Sorry about this. I'm retired and need to keep my brain working so these ideas just keep happening. If you make an SP10 similar to my Permalli you will be very pleased with the performance. It will perform as good as anything at almost any price.
I have a Vesconite bearing motor running. The issue I have had is the crush on the Vesconite has not been repeatable so I needed to come up with a way of machining the sleeve to the tolerance needed. The issue is the small diameter (9/32) journal makes boring the sleeves in situ impossible, and the bearing sleeve in the motor is not concentric to the mounting holes so when the motor is turned around in the fixture the sleeve has huge runout.
I have been working on the inverted bearing for a while and have the design mature enough to make a prototype. I was initially going to make it retrofit a stock SP10 but decided against this due to the nature of the bearing and COG of the rotating assembly.
Hi Don
There is very little P'holz to be found in the UK now, Permali is produced in the UK.
Also a Member of Lenco Heaven based in India, is offering Permali through a Permali Production Plant based in India, it can also be machined to a given form as part of the service.
I might have been the last to receive P'holz in the UK through the usual supply chain, the last I knew. the Company that supplied P'holz is no longer in Business.
I am needing to Travel into Mainland Europe on occasion and through having contacts local to my route. It looks like at present, through the investigation made to suppliers, I will be able to have a quantity of P'holz awaiting pick up at a contacts address on a annual - biannual basis. Delignit do not supply in a small quantity no more and the costs for the material will be more than my last purchase price.
The Brother in Law of one contact has a Timber Workshop as a Business, so I might be able to achieve a Board being cut down to smaller sizes.
In relation to P'holz vs Permali, I have seen comparison measurements on the qualiaweb site.
I do not know if the Test Pieces of each Sample are constructed with equivalent ply's per 25mm and if each were cross grain samples.
Phenolic Resin is used for each samples bonding processes.
The measurements for Damping are quite similar and should not be too concerning.
The measurements for the frequency do seem quite different and this may have a impact on dissipation?
I would assume if planning on restricting the Plinth to 2 x 9" Tone Arms, and a Fixed Hole Mounting is to be used a Board Dimension of 500mm x 500mm will work fine.
The Chassis I am going to experience is able to take up to a 12" Tonearms, it is to have Tonearm Boards recessed into the Chassis.
I am not knowing the Dimension at present but do feel with a Tonearm Board in use a 500mm x 550mm might be oversized to enable the Geometry Requirements to be catered for, if 12" Arms are wanting to be prepared for.
When I first discovered the Kaneta Design, I took to it like a Duck to Water, it was totally in keeping with what I had been witnessing with modifications undertaken on the Lenco Idler Drives when visiting Lenco Heaven Forum (LH).
I look on the Kaneta Style as a PTP Style, as a owner of a PTP and having heard numerous Lenco's undergone modifications that have proved to be for the better, the Kaneta Style for myself was no brainer to be investigative about.
The methodology to Brace the Sump end of a Bearing Housing has been seen in use on LH for many years and the idea of rigidly supporting the chassis or even replacing the chassis with a substantially improved material is a long time seen as well.
The Kaneta Style addressed the improving the exchanging of the material used for the Chassis, so I was hooked.
There is too much positive info' available for the method to rigidly brace the Bearing Housing Sump, it is just a case of not overlooking it as a treatment and not overcomplicating the methodology to achieve it.
Again I am a advocate of working on the Bearing Housing Assembly.
Revisiting the Bearing, carrying out a service is no harm at all. Addressing designs born from a Bygone era. where the intention is looking to bring in replacement parts, such as Thermoplastics and work with the Coefficient of Friction has proven and will prove to be beneficial.
The latter does come with additional risks that are best assessed and evaluated as being worthwhile to be present, prior to this type of endeavor for a individual with a limited skill set for such practices.
As a result of the works I have been informed of being nearly compete closer to home and now seen in place as a functioning design on here, in my view, the Kaneta Design has evolved to become a design that can be referred to as a ' Densified Wood Chassis' DD TT.
I do like Warrjon's reporting on the outcome of experiencing the 'Densified Wood Chassis', it is the first real time report I have been able to pick up on and quite happy to have discovered the UK attempts have been pipped to the post to get one functioning.
