be thicker, negating most of the difference.
The distance from the bearing was always a worry. initially it was much closer, but interference..well interfered .
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old Thu 24 September 2009, 09:06
woodfish510
Just call me: dave
 
Reading, Pa
United States of America
Hi:
What size and pitch is the rack gear?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chopper View Post
Gerald,
if it isn't steel it isn't real! just and old expression from my metal fab days....
Doug thank you for the compliment,
I also wanted to ad that the parts came from stock drive here is their link http://sdp-si.com/
the 72 tooth pulley is part number A6A3-72NF03716 @ 31.97 each
the 18 tooth pulley is part number A6A3-18H3716 @ 10.98 each
the belt is a 200xl with Kevlar reinforcement part number A6B3-080037 @ 7.61 each
I bought the bearings locally, I think they were about 6.00 each ( I tried some cheap internet supplier but the bearings were crap)
the steel plates were scraps that I had laying around say 10.00-20.00 worth for all 4 transmissions I also went to my local steel supplier and acquired some cold rolled .5 inch steel round stock to make the shafts the rest is just time...
//chopper
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old Fri 25 September 2009, 00:24
chopper
Just call me: chopper
 
Big Lake Minnesota
United States of America
the parts listed here are for the belt drives which has nothing to do with the rack and pinion, the rack is 20dp @ 20 teeth per inch same goes for the pinion,
and the pinions I run are 20 tooth..
//chopper
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old Sat 26 September 2009, 09:06
eesanopi
Just call me: Edgar
 
Morelos
Mexico
cncrouterparts belt drive

Take a look at cncrouterparts.com, they are selling a 3:1 belt drive, this belt drive is similar to the ez-router's belt drive. They show how the sytem works with two cool videos.

http://cncrouterparts.com/product_in...products_id=50
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old Sat 26 September 2009, 09:20
Richards
Just call me: Mike
 
South Jordan, UT
United States of America
Edgar,

It looks like the 3:1 belt drive that you referenced is for use with 23-frame sized motors. I would not recommend that size motor. They're just too small for the job.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old Sat 26 September 2009, 09:53
eesanopi
Just call me: Edgar
 
Morelos
Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richards View Post
Edgar,

It looks like the 3:1 belt drive that you referenced is for use with 23-frame sized motors. I would not recommend that size motor. They're just too small for the job.
You´re right, the intention with my post is only to show the system because might give additional ideas.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old Mon 05 October 2009, 12:12
Austint
Just call me: Dan
 
Cannonville UT
United States of America
Hello,

I have been a forum member for a while and just recently became extremely interested CNC routers. I have a degree in mechanical engineering and electronics and I am particularly interested in reduction transmissions for CNC machines. Over the last few months I have designed a belt reduction transmission that I would like to soon release! There are some great minds on this forum and it would be beneficial to receive some feedback before I finalize the design. I would primarily like to know the desired final gear ratio? The transmission will utilize either a nema 23 or a 34 motors. What would be a desirable final ratio for the design? The transmission can be between 3-1 and 9-1 with the current design. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Thank you,

Daniel Thompson
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old Mon 05 October 2009, 12:53
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
It is all a compromise . . .

3-1 is practical minimum for simplicity, low mass, low space needed, low cost, high reliability, high tolerance of flying dust, and still a significant improvement over a direct-drive.

9-1 sounds as if it will give the biggest improvement over a direct-drive, but how does it affect the other factors mentioned above?
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old Mon 05 October 2009, 14:30
Austint
Just call me: Dan
 
Cannonville UT
United States of America
The 3-1 is the most simple but the design is modular in that a second stage can be added at any time.
1. Mass
The transmission will be cast aluminum and will use aluminum pulleys for the reductions. The only parts on the transmission that are steel will be the shafts, bearings and some misc fasteners.
2. space needed
needed space depends on the final ratio so I don't have definite dimensions at this time. I certainly don't want to build a transmission that will not fit the mechmate requirements. Any information on size requirements would be appreciated!
3. Cost
Final cost will again depend on the ratio. Two stages will cost more than a single stage but will be worth the reduction. I can say that after I add the second stage cost difference between 3-1 to 9-1 is not significant. I will know more on cost after we do a prototype run with the casting shop.

4. Reliability
Reliability will not be affected by the final ratio. Pulleys and belts are selected to maintain a sufficient number of teeth in contact. I am working with Gates to select a belt size that will meet the tension requirements and still be an off the shelf item. Other factors such as shaft sizes and bearing placements are being considered and evaluated for deflections. There is a big difference in a part that works and one that works well

4. Dust

Currently the design is an open design , the belts and pulleys are exposed. We could integrate a cover into the design if needed? Those with open designed reductions how are the reductions tolerating the dust?

Thank you
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old Sat 10 October 2009, 21:57
ger21
Just call me: Ger
 
Detroit, MI
United States of America
The best ratio depends on the specific motor used. As you increase the reduction, you get diminishing returns, as the steppers torque drops as rpm's increase. Different motors have different torque curves, so you'd need to tailor the reduction to a specific motor/drive/power supply combo for maximum performance.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old Sat 10 October 2009, 23:29
chopper
Just call me: chopper
 
Big Lake Minnesota
United States of America
this maybe true but in the process of reducing the output it also multiplies the torque, so if you had a 450 oz-in motor and were using a 4 to 1 drive you would end up with 1800 oz-in of torque ( I am sure that a small amount will be lost in the transmission assembly) but for the sake of simplicity we will say it is zero loss so if you are running fast enough to loose half of your torque you would still be at 900 oz-in of torque which is well above what you would be getting from the oriental's with the 7.2's and I doubt that you would have that much loss or even close....
//chopper
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old Sun 11 October 2009, 00:27
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Chopper, the oriental 7.2 behaves like a belt-drive at 7.2 ratio. For a discussion on the best ratio, there is no need to bring in a discussion of gear vs. belt.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old Sun 11 October 2009, 03:10
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Quote:
Originally Posted by ger21 View Post
The best ratio depends on the specific motor used. . . . .
. . . . and the type of cutting that you want to do, and the jog speed you want to achieve while not cutting.

On the cutting, working in soft woods is different to working in hardwoods.

The question of "which ratio is best" would be the same as asking the owner of a stickshift car "you can only have one gear - which one do you want?" (Of course, if you have a very powerful engine, the exact choice of gear is not so critical)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Register Options Profile Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Belt reduction box build T5 16 to 60 linus1 Driving Mechanisms: Rack/pinion, gears, screws, belts & chains 3 Sun 25 July 2010 09:26
Belt reduction installed, cutting metals - Big Lake, MN chopper MechMates already cutting 61 Tue 24 November 2009 00:02
Has dust foot, belt reduction and plastic wheels #22 - Midrand, S. Africa MariusL MechMates already cutting 124 Fri 23 October 2009 04:33
Trying smaller motors with belt reduction #17 - Sao Caetano do Sul, SP, Brasil YRD MechMates already cutting 178 Sat 04 July 2009 09:59
Off the shelf belt drive? myozman Motors & their mountings 2 Mon 22 June 2009 20:41


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:02.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.