Open Source Ecology - User contributions [en]

Comment on the Coercive Nature of the OSE Open IP Clause

2012-12-15T01:20:18Z

LoadTest:

As founder of OSE, I am committed to voluntary interaction as the basis of the social contract. This means that I don't believe in coercion of any type. Yet, I am choosing the Creative Commons Share Alike License - which in blunt terms - forces (coerces) any user to share derivative work - whether they want to or not - if they use OSE's intellectual property. I believe that while it is not good that someone should not share their work, I believe that it is even worse to coerce - by taking away one's choice regarding sharing or not sharing.

I was against such coercion prior to certain recent events. I was recently disappointed to find out that a certain trusted collaborator was unwilling to engage in development on a particular project with us because a part of the design was copyrighted as proprietary. This made me rethink what happens to our work in the future - if someone copyrights/patents a certain improvement. I was not concerned much about such an issue - because:

*My experience shows me that there are many ways that patents can be sidestepped by human ingenuity - and patents would not effect the core direction of our work.
*Patents are moot when one is producing for themselves - which is going to be the increasing case as consumer society increases its skills and transitions to community-based solutions of relocalized production
*There is a sufficiency criterion that is essential in our work. If we have the highest performance machine, do we need even higher performance, if it comes at a cost? For example, we have developed a brick press that was demonstrated to produce a max of 16 bricks per minute. Do we ''really'' need a machine that produces 17 bricks per minute if we use even more power and finetune the speed even further? It's a moot point to do so, since there are systems considerations which indicate that 16 bricks is not only enough, but excessive in all but rare situations. -MJ 5/5/12

Thus, I am still not concerned personally that copyrights/patents will ever stand in our way - but the same ''IS'' a concern for some of our collaborators. Therefore, to ensure involvement of such valuable contributors, I am choosing the Share Alike license. This is relevant in a case where someone copyrights/patents an improvement on our work, and we lose contributors who are intimidated from further participation because of potential legal consequences.

==Comments==
Comment here:

I think our [[Open source car]] collaborator Wikispeed is struggling with how open they want to be: Wikispeed asks its collaborators to sign a non-compete agreement and be subject to non-disclosure rules. This could become awkward if OSE share-alike contributions get incorporated in that project. I hope this doesn't interfere with our cooperation because there is ''huge'' value in Wikispeed's experience. [[User:ChuckH|ChuckH]] 06:29, 8 May 2012 (CEST)
[[Category:Philosophy]]

It is a common misconception that it is legal to build something for personal use if it is patented. It is in fact illegal to build it even for personal/non-commercial use. However, companies are unlikely to spend the legal fees unless they think its worth the money. Which might be the case in the future with open-source and internet visibility, because you are encouraging people to build their own instead of buy from them. But still not likely for a while, however I have heard of DIY'ers getting a cease & desist letter. This might be what you meant by "moot". But i wanted to clarify and call-out this further negative fact of the patent system.

LifeTrac IV/Research Development

2012-11-26T06:35:37Z

LoadTest: /* Items to Address */

{{ToolTemplate2|ToolParent=LifeTrac|ToolName=LifeTrac IV}}
[[Category:LifeTrac]]
[[Category:GVCS]]
[[Category:LifeTrac IV]]
==Overview==
This section breaks the design of the LifeTrac into its different systems so that the engineering analysis and design requirements can be more easily understood

==Status==
[[Quick_Connect_Wheels#Update_27JAN2012| Quick Connect Wheel Update]] - After 6spline coupler snapped, currently trialing a double chain sprocket coupler. Advantage: larger radius to withstand 15,000 inch pounds of torque

==Items to Address==
* [[/Design Criteria| Basic vehicle criteria for overall vehicle design]]
** Load carrying capacity
** Vehicle speed
** Vehicle power
** Vehicle weight
** Arm Range of motion
** Attachment plate range of motion
* [[/QA plate| QA Plate to Bobcat Standard]]
* [[/Carrying capacity| Carrying capacity]] of design
* [[/Wheel drive| Wheel drive]] attachment
** Load bearing capacity of shafts
** Torsion limit if shaft using single g8 bolt and 2 bolts, with 1-7/8 shaft
** Shear limit using 3" shaft with 2 g8 bolts, 1". This is for scaling analysis of bulldozer. Goal: 16,000 lb of pushing force for prototype 1 using same design with jackshaft
** Quick attach wheel mounts
* Structural analysis of frame with maximum load
** May have to wait on this until further information is completed. However rough analysis can likely be done in the mean time with the LifeTrac III models to see if there are any major issues of concern.
* Load limit of bulldozer arms based on steel structure
* [[/Improvements| Improvements]]
** Higher lifting height
** Auxiliary hydraulic connection at front
** Floor plate
** Roof plate
** Safety screen around occupant where necessary
** Driver position
** Vehicle control mechanisms
** Field of view improvements
** Head lights
** Optimized hydraulic locations for maximum lifting capacities
** Track design
* [[DVD Wanted List]] - See CAE tasks here

[[Category: LifeTrac]]

LifeTrac IV/Research Development/Improvements

2012-11-26T06:30:51Z

LoadTest: /* Overview */

=Overview=
These page lists improvements learned from lessons learned on the LifeTrac III prototypes. Please add as necessary.

