Where are we going?
So far this thread is has been a fertile field of ideas. The bearing has been the main issue, I suppose because there is still a lot to be developed in this field.
First we had an air bearing period
Then we had the unipivot&oil phase and
Now we are into magnets.
It makes me wonder…
Of course it is good to vent all the possible solutions we can think of, but are we making any progress or are we just going off in all directions?
In the beginning of this thread there have been attempts to write down the specs of what we want. Bernhard even started a WIKI, but that is still empty. Perhaps we should fill it.
Anyway,
One of the important issues, at least for me, is KISS. If this project is to be made by as many people as possible it must be as simple as possible. I don't think its feasible to make something of Teres quality (whatever that is) on your kitchen table, but the more complex this project becomes the more outside help you are going to need. And that will make it more expensive. Soon you'll reach the point of being better of just getting a Teres or Scheu.
I am the one that started the unipivot&oil thread and I still feel that if we can get it to work it is by far the simplest solution. The only way to find out though is to make one.
And I intend to do so.
I have been thinking of an easy way to make some sort of prototype. And I think I can do that for base, platter and bearing. I will post some pictures later.
But I don't have a motor and designing a control unit is far beyond me. Here I need help.
This prototype is not something I do in a weekend so it will take a while.
Once it is finished what do we do then? I have a Thorens td125mk2 to compare but that is all.
Food for thought.
Peter
So far this thread is has been a fertile field of ideas. The bearing has been the main issue, I suppose because there is still a lot to be developed in this field.
First we had an air bearing period
Then we had the unipivot&oil phase and
Now we are into magnets.
It makes me wonder…
Of course it is good to vent all the possible solutions we can think of, but are we making any progress or are we just going off in all directions?
In the beginning of this thread there have been attempts to write down the specs of what we want. Bernhard even started a WIKI, but that is still empty. Perhaps we should fill it.
Anyway,
One of the important issues, at least for me, is KISS. If this project is to be made by as many people as possible it must be as simple as possible. I don't think its feasible to make something of Teres quality (whatever that is) on your kitchen table, but the more complex this project becomes the more outside help you are going to need. And that will make it more expensive. Soon you'll reach the point of being better of just getting a Teres or Scheu.
I am the one that started the unipivot&oil thread and I still feel that if we can get it to work it is by far the simplest solution. The only way to find out though is to make one.
And I intend to do so.
I have been thinking of an easy way to make some sort of prototype. And I think I can do that for base, platter and bearing. I will post some pictures later.
But I don't have a motor and designing a control unit is far beyond me. Here I need help.
This prototype is not something I do in a weekend so it will take a while.
Once it is finished what do we do then? I have a Thorens td125mk2 to compare but that is all.
Food for thought.
Peter
Good points you raise. How do we reach a decision?
We can make proto's, but even then how do we evaluate. This regards not only proto's against a reference (what reference?), but also proto's against each other. This not only for the bearing, but same goes for motor, controller etc and all combinations.
I'll try to add my 0.02 to the wiki.
We can make proto's, but even then how do we evaluate. This regards not only proto's against a reference (what reference?), but also proto's against each other. This not only for the bearing, but same goes for motor, controller etc and all combinations.
I'll try to add my 0.02 to the wiki.
I think that first testing your idea is the way to go. It might not work well, and then we've eliminanted a lot of options. So I think before deciding which way to go, some experimentation is in order.
Same thing with the magnetic, and air turntables. If they hardly work then the issue is settled right there!
I think it was great that everyone got to trot out their favorite ideas, I think this is equivalent to a "brainstorming phase"
Now, people who are interested should make prototypes. It appears that these will probably be the people proposing each idea. I nobody tests an idea, then it gets dropped.
Isn't the Teres motor controller design posted on their web site?
I hear it is pretty good! Why not just use that?
MArk
Same thing with the magnetic, and air turntables. If they hardly work then the issue is settled right there!
I think it was great that everyone got to trot out their favorite ideas, I think this is equivalent to a "brainstorming phase"
Now, people who are interested should make prototypes. It appears that these will probably be the people proposing each idea. I nobody tests an idea, then it gets dropped.