There is very little P'holz to be found in the UK now, Permali is produced in the UK.
Also a Member of Lenco Heaven based in India, is offering Permali through a Permali Production Plant based in India, it can also be machined to a given form as part of the service.
I might have been the last to receive P'holz in the UK through the usual supply chain, the last I knew. the Company that supplied P'holz is no longer in Business.
I am needing to Travel into Mainland Europe on occasion and through having contacts local to my route. It looks like at present, through the investigation made to suppliers, I will be able to have a quantity of P'holz awaiting pick up at a contacts address on a annual - biannual basis. Delignit do not supply in a small quantity no more and the costs for the material will be more than my last purchase price.
The Brother in Law of one contact has a Timber Workshop as a Business, so I might be able to achieve a Board being cut down to smaller sizes.
In relation to P'holz vs Permali, I have seen comparison measurements on the qualiaweb site.
I do not know if the Test Pieces of each Sample are constructed with equivalent ply's per 25mm and if each were cross grain samples.
Phenolic Resin is used for each samples bonding processes.
The measurements for Damping are quite similar and should not be too concerning.
The measurements for the frequency do seem quite different and this may have a impact on dissipation?
I would assume if planning on restricting the Plinth to 2 x 9" Tone Arms, and a Fixed Hole Mounting is to be used a Board Dimension of 500mm x 500mm will work fine.
The Chassis I am going to experience is able to take up to a 12" Tonearms, it is to have Tonearm Boards recessed into the Chassis.
I am not knowing the Dimension at present but do feel with a Tonearm Board in use a 500mm x 550mm might be oversized to enable the Geometry Requirements to be catered for, if 12" Arms are wanting to be prepared for.
When I first discovered the Kaneta Design, I took to it like a Duck to Water, it was totally in keeping with what I had been witnessing with modifications undertaken on the Lenco Idler Drives when visiting Lenco Heaven Forum (LH).
I look on the Kaneta Style as a PTP Style, as a owner of a PTP and having heard numerous Lenco's undergone modifications that have proved to be for the better, the Kaneta Style for myself was no brainer to be investigative about.
The methodology to Brace the Sump end of a Bearing Housing has been seen in use on LH for many years and the idea of rigidly supporting the chassis or even replacing the chassis with a substantially improved material is a long time seen as well.
The Kaneta Style addressed the improving the exchanging of the material used for the Chassis, so I was hooked.
There is too much positive info' available for the method to rigidly brace the Bearing Housing Sump, it is just a case of not overlooking it as a treatment and not overcomplicating the methodology to achieve it.
Again I am a advocate of working on the Bearing Housing Assembly.
Revisiting the Bearing, carrying out a service is no harm at all. Addressing designs born from a Bygone era. where the intention is looking to bring in replacement parts, such as Thermoplastics and work with the Coefficient of Friction has proven and will prove to be beneficial.
The latter does come with additional risks that are best assessed and evaluated as being worthwhile to be present, prior to this type of endeavor for a individual with a limited skill set for such practices.
As a result of the works I have been informed of being nearly compete closer to home and now seen in place as a functioning design on here, in my view, the Kaneta Design has evolved to become a design that can be referred to as a ' Densified Wood Chassis' DD TT.
I do like Warrjon's reporting on the outcome of experiencing the 'Densified Wood Chassis', it is the first real time report I have been able to pick up on and quite happy to have discovered the UK attempts have been pipped to the post to get one functioning.
i also have had problems trying to machine Vesconite,same as you with the crush after installing them.
In the end i went back to Torlon and all went well with the first try.
I have stuck with Vesconite because of the quietness of the bearing. I placed a contact microphone on the bearing housing with Vesconite sleeves and the noise was significantly less than a similar test I found on YouTube for a Linn LP12 Cirkus bearing which is PEEK.
The noise was so low the hiss of my Focusrite was dominant , ie bearing noise was in the noise floor of the Focusrite.
It would be interesting if you could do the same test for a Torlon sleeve.
Last edited:
First of all, you shouldn't be sorry. You have given all who want to a path to a great turntable. Thankful for that. Keep going.
