epicyclidal reducer

[PIETRO2002]

if it has beta angle of 15th yes. if it is straight teeth not.

I did the calculation with pressure angle 20°... I tried a little with the program khk

 

[wert]

sorry if I interrupt but as we have the solar to with z=14 and m=1,25 then primitive diameter 17,5mm, which diameter will have its tree since we still have 4000rpm and 36nm that is not little..... Is a tree so small enough?? ? ?
Thank you.

Pintox excuses, distracted the solar problem, worried about dimensionalizing satellite drag pins? because those, with this extra large band, will be well stressed... and consequently, also the sizing of the satellite train, because he will then have to take out the couple... .

 

[meccanicamg]

Pintox excuses, distracted the solar problem, worried about dimensionalizing satellite drag pins? because those, with this extra large band, will be well stressed... and consequently, also the sizing of the satellite train, because he will then have to take out the couple... .

If you use an appropriate number of satellites, if you are lapping and checking the detachment error, the satellites divide the load exactly.
If the satellites are dancers instead... always one that brings everything.

 

[wert]

If you use an appropriate number of satellites, if you are lapping and checking the detachment error, the satellites divide the load exactly.
If the satellites are dancers instead... always one that brings everything.

Yes, but the pivot that drags satellites and is supportive to the satellite door, will you want to calculate at least to cut or we only care about the teeth? as well as the satellite port itself, which then becomes the exit tree.. .

 

[meccanicamg]

Yes, but the pivot that drags satellites and is supportive to the satellite door, will you want to calculate at least to cut or we only care about the teeth? as well as the satellite port itself, which then becomes the exit tree.. .

the diameter of the hammer holder, only in the outlet part can have a diameter compatible to its bearing that will be mounted and therefore the outer ring of the bearing will be a little smaller than the inside of the inner toothing wheel.
game of words....but it is so

 

[PIETRO2002]

the diameter of the hammer holder, only in the outlet part can have a diameter compatible to its bearing that will be mounted and therefore the outer ring of the bearing will be a little smaller than the inside of the inner toothing wheel.
game of words....but it is so

I also tried with inventor, but the z14 module 1.25 doesn't even come back with 15th helix, maybe it would take the help of kissoft.. I feel like someone has the trial version! if you want to make your contribution. .

 

[meccanicamg]

just to connect the two discussions on the epicloidal reducer, there is This is what debate.
you see the satellite door schema. . .

only that in that case you could do everything to bronzine and it was schematic. here instead you have to put serious bearings.

 

[meccanicamg]

I also tried with inventor, but the z14 module 1.25 doesn't even come back with 15th helix, maybe it would take the help of kissoft.. I feel like someone has the trial version! if you want to make your contribution. .

But you made it wide b/m= 40 so b=50mm?

You should ask @rickimaracas if you kindly check us out....mal that we go we bring beta 18°.

 

[wert]

We probably don't understand. I say the pins that are planted on the satellite door, what in photo has triangular shape. satellites drag the satellite door that, in the hidden facccia, will have the exit shaft. convine with me that, if well done, each of those pins must bear the tangential force that is derived from the output couple divided the arm (distance between the center of the reducer and center of the pins), divided the number of satellites?

 

[meccanicamg]

View attachment 58158We probably don't understand. I say the pins that are planted on the satellite door, what in photo has triangular shape. satellites drag the satellite door that, in the hidden facccia, will have the exit shaft. convine with me that, if well done, each of those pins must bear the tangential force that is derived from the output couple divided the arm (distance between the center of the reducer and center of the pins), divided the number of satellites?

the three pins carry each 1/3 of the total torque if done well....and therefore also the teeth do not carry 100%...and you can tighten the band b. otherwise each pin will bring 1/1 of the total torque.

the exit shaft will bring all the couple and is what you can do big.

 

[PIETRO2002]

But you made it wide b/m= 40 so b=50mm?

You should ask @rickimaracas if you kindly check us out....mal that we go we bring beta 18°.