==Higher Reach==
Consider higher lifting height by moving loader arm hinge pin all the way to rear of machine to accomodate longer arms.

And Using longer rams by:
a)moving the loader ram mounts toward the rear of the machine &/or
b)using bent loader arms that are 90 degrees

And/Or make the same size ram move the arm farther by:
a)moving the point where the ram attaches to the loader arm closer to the loader arm pivot point, so

** Comprable size commercial machines achieve 10ft height from the ground to the Quick Attach. Guatemala's looks to be about 6ft.

==Auxiliary Hydraulic Connection==
It may be useful to have an auxiliary quick connection mount routed to the front of the loader.

==Floor Plate==
Current Lifetrac has no floor plate which is a safety concern. A floor plate should be added to the next design.

==Roof Plate==
A roof plate is another safety feature that should be looked into. Perhaps made of a metal mesh.

==Safety Screen==
A safety screen should be added to the sides when occupant is in the vehicle so that arms cannot get caught under the loader arms accidentally. Could be made of a lighter metal mesh.

==Seatbelt==
In the event of a rollover, the occupant needs to be secure in the seat.

==Driver Position==
Currently due to the driver being so far rearward it is difficult to see precision work with the quick attach plate like when picking pallets. It may be possible to move the driver more forward in the vehicle. It would require redesign of quite a few things but should be considered.

==Vehicle control mechanisms==
Current vehicle control mechanisms are via push levers for everything which is difficult and non-intuitive. Beginning research into a foot pedal mechanism for controlling the QA plate angle would be beneficial.

Additional controls for the skid steering like joysticks would be useful too but may be too complicated.

==Field of view improvements==

==Head lights==
Attaching headlight mounts to the front of the frame for operation at night is useful.

==Optimized hydraulic locations for maximum lifting capacities==
The locations of the hydraulics and how they push on the loader arms need to be optimized.

==Track Design==
Current tracks can slip off during hard riding. Proposes for redesign of tracks or adjustment of current tracks is desired.

=Links=
'''[http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2011-128/pdfs/2011-128.pdf Safety Info]''' - PDF on preventing injury and death with skid loader design.

LifeTrac IV/Research Development

2012-11-25T00:33:22Z

LoadTest: /* Items to Address */

{{ToolTemplate2|ToolParent=LifeTrac|ToolName=LifeTrac IV}}
[[Category:LifeTrac]]
[[Category:GVCS]]
[[Category:LifeTrac IV]]
==Overview==
This section breaks the design of the LifeTrac into its different systems so that the engineering analysis and design requirements can be more easily understood

==Status==
[[Quick_Connect_Wheels#Update_27JAN2012| Quick Connect Wheel Update]] - After 6spline coupler snapped, currently trialing a double chain sprocket coupler. Advantage: larger radius to withstand 15,000 inch pounds of torque

==Items to Address==
* [[/Design Criteria| Basic vehicle criteria for overall vehicle design]]
** Load carrying capacity
** Vehicle speed
** Vehicle power
** Vehicle weight
** Arm Range of motion
** Attachment plate range of motion
* [[/QA plate| QA Plate to Bobcat Standard]]
* [[/Carrying capacity| Carrying capacity]] of design
* [[/Wheel drive| Wheel drive]] attachment
** Load bearing capacity of shafts
** Torsion limit if shaft using single g8 bolt and 2 bolts, with 1-7/8 shaft
** Shear limit using 3" shaft with 2 g8 bolts, 1". This is for scaling analysis of bulldozer. Goal: 16,000 lb of pushing force for prototype 1 using same design with jackshaft
** Quick attach wheel mounts
* Structural analysis of frame with maximum load
** May have to wait on this until further information is completed. However rough analysis can likely be done in the mean time with the LifeTrac III models to see if there are any major issues of concern.
* Load limit of bulldozer arms based on steel structure
* [[/Improvements| Improvements]]
** Consider higher lifting height by moving loader arm hinge pin all the way to rear of machine to accomodate longer arms.
** And Using longer rams by using bent loader arms that are 90 degrees &/or moving the loader ram mounts toward the rear of the machine.
** Comprable size commercial machines achieve 10ft height to the QA pin, Guatemala's looks to be about 6ft
** Auxiliary hydraulic connection at front
** Floor plate
** Roof plate
** Safety screen around occupant where necessary
** Driver position
** Vehicle control mechanisms
** Field of view improvements
** Head lights
** Optimized hydraulic locations for maximum lifting capacities
** Track design
* [[DVD Wanted List]] - See CAE tasks here

[[Category: LifeTrac]]