Second, you have sucked me into your vesconite quagmire. I have two thoughts on this.
One would be to ask Vesconite bearings if they have any ideas on how to solve the problem. The guy that invented vesconite is still there. They make/machine all kinds of stuff. Some of it is almost one off.
Another, and I do not know enough to know if this is a viable question. Can the inner or outer races or both be changed to give you the dimensions you need to do this.
Back to the lab. I think I'll start liberating my motor from the chassis so I can actually understand what you are doing.
Keep up the good work.
Don
The OEM sleeve is 1 piece bronze and not an interference press fit, it's glued in. While this makes high volume manufacturing easier it does compromise bearing rigidity as the sleeve can possibly move microscopically in the motor housing. The Vesconite bearings I have machined are 2 piece, top and bottom sleeves with nothing in the middle. This is the way a hydrodynamic journal bearing should be made.
The issues I'm having with boring the bearing sleeves are doing it in situ so pressing them into the motor and then boring to size. The motor is not concentric top to bottom so when I turn the motor around in the lathe fixture the bearing spins eccentric by a few mm and I need to clock it in again this introduces a small concentricity error between the top and bottom sleeves. While the bearing still works very well being the pedantic person I am this is not good enough.
I have an idea on how to do it but I've been sidetracked by the inverted bearing idea and a few repairs for other people. The inverted bearing will be dry with no sleeve. If I get the point of rotation correct (about 1mm above the COG), platter stability will be about as good as it gets. This in turn will significantly reduce bearing noise. What has held me up mostly is maglev. I wanted to use a hard thrust bearing and was planning maglev to reduce the load on the sapphire cup. The rotating assembly is about 13kg and to get a neo magnet big enough I had stray magnetic flux all over the top of the platter (even with shielding) so I've had to redesign the thrust bearing setup.
can i ask what size you are turning the bearings to in relation to the housing o/d. ie how much interference?
the vesconite web site states as a rule of thumb,Press fit = 0.05 + (0.002 x housing Ø) mm.
in my case my bearing housing is 16mm so the press fit is 0.082 which seems a lot to me.
in comparison the torlon bearings i turned 0.025mm oversized.
the vesconite web site states as a rule of thumb,Press fit = 0.05 + (0.002 x housing Ø) mm.
in my case my bearing housing is 16mm so the press fit is 0.082 which seems a lot to me.
in comparison the torlon bearings i turned 0.025mm oversized.
Hi Warrjon
It's good to see your work to date, I have had a absence from here and missed some of projects evolving.
The Bearing is the more challenging with it being incorporated in the Stators Bowl Pressing.
It is one for the thoughtful types with good skill sets for the task in hand to take on and bring it into the 2020's, with the use of materials and machining tolerances that are seen used more commonly for these type of precision applications.
You have made a reference earlier to my Buzz Word (hydrodynamic) and one that from my limited understanding, is seemingly a application that is quite difficult to achieve for the long term, if a Lubricant filled housing is not used to keep a wetting in place.
I have seen equations for the creation of a Hydrodynamic condition, and can see the value for it when a Global effort is being created to use a minimum amount of a Lubricant, but these types of formula are way beyond my daily practices.
From my assessment, as a DIY approach, the idea of having an excess of lubricant in housing seemed the easier method to use.
This is an inquiry from somebody who has head scratched on this subject for quite some time, it is not in any way a challenge to your intentions for the Bearing Design.
It will be good to pick up on a different approach to the achieving the method for a continuous wetting of the interface of static and moving parts.
From what I have come to understand, the method is to have a film of lubricant separating at the interface the Static Sacrificial Part and Most Valuable Moving Parts. I would be referring to the Bush Liner, Ball and Thrust Pad as the Sacrificial Parts.
Where I have not been able to quite find a confidence, is how is it proven the film of Lubricant that is intended to be present as a separator of the surfaces, remains in place permanently between any servicing period, as well as how is it to be known. if possible' if a Boundary Lubrication Effect is occurring.
My investigation has left me considering the range of Silicone Oils available, especially as there is compatibility with a Thermoplastic.
