 | | Re: A couple of gear questions —Timothy P. Smith
|
| | | (...) Add a light sensor, it can be used as a rotation counter. (...) (15 years ago, 9-Mar-09, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: A couple of gear questions —Santeri Piippo
|
| | | | (...) Ah, right, so it is for that... I really have to find out how to measure torque. I, though, can't see the "2.5-5.0 Ncm" print on the part but I'll take your word for it. In lugnet.technic, Timothy P. Smith wrote: (...) I see... well I don't (...) (15 years ago, 9-Mar-09, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A couple of gear questions —Peter Ehrlich
|
| | | | (...) (URL) you can see the writing, and why the torque over a range. Is a non constant-clutching like this good or bad? What do people think? (15 years ago, 16-Apr-09, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A couple of gear questions —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | (...) I think it's a non-issue for the most part. The torque isn't really "over a range" - it's different for different clutch gears, but for any *single* clutch gear it's pretty constant. After all, if it has a point at which it starts slipping, it (...) (15 years ago, 16-Apr-09, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A couple of gear questions —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | (...) That doesn't make sense. If it's rotating internally such that the "weak point" could be alligned, then it's already slipping, isn't it? (...) The range probably has to do with speed of rotation. Rotate it at a really slow speed, and it should (...) (15 years ago, 16-Apr-09, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A couple of gear questions —Allan Porter
|
| | | | (...) For most applications it dosen't really pose a noticeable problem. However this inconsistancey is due to the internal structure and the way in which friction is achived. (URL) the only problem I have with it is that the clutch slips way too (...) (15 years ago, 16-Apr-09, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A couple of gear questions —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | (...) With the PF and NXT motors, i perhaps agree with you. Of course, you can get any torque limit you want by gearing up and then back down, it's just more awkward. (15 years ago, 16-Apr-09, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A couple of gear questions —Timothy P. Smith
|
| | | | (...) That's not a bug- it's a feature. The point is to protect the motor from damage. That said, I bet if you used two clutch gears you'll get twice the allowable torque. I don't recommend it- but you could try it and see what you think. (15 years ago, 17-Apr-09, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A couple of gear questions —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | "Tim (Smith)" <tsmith7057@comcast.net> wrote in message news:KI7yAw.23B@lugnet.com... (...) You won't get twice the allowable torque. What you'll get is a proportionate increase in torque as the load on the output from the clutch gears approaches (...) (15 years ago, 17-Apr-09, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A couple of gear questions —Ignacio Martinez Vazquez
|
| | | | (...) He probably means two clutch gears in a single axle, meshing with two other gears which also share an axle. That way (in parallel) they should slip at twice the nominal torque. (15 years ago, 18-Apr-09, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A couple of gear questions —Timothy P. Smith
|
| | | | (...) Right, that's what I meant- sorry for the confusion. (15 years ago, 18-Apr-09, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