LifeTrac IV/Research Development

2012-11-25T00:32:49Z

LoadTest: /* Items to Address */

{{ToolTemplate2|ToolParent=LifeTrac|ToolName=LifeTrac IV}}
[[Category:LifeTrac]]
[[Category:GVCS]]
[[Category:LifeTrac IV]]
==Overview==
This section breaks the design of the LifeTrac into its different systems so that the engineering analysis and design requirements can be more easily understood

==Status==
[[Quick_Connect_Wheels#Update_27JAN2012| Quick Connect Wheel Update]] - After 6spline coupler snapped, currently trialing a double chain sprocket coupler. Advantage: larger radius to withstand 15,000 inch pounds of torque

==Items to Address==
* [[/Design Criteria| Basic vehicle criteria for overall vehicle design]]
** Load carrying capacity
** Vehicle speed
** Vehicle power
** Vehicle weight
** Arm Range of motion
** Attachment plate range of motion
* [[/QA plate| QA Plate to Bobcat Standard]]
* [[/Carrying capacity| Carrying capacity]] of design
* [[/Wheel drive| Wheel drive]] attachment
** Load bearing capacity of shafts
** Torsion limit if shaft using single g8 bolt and 2 bolts, with 1-7/8 shaft
** Shear limit using 3" shaft with 2 g8 bolts, 1". This is for scaling analysis of bulldozer. Goal: 16,000 lb of pushing force for prototype 1 using same design with jackshaft
** Quick attach wheel mounts
* Structural analysis of frame with maximum load
** May have to wait on this until further information is completed. However rough analysis can likely be done in the mean time with the LifeTrac III models to see if there are any major issues of concern.
* Load limit of bulldozer arms based on steel structure
* [[/Improvements| Improvements]]
** Consider higher lifting height by moving loader arm hinge pin all the way to rear of machine to accomodate longer arms.
** And Using longer rams by using bent loader arms that are 90 degrees &/or moving the loader ram mounts toward the rear of the machine.
**Comprable size commercial machines achieve 10ft height to the QA pin, Guatemala's looks to be about 6ft-
** Auxiliary hydraulic connection at front
** Floor plate
** Roof plate
** Safety screen around occupant where necessary
** Driver position
** Vehicle control mechanisms
** Field of view improvements
** Head lights
** Optimized hydraulic locations for maximum lifting capacities
** Track design
* [[DVD Wanted List]] - See CAE tasks here

[[Category: LifeTrac]]

LifeTrac IV/Research Development

2012-11-25T00:31:59Z

LoadTest: /* Items to Address */

{{ToolTemplate2|ToolParent=LifeTrac|ToolName=LifeTrac IV}}
[[Category:LifeTrac]]
[[Category:GVCS]]
[[Category:LifeTrac IV]]
==Overview==
This section breaks the design of the LifeTrac into its different systems so that the engineering analysis and design requirements can be more easily understood

==Status==
[[Quick_Connect_Wheels#Update_27JAN2012| Quick Connect Wheel Update]] - After 6spline coupler snapped, currently trialing a double chain sprocket coupler. Advantage: larger radius to withstand 15,000 inch pounds of torque

==Items to Address==
* [[/Design Criteria| Basic vehicle criteria for overall vehicle design]]
** Load carrying capacity
** Vehicle speed
** Vehicle power
** Vehicle weight
** Arm Range of motion
** Attachment plate range of motion
* [[/QA plate| QA Plate to Bobcat Standard]]
* [[/Carrying capacity| Carrying capacity]] of design
* [[/Wheel drive| Wheel drive]] attachment
** Load bearing capacity of shafts
** Torsion limit if shaft using single g8 bolt and 2 bolts, with 1-7/8 shaft
** Shear limit using 3" shaft with 2 g8 bolts, 1". This is for scaling analysis of bulldozer. Goal: 16,000 lb of pushing force for prototype 1 using same design with jackshaft
** Quick attach wheel mounts
* Structural analysis of frame with maximum load
** May have to wait on this until further information is completed. However rough analysis can likely be done in the mean time with the LifeTrac III models to see if there are any major issues of concern.
* Load limit of bulldozer arms based on steel structure
* [[/Improvements| Improvements]]
** Consider higher lifting height by moving loader arm hinge pin all the way to rear of machine to accomodate longer arms.
*And Using longer rams by using bent loader arms that are 90 degrees &/or moving the loader ram mounts toward the rear of the machine.
*Comprable size commercial machines achieve 10ft height to the QA pin, Guatemala's looks to be about 6ft-
** Auxiliary hydraulic connection at front
** Floor plate
** Roof plate
** Safety screen around occupant where necessary
** Driver position
** Vehicle control mechanisms
** Field of view improvements
** Head lights
** Optimized hydraulic locations for maximum lifting capacities
** Track design
* [[DVD Wanted List]] - See CAE tasks here

[[Category: LifeTrac]]