There is certainly a Silicone Lubricant available with a Viscosity, that should produce the optimised interface between static/moving parts and be able to maintain it.
The question is knowing which Viscosity to Select or how to show the Hydrodynamic Lubrication is remaining throughout the operation.
This uncertainty has led me to believe a Bearing Housing Sump will be for the best if not leaching a Thin Lubricant, and the housing can contain a full fill of a Thin Oil. I have even suggested a slightly recessed Top Sleeve Bush Liner and Felt Pad used in the recess, if this is the method required.
It's good to see your work to date, I have had a absence from here and missed some of projects evolving.
The Bearing is the more challenging with it being incorporated in the Stators Bowl Pressing.
It is one for the thoughtful types with good skill sets for the task in hand to take on and bring it into the 2020's, with the use of materials and machining tolerances that are seen used more commonly for these type of precision applications.
You have made a reference earlier to my Buzz Word (hydrodynamic) and one that from my limited understanding, is seemingly a application that is quite difficult to achieve for the long term, if a Lubricant filled housing is not used to keep a wetting in place.
I have seen equations for the creation of a Hydrodynamic condition, and can see the value for it when a Global effort is being created to use a minimum amount of a Lubricant, but these types of formula are way beyond my daily practices.
From my assessment, as a DIY approach, the idea of having an excess of lubricant in housing seemed the easier method to use.
This is an inquiry from somebody who has head scratched on this subject for quite some time, it is not in any way a challenge to your intentions for the Bearing Design.
It will be good to pick up on a different approach to the achieving the method for a continuous wetting of the interface of static and moving parts.
From what I have come to understand, the method is to have a film of lubricant separating at the interface the Static Sacrificial Part and Most Valuable Moving Parts. I would be referring to the Bush Liner, Ball and Thrust Pad as the Sacrificial Parts.
Where I have not been able to quite find a confidence, is how is it proven the film of Lubricant that is intended to be present as a separator of the surfaces, remains in place permanently between any servicing period, as well as how is it to be known. if possible' if a Boundary Lubrication Effect is occurring.
My investigation has left me considering the range of Silicone Oils available, especially as there is compatibility with a Thermoplastic.
There is certainly a Silicone Lubricant available with a Viscosity, that should produce the optimised interface between static/moving parts and be able to maintain it.
The question is knowing which Viscosity to Select or how to show the Hydrodynamic Lubrication is remaining throughout the operation.
This uncertainty has led me to believe a Bearing Housing Sump will be for the best if not leaching a Thin Lubricant, and the housing can contain a full fill of a Thin Oil. I have even suggested a slightly recessed Top Sleeve Bush Liner and Felt Pad used in the recess, if this is the method required.
@JohnnoG A Hydrodynamic bearing has a thin film of oil between the journal and sleeve, in theory there is no contact between the journal and sleeve and this is the case if the journal outside linear velocity is fast enough to create oil swirl, this requires either high RPM or a large OD journal. A TT rotating at 45RPM is not fast enough to create the needed oil swirl to create true hydrodynamic suspension in a small OD journal.
Also every hydrodynamic bearing rotates eccentric, it's this eccentricity that creates the oil pressure between the journal and sleeve.
All of the SP10mk2 bearings I have listened to have audible journal/sleeve contact due to the small diameter journal and low speed. Due to the design of the motor the largest journal that could be used would be 10mm or 3/8". This is better but still too small for proper hydrodynamic operation.
This is the reason I have put effort into developing an inverted bearing. My inverted bearing does not use an oil filled sleeve, in fact there is no sleeve just a very thin ring to prevent the platter from tilting. If the point of rotation and COG of the rotating assembly is coincident and balanced then the assembly will rotate with no precession.
Also every hydrodynamic bearing rotates eccentric, it's this eccentricity that creates the oil pressure between the journal and sleeve.
All of the SP10mk2 bearings I have listened to have audible journal/sleeve contact due to the small diameter journal and low speed. Due to the design of the motor the largest journal that could be used would be 10mm or 3/8". This is better but still too small for proper hydrodynamic operation.