Isn't the Teres motor controller design posted on their web site?
I hear it is pretty good! Why not just use that?
MArk
Interestingly, I feel that the air bearing that I am proposing is by far simpler and most likely to work well 🙂
Peterr likes his scheme, Dice 45 likes his.
I don't think we needed "progress" at first, better to get the ideas out.
Those of us who were first proposing ideas realized we should step back and let others make their proposals. That doesn't mean we have lost interest in our designs
Almost all of the designs are sufficiently ambitious that they will require proof of concept. I suggest that anyone who wants to promote his or her design as the "one" make a prototype or convince someone to make one. It might just not work!!
To have 2 designs that work come out of this thread is fine with me, people can make what they want, maybe using the same motor and controller, maybe the teres.
Peterr likes his scheme, Dice 45 likes his.
I don't think we needed "progress" at first, better to get the ideas out.
Those of us who were first proposing ideas realized we should step back and let others make their proposals. That doesn't mean we have lost interest in our designs
Almost all of the designs are sufficiently ambitious that they will require proof of concept. I suggest that anyone who wants to promote his or her design as the "one" make a prototype or convince someone to make one. It might just not work!!
To have 2 designs that work come out of this thread is fine with me, people can make what they want, maybe using the same motor and controller, maybe the teres.
OK, I had a first try at the WIKI. It is fairly easy, so nobody should be afraid to have a go. The things I added are very general, and far from going to raise discussions. Also added a bit of comment to each entry just to make myself clear as english is not my first language. It is far from complete: give this to a design team and you could come up with some very surprising stuff!
As for prototypes: yes, I'm for it. But this is going to take time, a lot of it as most of us have limited time and resources to spend on this. So it might look as things come to a stand while in fact a lot is going on.
On second thought, the air bearing shows more promise to me as the magnetic bearing. The magnetic one is simple, the air bearing more difficult to design. BUT: diy making of the result counts, and here IMO the air bearing wins.
As for prototypes: yes, I'm for it. But this is going to take time, a lot of it as most of us have limited time and resources to spend on this. So it might look as things come to a stand while in fact a lot is going on.
On second thought, the air bearing shows more promise to me as the magnetic bearing. The magnetic one is simple, the air bearing more difficult to design. BUT: diy making of the result counts, and here IMO the air bearing wins.
Mark and Havoc,
the motor controller i described is the Teres motor controller. Manfred Huber designed it and gave the Teres group permission to use it.
the motor controller i described is the Teres motor controller. Manfred Huber designed it and gave the Teres group permission to use it.
Hi again - cannot let this pass by having chipped in...
Yes, I'm also thinking there are 2 or 3 directions forming here and this won't be likely to change until some prototypes are created. Otherwise we'll be going in round in circles (no pun intended 😀)
I should have opportunity to do some wood turing to test my idea of wood in oil. Some figures to come out of the TT kitchen: Values below are by experiment - bits of wood, oil, a ruler, kitchen scales and a calculator! - maybe good to +- 10% but relative to each other (which actually matters) they are good enuf.
Density of (diesel engine) oil ~ 0.84 g/mm3
Density of mahogany ~ 0.77 g/mm3
Density of pine ~ 0.63 g/mm3
I'm open to other fluid suggestions (more dense than oil, not too viscious, non-toxic etc.) - looking to support a more dense platter. Not mercury!
So mahogany in oil looks quite good to me - (worth a play anyway) - naturally floats (though quite low) but remember it'll be propped up a little by the uniball - proud enough from the plinth to take the belt.
Someone mentioned a thickplatter sitting in a relatively shallow oil bath - no - the bath should probably be as deep as the platter is thick (to allow clearance at bottom). So this system is quite KISS IMHO - just a platter, uniball on a support piller (small, not the 50mm ball in the air bearing part of the thread), and a bath. No pumps, compressed oil/air or fluid bearing layers here - just a floating/damped concept. The bath is really just a trough. Could be fabricated by laminating up boards with big holes if turning from a log wasn't possible. Hmm, a floor standing log with a platter trough routed into the top? Lots of scope for artistic licence here 😉
So I'll take an action to commision some turning and have a bash at it. (timescale indeterminate). That log idea's starting to appeal 😎 I think the biggest unknown is the dynamics of how the platter moves about (wobbles) and how what effect the oil would have on speed control/drag. Drag may not be an issue if constant (as it ought to be).