LifeTrac IV/Research Development

2012-11-25T00:31:26Z

LoadTest: /* Items to Address */

{{ToolTemplate2|ToolParent=LifeTrac|ToolName=LifeTrac IV}}
[[Category:LifeTrac]]
[[Category:GVCS]]
[[Category:LifeTrac IV]]
==Overview==
This section breaks the design of the LifeTrac into its different systems so that the engineering analysis and design requirements can be more easily understood

==Status==
[[Quick_Connect_Wheels#Update_27JAN2012| Quick Connect Wheel Update]] - After 6spline coupler snapped, currently trialing a double chain sprocket coupler. Advantage: larger radius to withstand 15,000 inch pounds of torque

==Items to Address==
* [[/Design Criteria| Basic vehicle criteria for overall vehicle design]]
** Load carrying capacity
** Vehicle speed
** Vehicle power
** Vehicle weight
** Arm Range of motion
** Attachment plate range of motion
* [[/QA plate| QA Plate to Bobcat Standard]]
* [[/Carrying capacity| Carrying capacity]] of design
* [[/Wheel drive| Wheel drive]] attachment
** Load bearing capacity of shafts
** Torsion limit if shaft using single g8 bolt and 2 bolts, with 1-7/8 shaft
** Shear limit using 3" shaft with 2 g8 bolts, 1". This is for scaling analysis of bulldozer. Goal: 16,000 lb of pushing force for prototype 1 using same design with jackshaft
** Quick attach wheel mounts
* Structural analysis of frame with maximum load
** May have to wait on this until further information is completed. However rough analysis can likely be done in the mean time with the LifeTrac III models to see if there are any major issues of concern.
* Load limit of bulldozer arms based on steel structure
* [[/Improvements| Improvements]]
** Consider higher lifting height by moving loader arm hinge pin all the way to rear of machine to accomodate longer arms.
And Using longer rams by using bent loader arms that are 90 degrees &/or moving the loader ram mounts toward the rear of the machine.
Comprable size commercial machines achieve 10ft height to the QA pin, Guatemala's looks to be about 6ft-
** Auxiliary hydraulic connection at front
** Floor plate
** Roof plate
** Safety screen around occupant where necessary
** Driver position
** Vehicle control mechanisms
** Field of view improvements
** Head lights
** Optimized hydraulic locations for maximum lifting capacities
** Track design
* [[DVD Wanted List]] - See CAE tasks here

[[Category: LifeTrac]]

LifeTrac IV/Research Development

2012-11-25T00:30:49Z

LoadTest: /* Items to Address */

{{ToolTemplate2|ToolParent=LifeTrac|ToolName=LifeTrac IV}}
[[Category:LifeTrac]]
[[Category:GVCS]]
[[Category:LifeTrac IV]]
==Overview==
This section breaks the design of the LifeTrac into its different systems so that the engineering analysis and design requirements can be more easily understood

==Status==
[[Quick_Connect_Wheels#Update_27JAN2012| Quick Connect Wheel Update]] - After 6spline coupler snapped, currently trialing a double chain sprocket coupler. Advantage: larger radius to withstand 15,000 inch pounds of torque

==Items to Address==
* [[/Design Criteria| Basic vehicle criteria for overall vehicle design]]
** Load carrying capacity
** Vehicle speed
** Vehicle power
** Vehicle weight
** Arm Range of motion
** Attachment plate range of motion
* [[/QA plate| QA Plate to Bobcat Standard]]
* [[/Carrying capacity| Carrying capacity]] of design
* [[/Wheel drive| Wheel drive]] attachment
** Load bearing capacity of shafts
** Torsion limit if shaft using single g8 bolt and 2 bolts, with 1-7/8 shaft
** Shear limit using 3" shaft with 2 g8 bolts, 1". This is for scaling analysis of bulldozer. Goal: 16,000 lb of pushing force for prototype 1 using same design with jackshaft
** Quick attach wheel mounts
* Structural analysis of frame with maximum load
** May have to wait on this until further information is completed. However rough analysis can likely be done in the mean time with the LifeTrac III models to see if there are any major issues of concern.
* Load limit of bulldozer arms based on steel structure
* [[/Improvements| Improvements]]
** Consider higher lifting height by moving loader arm hinge pin all the way to rear of machine to accomodate longer arms.
-And Using longer rams by using bent loader arms that are 90 degrees &/or moving the loader ram mounts toward the rear of the machine.
-comprable size commercial machines achieve 10ft height to the QA pin, Guatemala's looks to be about 6ft-
** Auxiliary hydraulic connection at front
** Floor plate
** Roof plate
** Safety screen around occupant where necessary
** Driver position
** Vehicle control mechanisms
** Field of view improvements
** Head lights
** Optimized hydraulic locations for maximum lifting capacities
** Track design
* [[DVD Wanted List]] - See CAE tasks here

[[Category: LifeTrac]]