This is the reason I have put effort into developing an inverted bearing. My inverted bearing does not use an oil filled sleeve, in fact there is no sleeve just a very thin ring to prevent the platter from tilting. If the point of rotation and COG of the rotating assembly is coincident and balanced then the assembly will rotate with no precession.
Am I correct in my interpretation of your design, that the Axis during Rotation is to remain true ( no eccentric rotation is able to occur) and that there will not be different approach to how a lubricant is used (or possibly not used).
Is this expected to have a substantial decrease in audible detection from the mechanical operation?
The notion to decrease the audible condition is very attractive, the ideas behind removing the occurrence of Metal on Metal and replacing it with Metal on Thermoplastic, has been born in my mind from this idea, along with the idea to decrease the Coefficient of Friction for the rotating operation.
I have avoided this area of investigation for a period of time, but have now been refuelled and am wondering about how this new design method being produced, will impact on the Styli 'picking up on decreased audible transmission' (not picking up on it) during the replay.
Please Keep the Updates coming.
Is this expected to have a substantial decrease in audible detection from the mechanical operation?
The notion to decrease the audible condition is very attractive, the ideas behind removing the occurrence of Metal on Metal and replacing it with Metal on Thermoplastic, has been born in my mind from this idea, along with the idea to decrease the Coefficient of Friction for the rotating operation.
I have avoided this area of investigation for a period of time, but have now been refuelled and am wondering about how this new design method being produced, will impact on the Styli 'picking up on decreased audible transmission' (not picking up on it) during the replay.
Please Keep the Updates coming.
The axis of rotation will be constrained a ball in a cup so to speak. So the goal is minimum vertical and horizontal runout. In reality there will be some runout due to manufacturing tolerances but it will be minimal. The bearing will have lubrication in form of grease in the cup and a smear of grease where the ring runs on the spindle.
If the axis of rotation is coincident with the COG of the rotating assembly once balanced the platter will rotate with no wobble. In fact the platter will rotate tilted at any angle with no wobble. In real life lining up the COG and axis of rotation is not possible if the COG is slightly above the axis the platter will be unstable and below will create a pendulum. So the COG will be a max of 2mm below the axis. This does create a pendulum but one where the frequency can be calculated and placed where it has least effect.
This is not a new bearing it has been used in turntables before, Pier Lurne of Audiomeca used this bearing in his designs.
The most difficult part of my build is ensuring I calculate the COG of the rotating assembly accurately. The challenge is the spread masses of the platter and rotor, each will need to be balanced separately so the platter orientation on the rotor doesn't unbalance the assembly.
A thermoplastic bearing is not necessarily quieter than the bronze. The Linn Cirkus bearing I found on YouTube has far greater noise than the bronze Technics bearing I measured. The surprise was how quiet the Vesconite is.
Here are 3 bearings. The first is the Vesconite second is a stock bronze and the third is the LP12. In the SP10 stock you can clearly hear the metal/metal contact and this is the best one I have recorded.
If the axis of rotation is coincident with the COG of the rotating assembly once balanced the platter will rotate with no wobble. In fact the platter will rotate tilted at any angle with no wobble. In real life lining up the COG and axis of rotation is not possible if the COG is slightly above the axis the platter will be unstable and below will create a pendulum. So the COG will be a max of 2mm below the axis. This does create a pendulum but one where the frequency can be calculated and placed where it has least effect.
This is not a new bearing it has been used in turntables before, Pier Lurne of Audiomeca used this bearing in his designs.
The most difficult part of my build is ensuring I calculate the COG of the rotating assembly accurately. The challenge is the spread masses of the platter and rotor, each will need to be balanced separately so the platter orientation on the rotor doesn't unbalance the assembly.
A thermoplastic bearing is not necessarily quieter than the bronze. The Linn Cirkus bearing I found on YouTube has far greater noise than the bronze Technics bearing I measured. The surprise was how quiet the Vesconite is.
Here are 3 bearings. The first is the Vesconite second is a stock bronze and the third is the LP12. In the SP10 stock you can clearly hear the metal/metal contact and this is the best one I have recorded.