Ok, controllers and motors:
My own preference would be to buy a controller kit+DC motor. Does anyone have any =definitive= preferences with costs/suppliers?
2 diametrically opposite motors (one belt around both+platter) could work well to keep tipping forces balanced on the platter and still be KISS.
Cogging:
DC motors are the only option if it is to be avoided - is that right?
Doesn't platter mass + belt elasticity soak up cogging anyway?
I don't think I hear it with my Dual 506 and its 50Hz synchonous motor. Comments...
Ah - of course using an existing synch motor dictates belt diam - could severely limit choices...
Keep the ideas flowing...
Pete D
Yes, I'm also thinking there are 2 or 3 directions forming here and this won't be likely to change until some prototypes are created. Otherwise we'll be going in round in circles (no pun intended 😀)
I should have opportunity to do some wood turing to test my idea of wood in oil. Some figures to come out of the TT kitchen: Values below are by experiment - bits of wood, oil, a ruler, kitchen scales and a calculator! - maybe good to +- 10% but relative to each other (which actually matters) they are good enuf.
Density of (diesel engine) oil ~ 0.84 g/mm3
Density of mahogany ~ 0.77 g/mm3
Density of pine ~ 0.63 g/mm3
I'm open to other fluid suggestions (more dense than oil, not too viscious, non-toxic etc.) - looking to support a more dense platter. Not mercury!
So mahogany in oil looks quite good to me - (worth a play anyway) - naturally floats (though quite low) but remember it'll be propped up a little by the uniball - proud enough from the plinth to take the belt.
Someone mentioned a thickplatter sitting in a relatively shallow oil bath - no - the bath should probably be as deep as the platter is thick (to allow clearance at bottom). So this system is quite KISS IMHO - just a platter, uniball on a support piller (small, not the 50mm ball in the air bearing part of the thread), and a bath. No pumps, compressed oil/air or fluid bearing layers here - just a floating/damped concept. The bath is really just a trough. Could be fabricated by laminating up boards with big holes if turning from a log wasn't possible. Hmm, a floor standing log with a platter trough routed into the top? Lots of scope for artistic licence here 😉
So I'll take an action to commision some turning and have a bash at it. (timescale indeterminate). That log idea's starting to appeal 😎 I think the biggest unknown is the dynamics of how the platter moves about (wobbles) and how what effect the oil would have on speed control/drag. Drag may not be an issue if constant (as it ought to be).
Ok, controllers and motors:
My own preference would be to buy a controller kit+DC motor. Does anyone have any =definitive= preferences with costs/suppliers?
2 diametrically opposite motors (one belt around both+platter) could work well to keep tipping forces balanced on the platter and still be KISS.
Cogging:
DC motors are the only option if it is to be avoided - is that right?
Doesn't platter mass + belt elasticity soak up cogging anyway?
I don't think I hear it with my Dual 506 and its 50Hz synchonous motor. Comments...
Ah - of course using an existing synch motor dictates belt diam - could severely limit choices...
Keep the ideas flowing...
Pete D
Havoc,
thank you for starting to fill the Spec in the Wiki. Good work! As i have some exprerience with specs, i took the freedom to edit what you wrote, to let it look like a spec, to weed out any technical solution suggestions and any reasoning.
All,
Weeding out:
If none of us can give reason why a given item is in the spec, it does not deserve to be in it.
If a technical solution is mentioned in the spec, it narrows the freedom of thought. Ideas in conflict with the solution do not come up.
I added to the spec in the wiki what i collected over the years and found to be essential for TTs in general. Source is my diploma thesis on TT design and notes i took from TT servicing. Please take it as a suggestion.
Spec items relevant to a particular TT i did not write into the Wiki.