LifeTrac IV/Research Development

2012-11-25T00:28:11Z

LoadTest: /* Items to Address */

{{ToolTemplate2|ToolParent=LifeTrac|ToolName=LifeTrac IV}}
[[Category:LifeTrac]]
[[Category:GVCS]]
[[Category:LifeTrac IV]]
==Overview==
This section breaks the design of the LifeTrac into its different systems so that the engineering analysis and design requirements can be more easily understood

==Status==
[[Quick_Connect_Wheels#Update_27JAN2012| Quick Connect Wheel Update]] - After 6spline coupler snapped, currently trialing a double chain sprocket coupler. Advantage: larger radius to withstand 15,000 inch pounds of torque

==Items to Address==
* [[/Design Criteria| Basic vehicle criteria for overall vehicle design]]
** Load carrying capacity
** Vehicle speed
** Vehicle power
** Vehicle weight
** Arm Range of motion
** Attachment plate range of motion
* [[/QA plate| QA Plate to Bobcat Standard]]
* [[/Carrying capacity| Carrying capacity]] of design
* [[/Wheel drive| Wheel drive]] attachment
** Load bearing capacity of shafts
** Torsion limit if shaft using single g8 bolt and 2 bolts, with 1-7/8 shaft
** Shear limit using 3" shaft with 2 g8 bolts, 1". This is for scaling analysis of bulldozer. Goal: 16,000 lb of pushing force for prototype 1 using same design with jackshaft
** Quick attach wheel mounts
* Structural analysis of frame with maximum load
** May have to wait on this until further information is completed. However rough analysis can likely be done in the mean time with the LifeTrac III models to see if there are any major issues of concern.
* Load limit of bulldozer arms based on steel structure
* [[/Improvements| Improvements]]
** Consider higher lifting height by moving loader arm hinge pin all the way to rear of machine. Using longer rams by using bent loader arms that are 90 degrees or moving the loader ram mounts toward the rear of the machine.
(comprable size commercial machines achieve 10ft height to the QA pin, Guatemala's looks to be about 6ft)
** Auxiliary hydraulic connection at front
** Floor plate
** Roof plate
** Safety screen around occupant where necessary
** Driver position
** Vehicle control mechanisms
** Field of view improvements
** Head lights
** Optimized hydraulic locations for maximum lifting capacities
** Track design
* [[DVD Wanted List]] - See CAE tasks here

[[Category: LifeTrac]]

Talk:Microtractor

2012-11-24T04:57:34Z

LoadTest: Created page with "Lets list all of the possible applications of the microtractor and how it fits in with the other GVCS tools. What should the microtrac be designed for?: 1) A small/startup vil..."

Lets list all of the possible applications of the microtractor and how it fits in with the other GVCS tools.

What should the microtrac be designed for?:

1) A small/startup village with small crops and small construction that doesn't need or can't justify a full size lifetrac?

2) Or for more precision work to suplement the LifeTrac for tight-space job or remote locations where you don't want to haul a fullsize LifeTrac to the jobsite?

3) Instead of brute force for LifeTrac style work, should it be more agile and dexterous, basically a second pair of (hydraulic) hands to do a task that would be impossible with out the strength of 4 people? More like a non-cnc and mobile version of the [[Industrial_Robot]]

Universal Rotor Log

2012-11-06T02:27:20Z

LoadTest: /* Logs */

<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">

.googleDoc1 {height:1000px; width:80%;}

</style>

</head>
</html>

=Resources=

==Team==

'''Aaron Makaruk''' - ''aaronmakaruk@gmail.com''

'''Joshua(JB)''' - "LoadTest"

==Problem Statement==

'''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlTW6YJhEGQ&feature=plcp Problem Statement Video]'''

<html><iframe width="300" height="225" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//xlTW6YJhEGQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>

==Solution Responses==
'''[http://youtu.be/LOjaMpe5IXM Design Considerations Video]'''

<html><iframe width="300" height="169" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//LOjaMpe5IXM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>

'''[http://youtu.be/5dbpZ0fvdmQ Part 2]'''

<html><iframe width="300" height="169" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//5dbpZ0fvdmQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>

=Collaboration Spaces=
[https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/18SnW4Ok8OIMCq8tOpyTx24sK_j6Y3B2oKq1pku4yChQ/edit EDIT]

<html>
<img src="https://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=18SnW4Ok8OIMCq8tOpyTx24sK_j6Y3B2oKq1pku4yChQ&w=767&h=339">
</html>

=Logs=
==November 5, 2012==
I(LoadTest) traveled to SEMA/AAPEX show to get some more ideas. Looking into the possibility of adopting components from tie-rod hydraulic cylinders as standardized by the NFPA(National Fluid Power Association). These same components(tube, caps, mounts, rods, pistons, etc) could be used to not just build the universal rotor but also, OSE hydraulic&electric pumps/motors, hydraulic hose crimpers and much more. Also discovered universal rotor work at: [[Modular_Vehicles]] that is useful.
Per conversation w/marcin:
-Looking for axial load capacity of standard ball bearing flange blocks(tapered roller bearing flange blocks are too expensive)

-Trying to determine if exsisting [[15,000_Inch_Pound_Motor]] are sufficient to survive for direct wheel connection on lifetrack(no extra support bearings/shaft)

-Marcin wants to upgrade to 3" shaft, I'm encouraging him to consider using readily available higher grade steel shafting instead as this is industry proven and less suseptible to fatique then plain mild steel. But I will continue to research the availability of this material around the world and GVCS wisdom for both options.