From Discussions had with other interested parties, I know that a Bearing Assembly with Metal Parts has been measured as a extremely quiet assembly, the maintaining the condition that has created the quiet function is the conundrum, and the one where pondering the impact of a Modern Methodology on the Parts used, leads to avoiding the risk of a Metal on Metal contact with no wetting of a surface.
This is where the Thermoplastic comes to the forefront, as these can be a Low Friction Material with a Teflon or Graphite impregnation, and will be seen as better interface if the Parts are to come into contact.
The work for the Bearing Parts and Assembly now under discussion are seemingly taking the above to another level of interface and assembly and has a extension of thought on the method adopted, not usually seen presented, at the centre of the design.
This is an attractive option and one I feel will be looked upon with a open mind by those with a mind and intent for such practices.
This is where the Thermoplastic comes to the forefront, as these can be a Low Friction Material with a Teflon or Graphite impregnation, and will be seen as better interface if the Parts are to come into contact.
The work for the Bearing Parts and Assembly now under discussion are seemingly taking the above to another level of interface and assembly and has a extension of thought on the method adopted, not usually seen presented, at the centre of the design.
This is an attractive option and one I feel will be looked upon with a open mind by those with a mind and intent for such practices.
Hi Warrjon, One other request for your thoughts on lubrication within the Bearing Housing.
I stated in an earlier post, that the method that made sense to myself to attempt to keep a Hydrodynamic Lubrication condition, with a Boundary Lubrication Effect remaining a risk, was to produce a Bearing Housing Sump that does not leach a Thin Lubricant and have a Bearing Housing topped up with a excess of lubricant to maintain a wetting of the parts at a interface.
In your view, and using your present thoughts on the design for a Bearing Assembly.
Does the use of a excess of Lubricant to maintain a wetting, have any additional merit over the notion to attempt to use a minimum volume of lubricant and maintain a film as a wetting of the parts at a interface?
I am interested to see how off track I may have been, as I had also proposed a design for a Top of Shaft Bush to have a Grub Screw Sealed Hole, which would serve as an enabler for Lubricant Fills, using a controlled measure with a Syringe.
This evolved to the Top Bush having a Second Grub Screw Sealed Hole to function as a air release as well.
The Lower Bush was to have a permanently open hole in the Bush Wall aligned with the Top Bush Fill hole.
This was to enable a fill/extraction of lubricant from the Sump, allowing for using different viscosities of lubricant to learn if a improvement in the oil film being produced was able to be achieved.
That's it now all my bearing ideas laid out, and in the case of one TT being worked on almost ready to be put to the test. Unfortunately I have almost dismantled my HiFi System and am not sure when it will be put back into service, so a demonstration of the TT in the Home System will be a long wait.
I will hopefully long-term loan it out to a HiFi Group Member and acquaint myself with the modified TT this way.
I stated in an earlier post, that the method that made sense to myself to attempt to keep a Hydrodynamic Lubrication condition, with a Boundary Lubrication Effect remaining a risk, was to produce a Bearing Housing Sump that does not leach a Thin Lubricant and have a Bearing Housing topped up with a excess of lubricant to maintain a wetting of the parts at a interface.
In your view, and using your present thoughts on the design for a Bearing Assembly.
Does the use of a excess of Lubricant to maintain a wetting, have any additional merit over the notion to attempt to use a minimum volume of lubricant and maintain a film as a wetting of the parts at a interface?
I am interested to see how off track I may have been, as I had also proposed a design for a Top of Shaft Bush to have a Grub Screw Sealed Hole, which would serve as an enabler for Lubricant Fills, using a controlled measure with a Syringe.
This evolved to the Top Bush having a Second Grub Screw Sealed Hole to function as a air release as well.
The Lower Bush was to have a permanently open hole in the Bush Wall aligned with the Top Bush Fill hole.
This was to enable a fill/extraction of lubricant from the Sump, allowing for using different viscosities of lubricant to learn if a improvement in the oil film being produced was able to be achieved.
That's it now all my bearing ideas laid out, and in the case of one TT being worked on almost ready to be put to the test. Unfortunately I have almost dismantled my HiFi System and am not sure when it will be put back into service, so a demonstration of the TT in the Home System will be a long wait.
I will hopefully long-term loan it out to a HiFi Group Member and acquaint myself with the modified TT this way.