Please be lenient with my typos {yawn}.
thank you for starting to fill the Spec in the Wiki. Good work! As i have some exprerience with specs, i took the freedom to edit what you wrote, to let it look like a spec, to weed out any technical solution suggestions and any reasoning.
All,
Weeding out:
If none of us can give reason why a given item is in the spec, it does not deserve to be in it.
If a technical solution is mentioned in the spec, it narrows the freedom of thought. Ideas in conflict with the solution do not come up.
I added to the spec in the wiki what i collected over the years and found to be essential for TTs in general. Source is my diploma thesis on TT design and notes i took from TT servicing. Please take it as a suggestion.
Spec items relevant to a particular TT i did not write into the Wiki.
Please be lenient with my typos {yawn}.
Dice:
Isn't the schematic posted on the Teres discussion group that . (I know we haven't agreed to use this- I just think it might be an option)
Teres people abandoned soft delrin or nylon and went for metal
thrust plate. Claimed it sounded better.
Air bearings: Looks like the glass might have to be ground flat, but as suggested, it could be done easily with some elbow grease.
Planet 10-
Regarding using records as a platter:
How about one makes a platter (glass maybe for the air bearing folks) then use aluminum tape around the perimeter to form a dam sticking up above the rim, Then MELTING chopped up vinyl from records and pouring it in, the put it in the oven for hours to get it flat. (I know the center needs to be depressed-I'll think about that!!!) Viola! perfect record /platter interface!!!
Isn't the schematic posted on the Teres discussion group that . (I know we haven't agreed to use this- I just think it might be an option)
Teres people abandoned soft delrin or nylon and went for metal
thrust plate. Claimed it sounded better.
Air bearings: Looks like the glass might have to be ground flat, but as suggested, it could be done easily with some elbow grease.
Planet 10-
Regarding using records as a platter:
How about one makes a platter (glass maybe for the air bearing folks) then use aluminum tape around the perimeter to form a dam sticking up above the rim, Then MELTING chopped up vinyl from records and pouring it in, the put it in the oven for hours to get it flat. (I know the center needs to be depressed-I'll think about that!!!) Viola! perfect record /platter interface!!!
Can agree with most your specs Dice. Liked the entry of not excluding wind up springs as motors!
Peted: For high density fluids you could have a look at collodial suspensions. Also castor oil looks good: http://www.kicgroup.com/castorusp.htm
The thing to take care of will be absorption of oil by the wood and mechanical stability of "wet" wood.
Peted: For high density fluids you could have a look at collodial suspensions. Also castor oil looks good: http://www.kicgroup.com/castorusp.htm
The thing to take care of will be absorption of oil by the wood and mechanical stability of "wet" wood.
Havoc,
thank you. Have to stress i am speaking as member only for the moment... please read carefully what i wrote and muse about it, before you decide to edit or delete points ... more than a decade of TT experience went into it. No harm in asking me what i meant with this or that.
Want to let you know this spec really is tough, few commercial TTs look good if watched under this magnifier.
But i have carefully replaced "shall" or "must" against "should" on every occasion i know we can strive to reach the goal but we will never reach it. Engineering decisions are seldom black/white, often compromises are needed and one partial goal has to suffer some concessions to make sure another partial goal can be reached atleast partially.
I do not want the spec to be a mental corset. I want it to clarify what stack of partial goals we have to achieve in parallel.
thank you. Have to stress i am speaking as member only for the moment... please read carefully what i wrote and muse about it, before you decide to edit or delete points ... more than a decade of TT experience went into it. No harm in asking me what i meant with this or that.
Want to let you know this spec really is tough, few commercial TTs look good if watched under this magnifier.
But i have carefully replaced "shall" or "must" against "should" on every occasion i know we can strive to reach the goal but we will never reach it. Engineering decisions are seldom black/white, often compromises are needed and one partial goal has to suffer some concessions to make sure another partial goal can be reached atleast partially.
I do not want the spec to be a mental corset. I want it to clarify what stack of partial goals we have to achieve in parallel.