==October 16, 2012==
LoadTest Posted a 2 part video response to the problem statement video filmed at FeF "Quick Attach Plate and Universal Rotor". The first part is an overview of the design considerations. The 2nd part poses the first design decision and that is to eliminate the auxiliary shaft bearing support structure from the design and rely instead on the hydraulic motor's internal bearings to support the system, with the option of adding in an extra bearing support system only when a hydraulic motor with inadequate bearings is to be used. LoadTest requests Aaron and Marcin to watch the response videos and confer with the decision before he continues further design work.
Part 1: [http://youtu.be/LOjaMpe5IXM]
Part 2: [http://youtu.be/5dbpZ0fvdmQ]

==October 9, 2012==
''I'm out all day this week until Friday. I'll try to throw a video together with some ideas. I think the first step is to get Marcin to confirm his decision & the reason for it, which i wrote about on the Wiki, about using the extra shaft and bearings even though they aren't needed. I want to be sure he understands that the bearings in the wheel motors like you are using in the lifetrac now are stronger then the old motors he was using which weren't wheel motors. The old motors couldn't support the weight of LifeTrac, the new ones can depending on which model they are. If it was up to me, i would say don't use the extra shaft and bearings for LOTs of reasons. Especially considering building a Hydraulic Motor from scratch is to be part of the GVCS 50 so it can be made to whatever specifications needed.

Here is the decision as i posted on the wiki:
http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Universal_Rotor

1) Wheel Motors(bearings built in) or Jack Shaft(with auxiliary bearing support structure)?

Due to the wide range of applications, the UR needs to handle high axial and radial forces. Wheel motors have larger bearings then standard hydraulic motors to resist these much higher forces. Wheel motors are available commercially that will handle the radial and axial loads of all current GVCS applications. However wheel motors are low speed. High speed motors don't usually have such large bearings. While generally you don't need large bearings while doing high speed operations, an accident, such as hitting a tree stump with a high speed mower blade may damage a motor with smaller bearings. Adding a separate shaft(jack shaft) that is supported by separate bearings between the motor shaft and tool effectively isolates the motor shaft and bearings from any radial forces, as well as axial forces if properly designed. This is the design currently being used on LifeTrac III and the MultiAuger. The current design on the LifeTrac is excessive in length and has some proven and suspected issues. A much shorter and simpler jack shaft setup should be possible that is more comparable to a wheel motor in size. If a jack shaft setup is chosen as the primary UR setup, it should be designed so that only wheel motor can be used instead with minimal variation(or none) for replicators who choose to do so.

The current quick connect wheel assembly with the jack shaft and auxilary bearings was a necessary component when the LifeTrac was powered by the original weaker drive motors. However during the redesign, new [[15,000 Inch Pound Motor]]s were purchased which are actually wheel motors that have a much higher carrying capicity which means the whole jack shaft assembly might not even be necessary as the motor is designed to handle up to 11,000 of radial load per the specs provided by the manufacturer. It has already been proposed by Marcin that the wheel connect be redesigned to address several issues, but in reality, it can actually be completely ommited without having to purchase additional motors.

Comparison:
Wheel Motor UR Advantages:
-Much more compact, lightweight, cheaper and very quick to build
-Sealed & lubricated bearings
-Industry Proven
-Less parts to break or wear out

Auxiliary Bearing UR Advantages:
-Can remove the motor with out disconnecting the tool(or the tire when used as wheel drive)
-More motor choices (especially rpm)
-Can use a gear reduction or multiple motors much easier

Thanks,

JB

==October 8, 2012==

*[[Universal Rotor Log]] page created

==October 5, 2012==

*JB annotated an image from the [[Universal Rotor]] wiki page.
*''I'm missing something. So why not just a single square tube receiver that an implement/attachment with a square tube mount can slide into? Then you pull it out, rotate it 90 and stick it back in (I.E. mower to trencher). Just like on a trailer hitch, just bigger tube, and don't reverse it. Make the receiver the outer tube. And make it so you can add any style adapter in there you might need: extension tubes, right angle tubes, swivel tubes, adjustable angle tubes.''

Talk:Electric Motor Generator

2012-10-24T22:22:16Z

LoadTest:

==Cheaper to buy==
Assorted motors can be bought in bulk as scrap items from garbage disposal facilities. In my limited experience most of them work ok. I forget exactly but basically you're looking at around scrap value. One batch of motors should keep a community going a long time.