Crikey john are ayou still waiting for your TTS bearing to be done? its gotta be 2 years at least.!
with your bearing grub screw design you would have to lift the spindle/magnet housing out to get to the to top grub screw would you not? if thats the case why not just fill it up (in a controlled manner) normally?
with your bearing grub screw design you would have to lift the spindle/magnet housing out to get to the to top grub screw would you not? if thats the case why not just fill it up (in a controlled manner) normally?
No there is no need for a sump. A sump is used for pressure feed and cooling of oil. All a TT bearing needs is the bearing full when the journal is inserted. So the amount of oil will be, bearing volume minus journal area.
Oil does not evaporate so it should not need to be topped up unless it leaks. Viscosity is governed by journal/sleeve clearance, if the clearance is tight a thick oil will not flow in the small clearance.
Hi Jamie
If you recall, I told our Mutual Friend to put the investigation into my my TTS on hold and Prioritise your request to have work done to your TTS, that was being proposed at that time, as being the method to improve the original condition.
As you were to be without a TT whilst the requested work was initiated and I have a choice of TT's to use, I did not see the need to keep to the plan in place for my own one, and encourage the work on your one to be prioritised.
My TTS was the one used to design the Parts to be produced for your request for a overhauled bearing assembly using a Thermoplastic as the Bushes and a New Design the the Sump Plug and Thrust Pad.
My TTS was supplied to our mutual friend as a learning curve and not a project. I made it known it was a Donor to learn from and was sacrificial if the worse happened, it was the earliest of the 'hands on work' being undertaken to prepare for the planning and design for the SP10 MkII Bearing that is coming to fruit.
It was also a learning curve for myself, as it got me to thinking how to best use the available dimensions of the parts that were to be produced, the thick walls of the Bushes were candidates to be bored and used as Fill Method.
The learning curve also extended to it being suggested that a Vintage TT is potentially unique, as a result of the previous unknown usage and the condition present at critical areas during this usage, there does seem to be varying degrees of wear in conjunction with any differences in dimension tolerances allowed for from the time of manufacture.
The unknown usage of the TTS 8000 prior to be treated to this type of Platter Bearing Modification can impact on the accuracy of the dimension of the parts being produced, hence why I have a Spindle Bush Fit on my produced one that is to the hand a substantially improved interface over the original. This is being attributed to the parts being produced to suit the Donor Model the Dimensions were taken from.
The endeavour has also been a learning curve for yourself, and you have adopted ideas seen used with other Bearing Modifications and there is a lot of lessons learned now on board.
As a further extension of the learning curve and ideas generated.
I have discussed with yourself the access to the Bushes in the past. I have referred to the Stator Cover as a Cusp on the Platter Spindle.
I have made it known a few holes bored into the Top Face to enable a Allen Key and Syringe Needle to pass through.
In past discussion between ourselves as well, I had made it known the Brown Cover Plate that conceals the Cusp could be left off and a Panzerholz Puck (or another material of choice) of a suitable dimension ( from recollection 22mm?) could be machined to make a ideal match and attached to the Cusp and mechanically coupled to the Platter.
This as a method is simplistic and was proposed for not putting the Platter at a risk, when using the method as an attempt to reduce /remove the disturbing Platter Wobble inherent to the TTS 8000/6000. The only other viable method to control this would be to machine out the cast bore to receive the spindle and insert a new produced sleeve dimensioned to fit the Spindle.
This type of insert is commonly seem on other TT Brands Platters.
It has been suggested in the past Sony were fully into the CD Source at the time of releasing the TTS 8000/6000 and maybe this cost cutting on the Platter is another 'tell' that CD was the future goal for Sony.
It was also suggested the use of P'holz for the in role to stabilise the Platter, could be proven to significantly improve the Damping of the Platter.
There must be better performing materials to be used today for platter damping, than the cream coloured spray on substance used on the original Platter.
If you recall, I told our Mutual Friend to put the investigation into my my TTS on hold and Prioritise your request to have work done to your TTS, that was being proposed at that time, as being the method to improve the original condition.
