help device implementation

[marcof]

you are doing the smart and out of the question!
I wrote "in a purely academic discussion", that scheme at the beginning of the thread, with a flywheel on the shaft led and started at 90° (but perhaps even a little less, depending on the mass of the flywheel) from the dead point puts in continuous rotation the shaft led or not?
I'm going to make wood to start the crusher... :tongue:

Surely not.
Maybe a few rounds can make it, but only by chance and only if the cranks are of equal measure, not as in the scheme of the theme.

Let's throw it like that...
in theory yes..
in practice, you do it only if you spot it at pms outdated and if inertia is such as to make sure that the shaft led passes alone the pmi.

the discussion developed in this direction:
data:
with two hand cranks of equal measure (like those of locomotives) assess the possibility, in a completely academic way, that system functions with continuous motion of the wheel conducted, starting far from the dead point and with flying on the wheel conducted.

(my) :
I say that if the sizing of the flywheel, the distance of the handle of the center and sufficiently large the assembly is sufficiently precise the acrocco works and once party does not incarnate passing to the alternating motion.

do not pull me out again different cranks (stefanobruno) and starters at the dead point (bmt) otherwise the academic discussion is no longer fun. :wink:

 

[marcof]

Yes but no one has yet solved my problem of bearing bond....

to me it seemed so and also brilliantly.

Oh, I allowed myself to continue with the divagation because the micius88 problem also seemed abundantly resolved, with so much video.

 

[stefanobruno]

the discussion developed in this direction:
data:
with two hand cranks of equal measure (like those of locomotives) assess the possibility, in a completely academic way, that system functions with continuous motion of the wheel conducted, starting far from the dead point and with flying on the wheel conducted.

(my) :
I say that if the size of the flywheel, the distance of the handle of the center and sufficiently large the assembly is sufficiently precise the acrocco works and once you leave it does not incarnate passing to the alternating motion.

do not pull me out again different cranks (stefanobruno) and starters at the dead point (bmt) otherwise the academic discussion is no longer fun. :wink:

In my opinion, to work, it must be sufficiently small (at the limit coincides with the center:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin: )

I'm joking, but not so much.
the further you are away from the center of rotation and the less you need to be asynchronous to cross the biella to the passage from the dead point.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

Excuse me. I'm sorry I'm tired, but how does a 210 biella join the two handles? Shouldn't be 55 long?
Aren't the two cranks on each other? with the big one passing the center of the little one?

 

[matteo calzaferri]

prof. changeghi does not forget, excellent exercise.
I did a couple of years ago and then fell b a breeze.

I don't think the exercise is very difficult. Following the course theory part, methods are explained to fix bearings and thus create the required constraints.

there are already the bearings indicated, so according to the type of bearing itself and the bond you have to create you can understand whether to lock the inner ring or the outer ring, etc.
if there is reason for a moment the exercise should not be very difficult.

 

[Er Presidente]

Oh, I allowed myself to continue with the divagation because the micius88 problem also seemed abundantly resolved, with so much video.

Because you call them "divagations" now!
:biggrin:

 

[cacciatorino]

Yes but no one has yet solved my problem of bearing bond....

I already told you, try to propose your own solution that will then be discussed. of students here pass many, but those who ask for the problem to be solved by others without producing sweat usually have little listening.

 

[marcof]

Because you call them "divagations" now!
:biggrin:

Why, do you think they're "diversive"? . Does it look like I'm the subject of the audience? Look, if you want me to ask you about an advertising space here on cad3d, for a fee, and I make public amends for excavating the reading of that drawing... Of course I know you're paying...

Now I want to make a different mechanism work, like what my neuron had interpreted at the beginning of the thread and then I described, but they say that it would not work anyway.
I say it works and tomorrow, if you let me turn the cranks, I'll make a prototype in ten minutes. if it works I come to look for everything steam and full of ballast on the front roller:tongue:

 

[sampom]

Excuse me. I'm sorry I'm tired, but how does a 210 biella join the two handles? Shouldn't be 55 long?
Aren't the two cranks on each other? with the big one passing the center of the little one?

You obviously haven't read everything.
this has been overcome from the beginning and the scheme itself indicates the type of cinematism that you get... Just for those "dimensional" reasons you're talking about.

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[sampom]

. .
Now I want to make a different mechanism work, like what my neuron had interpreted at the beginning of the thread and then I described, but they say that it would not work anyway.
I say it works and tomorrow, if you let me turn the cranks, I'll make a prototype in ten minutes. if it works I come to look for everything steam and full of ballast on the front roller

scheme, scheme, scheme. .
it takes a drawing otherwise you don't understand anything and you can't help. . and read the forum rules:mixed:
:tongue::

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[Mike1967]

Excuse me. I'm sorry I'm tired, but how does a 210 biella join the two handles? Shouldn't be 55 long?
Aren't the two cranks on each other? with the big one passing the center of the little one?

There is a video attached to my intervention.