Here...
http://www.recycleinme.com/search/selloffers__motors.aspx

Another possibility is to accept scrap items from households locally. Either way it should be entirely practical to skip motor production.
[[User:NT|NT]] 09:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

== Magnet From Raw Materials ==

The hardest part of making an electric motor/generator from raw materials will be making a good permanent magnet.
I've found a brief online overview of the history of magnet production and some modern manufacturing techniques.
It includes references to textbooks that presumably have more details.
Site: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-2/Magnet.html

It's beyond my area of expertise, but perhaps some industrious individual can experiment and expand upon it and include their experience here.

- [[User:Jeff Bouas|Jeff Bouas]] 19:02, 19 April 2012 (CEST)

==Re: Cheaper to buy==
Yes, the going rate for scrap motors is about .25cents a pound, so you can intercept them before they hit the scrap yard and trippple in price and get mishandled. The common term for a used electric motor is "field run" motors and there is really no used electric motor market, as you think there would be. I "give away" perfectly good 10-100hp motors all the time to people who need them. While this is a great solution for replications who realize that building motors from scratch should be a very low priority - the GVCS is still obligated to build their own, even if FeF continues to use commercially available motors for some or most applications so they don't sacrafice the development of the rest the GVCS by being Nazis. However, with electric cars and carbon tax, this happens to be the only GVCS tool where the technology is literally exploding like never before in the commercial market. So it makes sense for OSE to hold out as long as possible here because billions of dollars are being invested by others in making better motors, and for the meantime theres plenty of commercial motors available.

[http://www.instructables.com/id/Make-Your-Own-Miniature-Electric-Hub-Motor/step2/The-Brushless-DC-Motor/ Very good instructables on building a PM hub motor]

Talk:Yoonseo Log

2012-10-24T00:44:49Z

LoadTest:

You need welding curtain or soundproofing? What size? -LoadTest

Welding curtain. 4' x 6', because we have a frame to match that size right now. Documentation at [[Light Screen]]. -Yoonseo

I have a brand new one with the frame that i will send with Tristan. Its at least that big, I think maybe twice that size. -LoadTest

Thank you -Yoonseo

"Searching for a leadscrew and leadscrew nut supplier that provides end machining services " Why do you have to machine the ends? Can you just grip the threads with the right sized coupler? -Especially if your going to use a flex coupler.

Machining the ends is critical for reducing operation failure (easier to wear down threads than solid rod), reducing clamp wear (easier to clamp and deform threads than solid rod), maintaining the rated torque (higher slipping torque with clamp-down on solid rod than threads), absolutely necessary for pre-loading and mounting inside thrust bearings (the leadscrew needs to have a lower diameter on the ends so that it can mount onto thrust bearings and have tension applied to the ends such that when high axial loads are transmitted, the leadscrew does not "give". The shaft coupling should not be taking the axial force of the rotary-to-linear motion conversion, for both torque (a rigid fastened block does much better than a clamp-on fit that is handling rotary forces also) and precision (the shaft of the driving motor bears the axial load, which adds the motor shaft's play to the imprecision; increases vulnerability of system to axial loads where imperfect shaft alignment exists- that increases wear) reasons.- Yoonseo

What do you need the Casters for? Capactiy, quantity(rigid/swivel), concrete(solid/reliable/easy to push underload) or offroad(pneumatic)? I'll see what i've got laying around and send them with Tristan if they're not to heavy for his Golfcart.

Or if you're building the GVCS Official Caster, then lets talk about how we can incorporate the new Universal Rotor, then you can plug a hydraulic motor into it and drive what ever it is that you are castering into town with a micro-power cube! ...or not -LoadTest

Casters for welding screen frames, tables and mini-tables, equipment support frames, stools, adjustable height platforms, various machines ... -Yoonseo

Its 10-23 Tristan is stopping by. Do you need any power supplies for the torch table, i have various CNC grade models.

Backhoe Log

2012-10-24T00:06:19Z

LoadTest:

=Oct 23 2012=
I sent a valve back with Tristan. Its a top-quality very compact unit that has 9 valves. [http://opensourceecology.org/w/images/1/11/Rexroth_compact_backhoe_valve_drawing_r900754992-h-01zu_at_FeF.pdf PDF drawing].

Theres a few minor and major problems with the designs posted below. I will do a writeup as soon as i can.