Dice, I'm not going to mess with your spec before discussing it, rest assured. As for specs, I'm engineer myself. So I know all about specs, their constant changing and the endless discussions with marketing about obvious/obscure technical points they do not grasp (I haver a battle going on right now at the office). It needs reading over a few times, some discussion and facts if they needs changing. Expect arguments next week 🙂
Variac: grounding glass is not easy! It has a tendency to make the plate with the smallest radius even more convex if trying to lap the platter with the stator. As for making the center depressed, just spin it while cooling, the form will be a parabola.
Variac: grounding glass is not easy! It has a tendency to make the plate with the smallest radius even more convex if trying to lap the platter with the stator. As for making the center depressed, just spin it while cooling, the form will be a parabola.
Havoc,
you have my deep sympathy, having to discuss a spec with the marketing department. I found two things helpful in that: trying to understand what the marketing guys really want and and trying to make them understand what i want and why certain points are necessary technically. For both it is wise to see the world thru their eyes, not thru yours.
And you must make them see that ticklish points have to be nailed down now and are not open to discussion afterwards because else you could not do your homework on schedule and within costs. It also shows them you are cooperative but not easy to be kicked around.
Grinding glass: horrid! i somehow remember to have posted i'd like to use bullet-proof glass. This is usually multilayered glass and pressed to flatness. That is why i suggested it.
you have my deep sympathy, having to discuss a spec with the marketing department. I found two things helpful in that: trying to understand what the marketing guys really want and and trying to make them understand what i want and why certain points are necessary technically. For both it is wise to see the world thru their eyes, not thru yours.
And you must make them see that ticklish points have to be nailed down now and are not open to discussion afterwards because else you could not do your homework on schedule and within costs. It also shows them you are cooperative but not easy to be kicked around.
Grinding glass: horrid! i somehow remember to have posted i'd like to use bullet-proof glass. This is usually multilayered glass and pressed to flatness. That is why i suggested it.
Well, now I know how people make telescope mirrors!
Of course if both glass plates fit each other better, it doesn't matter if they are concave. But I get the impression that they don't fit together better after grinding, but that one get more curved and the other doesn't. Is this correct?
There is also a product called ground glass. Some mirrors are made from this. I think it is more expensive than float glass, but way cheaper than bulletproof!
The only advantage of bulletproof I would think is that the multiple layers would be damped a lot better. Maybe there are 2 products?: laminated bulletproof and one layer?
I'll bet they call it bullet -resistant 😛 No one uses terms like ***proof anymore!
Of course if both glass plates fit each other better, it doesn't matter if they are concave. But I get the impression that they don't fit together better after grinding, but that one get more curved and the other doesn't. Is this correct?
There is also a product called ground glass. Some mirrors are made from this. I think it is more expensive than float glass, but way cheaper than bulletproof!
The only advantage of bulletproof I would think is that the multiple layers would be damped a lot better. Maybe there are 2 products?: laminated bulletproof and one layer?
I'll bet they call it bullet -resistant 😛 No one uses terms like ***proof anymore!
Havoc:
Variac:
The wiki spec looks good to me. I wouldn't be too formal with this though - I think it could stifle the creativity and innovation. My feeling is we need to prove/disprove a few concepts right now.
Keep the thoughts flowing on motors and controllers too. Hope this thread doesn't get too bogged down in this though - I'd like to think it's a relatively trivial part of whole challenge. The Maxon 110189 (as used in Teres) is available for GBP 49.50+tax in the UK without controller. This is a 35v unit, 45mm long, 6000rpm free speed. They must be running it at ~~ 1000rpm (if pulley is 10mm - a guess). Nice and quiet at this speed I'd think. Are most DC motor driven TTs using speed regulation (feedback) or just running free (on a stabilised PSU) in equilibrium with friction/drag etc.?
Pete
Good call! Yes - Specific Gravity : 0.957 - 0.961 (I assume water is 1.00?) Kinda puts my diesel oil to shame - wonder how it is so different? yes - I DID check calibation of kitchen scales with water!
Been wondering about that too - call to local wood research bods needed. If it does matter and can't simply be sealed, I can't help thinking a naturally oily wood may do it - Eucalyptus ?
Variac:
now that IS an interesting one. Anyone know what temp they melt at? I will continue to go with my wood/oil ideas - leave this for someone else to play with in their TT kitchen. Just remember to put several hundred Km between you and the wife...