As you were to be without a TT whilst the requested work was initiated and I have a choice of TT's to use, I did not see the need to keep to the plan in place for my own one, and encourage the work on your one to be prioritised.
My TTS was the one used to design the Parts to be produced for your request for a overhauled bearing assembly using a Thermoplastic as the Bushes and a New Design the the Sump Plug and Thrust Pad.
My TTS was supplied to our mutual friend as a learning curve and not a project. I made it known it was a Donor to learn from and was sacrificial if the worse happened, it was the earliest of the 'hands on work' being undertaken to prepare for the planning and design for the SP10 MkII Bearing that is coming to fruit.
It was also a learning curve for myself, as it got me to thinking how to best use the available dimensions of the parts that were to be produced, the thick walls of the Bushes were candidates to be bored and used as Fill Method.
The learning curve also extended to it being suggested that a Vintage TT is potentially unique, as a result of the previous unknown usage and the condition present at critical areas during this usage, there does seem to be varying degrees of wear in conjunction with any differences in dimension tolerances allowed for from the time of manufacture.
The unknown usage of the TTS 8000 prior to be treated to this type of Platter Bearing Modification can impact on the accuracy of the dimension of the parts being produced, hence why I have a Spindle Bush Fit on my produced one that is to the hand a substantially improved interface over the original. This is being attributed to the parts being produced to suit the Donor Model the Dimensions were taken from.
The endeavour has also been a learning curve for yourself, and you have adopted ideas seen used with other Bearing Modifications and there is a lot of lessons learned now on board.
As a further extension of the learning curve and ideas generated.
I have discussed with yourself the access to the Bushes in the past. I have referred to the Stator Cover as a Cusp on the Platter Spindle.
I have made it known a few holes bored into the Top Face to enable a Allen Key and Syringe Needle to pass through.
In past discussion between ourselves as well, I had made it known the Brown Cover Plate that conceals the Cusp could be left off and a Panzerholz Puck (or another material of choice) of a suitable dimension ( from recollection 22mm?) could be machined to make a ideal match and attached to the Cusp and mechanically coupled to the Platter.
This as a method is simplistic and was proposed for not putting the Platter at a risk, when using the method as an attempt to reduce /remove the disturbing Platter Wobble inherent to the TTS 8000/6000. The only other viable method to control this would be to machine out the cast bore to receive the spindle and insert a new produced sleeve dimensioned to fit the Spindle.
This type of insert is commonly seem on other TT Brands Platters.
It has been suggested in the past Sony were fully into the CD Source at the time of releasing the TTS 8000/6000 and maybe this cost cutting on the Platter is another 'tell' that CD was the future goal for Sony.
It was also suggested the use of P'holz for the in role to stabilise the Platter, could be proven to significantly improve the Damping of the Platter.
There must be better performing materials to be used today for platter damping, than the cream coloured spray on substance used on the original Platter.
Hi Warrjon, Thank You for your input.
I have been referring to a Sump as the Space between the bottom of the Lowest Bush Liner and the Thrust Pad.
It is this area where the Bearing Housings Base is attached to another part, in the DD TT of certain designs, (not the SP10).
The part being attached to, is one that usually has a dual role. The connection of the parts at the Base of the Bearing Housing is usually showing a Thin Lubricant will leach through the connection.
I have spent plenty of time looking at owned DD TT's to see where the fix for the leach can be achieved.
My nemesis is a Housing with a Openings in the Side Wall at the Bottom of the Housing, where it was packed with a Grease, a special part is required to encapsulate the exposed Spindle and Thrust Pad.
I have been referring to a Sump as the Space between the bottom of the Lowest Bush Liner and the Thrust Pad.
It is this area where the Bearing Housings Base is attached to another part, in the DD TT of certain designs, (not the SP10).
The part being attached to, is one that usually has a dual role. The connection of the parts at the Base of the Bearing Housing is usually showing a Thin Lubricant will leach through the connection.
I have spent plenty of time looking at owned DD TT's to see where the fix for the leach can be achieved.
My nemesis is a Housing with a Openings in the Side Wall at the Bottom of the Housing, where it was packed with a Grease, a special part is required to encapsulate the exposed Spindle and Thrust Pad.