I am retrying with khk, and inserting materials at the top, surface hardness 800 hv, support conditions ok, I think the toothing keeps, even if the program makes me insert at maximum 3600 turns!

 

[wert]

the three pins carry each 1/3 of the total torque if done well.... and therefore also the teeth do not carry 100%. otherwise each pin will bring 1/1 of the total pair.

the exit shaft will bring all the couple and is what you can do big.

So we don't calculate them? because it will be better to know if we have a lot of space to put bearings, or bronzines or if only the bare pin can stand on the hole of the gear. . .

 

[meccanicamg]

So we don't calculate them? because it will be better to know if we have a lot of space to put bearings, or bronzines or if only the bare pin can stand on the hole of the gear. . .

will be better than our student divide the transit pair by the number of satellites, so it drips the width and returns everything more normal.
until now we have speculated to make everything pass to one satellite.

it is to be calculated....but at this point it is priority as above.

 

[wert]

will be better than our student divide the transit pair by the number of satellites, so it drips the width and returns everything more normal.
until now we have speculated to make everything pass to one satellite.

it is to be calculated....but at this point it is priority as above.

Sorry, have we discussed for 4 or 5 posts that the band was abnormal and only now you realize that you can reduce because the couple can be spread over 4 satellites?? I was convinced that your dimensioning already took into account this fact.... mah, you leave me increasingly puzzled... .

 

[PIETRO2002]

Sorry, have we discussed for 4 or 5 posts that the band was abnormal and only now you realize that you can reduce because the couple can be spread over 4 satellites?? I was convinced that your dimensioning already took into account this fact.... mah, you leave me increasingly puzzled... .

Who's wrong? errare umanum est.. :

 

[meccanicamg]

Sorry, have we discussed for 4 or 5 posts that the band was abnormal and only now you realize that you can reduce because the couple can be spread over 4 satellites?? I was convinced that your dimensioning already took into account this fact.... mah, you leave me increasingly puzzled... .

since from the beginning the young man did not say how many satellites he wanted to put, as a rule the quantity is 1.
even if one does not want to do precise things, only one works.
Is there a wrong courier?

 

[PIETRO2002]

I thought it was to test the student and see if he knew! ahahahaha

 

[wert]

since from the beginning the young man did not say how many satellites he wanted to put, as a rule the quantity is 1.
even if one does not want to do precise things, only one works.
Is there a wrong courier?

I see that when you beat the quail, you throw it on the laugh.... that the rule says that the satellite is one I hear from you for the first time... I don't think that there is only one serious epicloidal reducer in the world that has only one satellite per stadium. I've put the flea in your ear on the exaggerated band several times, and you haven't been worthy of reviving your calculations....I don't like your prosopoeia and I admit I've also provoked you, but I think I've shown that all this fame that envelops your name doesn't seem completely deserved. next time.

 

[meccanicamg]

version with 4 satellites that collaborate, beautiful rectified and lapped with background radius that copy the radius from tool.

rotation system: 4000rpm
power in transit: 15,1≈/43,8kw
straight teeth
you can proceed in this direction.

 

[meccanicamg]

I see that when you beat the quail, you throw it on the laugh.... that the rule says that the satellite is one I hear from you for the first time... I don't think that there is only one serious epicloidal reducer in the world that has only one satellite per stadium. I've put the flea in your ear on the exaggerated band several times, and you haven't been worthy of reviving your calculations....I don't like your prosopoeia and I admit I've also provoked you, but I think I've shown that all this fame that envelops your name doesn't seem completely deserved. next time.

You just provoked. No, you did a calculation, so you can't put yourself in the condition of wrong.

In addition, slow reducers to one satellite are available and were often used for manual applications.
I don't know what you mean because you have to look at the application and every reducer is standing.
as much as the gears with very high width than the module. if you browse some old catalog you would find many siecial gearboxes with b/m greater than 40.
bring your contribution concretely and remember that we are here for technical and non-personal issues.