The wiki spec looks good to me. I wouldn't be too formal with this though - I think it could stifle the creativity and innovation. My feeling is we need to prove/disprove a few concepts right now.
Keep the thoughts flowing on motors and controllers too. Hope this thread doesn't get too bogged down in this though - I'd like to think it's a relatively trivial part of whole challenge. The Maxon 110189 (as used in Teres) is available for GBP 49.50+tax in the UK without controller. This is a 35v unit, 45mm long, 6000rpm free speed. They must be running it at ~~ 1000rpm (if pulley is 10mm - a guess). Nice and quiet at this speed I'd think. Are most DC motor driven TTs using speed regulation (feedback) or just running free (on a stabilised PSU) in equilibrium with friction/drag etc.?
Pete
On our sailboats we all use two part penetrating epoxy to seal wood that will be constantly exposed to moisture. Usuall before painting. It is runnier than water when first mixed, so it soaks into the wood pores. It is also formulated to take about 2 days to set, so that there is plenty of time for it to soak in. The wood won't absorb much of anything after treatment. Should work on the wood platter.
Off topic off topic Fixes dryrot too off topic off topic
Don't put me in that nasty sinbin!!
Off topic off topic Fixes dryrot too off topic off topic
Don't put me in that nasty sinbin!!
Variac,
why sin bin? Huh? Have to look at rules & moderator's statement if the wording is maybe too tough 🙂 ... a little bit off-topic is not threadjacking and you definitely do not belong to those who do it regularly and have made quite a skill out of it. ok? 🙂
Runny: have learned a new word for low viscosity 🙂 funny word, telling word!
I would love to have access to a 2-component epoxy being runnier than water and having 2 days of settle time, probably 1 day of pot time.
Of course it fixes dryrot, it gives the wood back the lost stability, using the remaining wood fibres as fibre matrix. And epoxy is quite poisonous before settling, even to microbes. Luckily not poisonous after having settled.
Can you send me a sample? I would retaliate that in sending a maxon.
Pete,
a spec requires proper and tidy language because it requires proper and tidy thinking. It is beyond my language skills to do that in casual/informal language. I do not think it stifles creativity, i have taken care to leave anything out which is narrowing choices.
Look at another way to it: Other engineers and TT designers dropping by and reading may say to themselves "these guys know well what to look at ... sounds frightening serious!" and we have their respect. And maybe one of us can talk them out of secrets in the future, who knows? 🙂
I have seen many specs not earning the name but if a clearly-written spec was on the table, folks would whisper "that's good ... who wrote it?"
Motor: not trivial. But maxon does us the favour to have an almost perfect stock solution and the controller described above simply adds among other comforts the needlessness ever to care about speed drift.
maxon:
I use the 226754 (24V/6000rpm) which is a rare earth magnet type with dia 29mm and compatible to the Teres controller. Manfred Huber uses the same for his Scheu TT meanwhile (but i do not know if he had to re-program his controller).
But they have a little of lead time, Munich Triode Mafia bought the last 6 available samples. We caught maxon on the wrong foot. This motor type is quite new, we got almost the 1st samples available.
I know several guys using the maxon without a speed regulation, just at the equilibrilum you mention. Works fine, they say.
The Huber/Teres controller makes the motor believe it is fed by a stabilized PSU.
No sonic difference.
why sin bin? Huh? Have to look at rules & moderator's statement if the wording is maybe too tough 🙂 ... a little bit off-topic is not threadjacking and you definitely do not belong to those who do it regularly and have made quite a skill out of it. ok? 🙂
Runny: have learned a new word for low viscosity 🙂 funny word, telling word!
I would love to have access to a 2-component epoxy being runnier than water and having 2 days of settle time, probably 1 day of pot time.
Of course it fixes dryrot, it gives the wood back the lost stability, using the remaining wood fibres as fibre matrix. And epoxy is quite poisonous before settling, even to microbes. Luckily not poisonous after having settled.
Can you send me a sample? I would retaliate that in sending a maxon.
Pete,
a spec requires proper and tidy language because it requires proper and tidy thinking. It is beyond my language skills to do that in casual/informal language. I do not think it stifles creativity, i have taken care to leave anything out which is narrowing choices.
Look at another way to it: Other engineers and TT designers dropping by and reading may say to themselves "these guys know well what to look at ... sounds frightening serious!" and we have their respect. And maybe one of us can talk them out of secrets in the future, who knows? 🙂
I have seen many specs not earning the name but if a clearly-written spec was on the table, folks would whisper "that's good ... who wrote it?"
Motor: not trivial. But maxon does us the favour to have an almost perfect stock solution and the controller described above simply adds among other comforts the needlessness ever to care about speed drift.
maxon:
I use the 226754 (24V/6000rpm) which is a rare earth magnet type with dia 29mm and compatible to the Teres controller. Manfred Huber uses the same for his Scheu TT meanwhile (but i do not know if he had to re-program his controller).
But they have a little of lead time, Munich Triode Mafia bought the last 6 available samples. We caught maxon on the wrong foot. This motor type is quite new, we got almost the 1st samples available.
1000 rpm is quite close. The maxon's transfer characteristic is quite linear. Dunno what Teres uses, i use 10mm dia for the pulley. Nice and quiet is one thing, excentricity frequency another; at 1200 rpm this frequency is 20Hz -- inaudible.
I know several guys using the maxon without a speed regulation, just at the equilibrilum you mention. Works fine, they say.
The Huber/Teres controller makes the motor believe it is fed by a stabilized PSU.
No sonic difference.
AuroraB
I'm staggered by the range of motors Maxon make - quite amazing - very high precision by the looks of it.
Dice45
I'm assuming the sleeved version is preferable to the ball race version?
😉 In the TT kitchen tonight... Hardening as I type is 5.4Kg of plaster of Paris awaiting a proof of concept run in water. This is all junk bin engineering - hence platter is only 280 diam by 78 thick. I cast this in an old paint tub - self levelling - then trimmed to height. It may not work at all...it may tell us something... It sits atop a bit of scrap steel rod with a conical end engaged in an old brass ring with a similarly conical hole glued into the top of platter/tub - very uniball (ish!). Objective is to judge how it all moves about. Report later. Fingers crossed. More detail if it looks positive and the dimensions are not all too wonky for it balance.
Going to try nylon fishing line as belt - wrapped masking tape around tub rim to a) make more parallel (these paint tub manufacturers really have no foresight), b) reduce slippage.
Pete
Can someone tell me why clicking on a Smiliey icon appends it to end of text rather than at current cursor position?
It's an RE-max 29 Precious Metal Brushes CLL 15W (Capacitor Long Life). See cat p145. 29mm diam, 45mm long. 3mmshaft. No-load speed @24V 5940rpm. Email me if you want full sheet - I have the catalogue + CDROM from Maxon UK.
I'm staggered by the range of motors Maxon make - quite amazing - very high precision by the looks of it.
Dice45
Bernhard, any particular reason why this one out of the vast selection? The Teres motor 'bottle' (motor + controller - see their site) uses the Maxon 110189 (see Maxon cat p119) - again I wonder for what particular characteristics?
I'm assuming the sleeved version is preferable to the ball race version?
😉 In the TT kitchen tonight... Hardening as I type is 5.4Kg of plaster of Paris awaiting a proof of concept run in water. This is all junk bin engineering - hence platter is only 280 diam by 78 thick. I cast this in an old paint tub - self levelling - then trimmed to height. It may not work at all...it may tell us something... It sits atop a bit of scrap steel rod with a conical end engaged in an old brass ring with a similarly conical hole glued into the top of platter/tub - very uniball (ish!). Objective is to judge how it all moves about. Report later. Fingers crossed. More detail if it looks positive and the dimensions are not all too wonky for it balance.
Going to try nylon fishing line as belt - wrapped masking tape around tub rim to a) make more parallel (these paint tub manufacturers really have no foresight), b) reduce slippage.
Pete
Can someone tell me why clicking on a Smiliey icon appends it to end of text rather than at current cursor position?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.