=Oct 19. 2012=
<html><img src="https://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=16y7VVgtAbCpDDkqgLv_7WhjibEYdp3net10WgCXZlgw&w=1100&h=500"></html>

[https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/16y7VVgtAbCpDDkqgLv_7WhjibEYdp3net10WgCXZlgw/edit edit]

<html><img src="https://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=1fKqtzIQaT-yjgESd-rURicNx6x0PUVIjrQ1FZ01C7Xo&w=939&h=366"></html>

[https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1fKqtzIQaT-yjgESd-rURicNx6x0PUVIjrQ1FZ01C7Xo/edit edit]

[[Image:bhdouble.jpg|500px]]

==Monday, Oct 15, 2012==
[[File:Backhoe_-_Please_Review.zip]]

==Wednesday 0ct 12, 2012==
[[File:Bitmap_Update_38.jpg|200px]]

'''CAD'''

[[File: boom.zip]]

Use Ctr+Shift and click to rotate the view in 3D!

File:Rexroth compact backhoe valve drawing r900754992-h-01zu at FeF.pdf

2012-10-23T23:52:28Z

LoadTest: This compact backhoe valve was donated to be used as a permanent, temporary or test solution for the backhoe, microtrac, etc. Much cheaper valves are readily available (ie:[http://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=9-7502&catname=hydraulic $683]) and wou

This compact backhoe valve was donated to be used as a permanent, temporary or test solution for the backhoe, microtrac, etc. Much cheaper valves are readily available (ie:[http://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=9-7502&catname=hydraulic $683]) and would likely be interchangeable since the backhoe valve designs are all fairly similar. More documentation on this specifc valve is available. This valve has never been used so evaluate its performance accordingly.

Backhoe Log

2012-10-23T23:36:27Z

LoadTest: /* Oct 21 2012 */

=Oct 19. 2012=
<html><img src="https://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=16y7VVgtAbCpDDkqgLv_7WhjibEYdp3net10WgCXZlgw&w=1100&h=500"></html>

[https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/16y7VVgtAbCpDDkqgLv_7WhjibEYdp3net10WgCXZlgw/edit edit]

<html><img src="https://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=1fKqtzIQaT-yjgESd-rURicNx6x0PUVIjrQ1FZ01C7Xo&w=939&h=366"></html>

[https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1fKqtzIQaT-yjgESd-rURicNx6x0PUVIjrQ1FZ01C7Xo/edit edit]

[[Image:bhdouble.jpg|500px]]

==Monday, Oct 15, 2012==
[[File:Backhoe_-_Please_Review.zip]]

==Wednesday 0ct 12, 2012==
[[File:Bitmap_Update_38.jpg|200px]]

'''CAD'''

[[File: boom.zip]]

Use Ctr+Shift and click to rotate the view in 3D!

Talk:Yoonseo Log

2012-10-23T17:54:52Z

LoadTest:

You need welding curtain or soundproofing? What size? -LoadTest

Welding curtain. 4' x 6', because we have a frame to match that size right now. Documentation at [[Light Screen]]. -Yoonseo

I have a brand new one with the frame that i will send with Tristan. Its at least that big, I think maybe twice that size. -LoadTest

Thank you -Yoonseo

"Searching for a leadscrew and leadscrew nut supplier that provides end machining services " Why do you have to machine the ends? Can you just grip the threads with the right sized coupler? -Especially if your going to use a flex coupler.

Machining the ends is critical for reducing operation failure (easier to wear down threads than solid rod), reducing clamp wear (easier to clamp and deform threads than solid rod), maintaining the rated torque (higher slipping torque with clamp-down on solid rod than threads), absolutely necessary for pre-loading and mounting inside thrust bearings (the leadscrew needs to have a lower diameter on the ends so that it can mount onto thrust bearings and have tension applied to the ends such that when high axial loads are transmitted, the leadscrew does not "give". The shaft coupling should not be taking the axial force of the rotary-to-linear motion conversion, for both torque (a rigid fastened block does much better than a clamp-on fit that is handling rotary forces also) and precision (the shaft of the driving motor bears the axial load, which adds the motor shaft's play to the imprecision; increases vulnerability of system to axial loads where imperfect shaft alignment exists- that increases wear) reasons.- Yoonseo

What do you need the Casters for? Capactiy, quantity(rigid/swivel), concrete(solid/reliable/easy to push underload) or offroad(pneumatic)? I'll see what i've got laying around and send them with Tristan if they're not to heavy for his Golfcart.

Or if you're building the GVCS Official Caster, then lets talk about how we can incorporate the new Universal Rotor, then you can plug a hydraulic motor into it and drive what ever it is that you are castering into town with a micro-power cube! ...or not -LoadTest

Casters for welding screen frames, tables and mini-tables, equipment support frames, stools, adjustable height platforms, various machines ... -Yoonseo

Its 10-23 13:00 Tristan is stopping by. Do you need any power supplies for the torch table, i have various CNC grade models? I have some big MCG servos too but you probably want to stick with steppers.Need any short linear rail/bearings? Look at the caster discussion page, if you still want to send stainless hardware i'll send some. Call him if you need any of this.

Talk:Yoonseo Log

2012-10-23T17:53:55Z

LoadTest:

You need welding curtain or soundproofing? What size? -LoadTest

Welding curtain. 4' x 6', because we have a frame to match that size right now. Documentation at [[Light Screen]]. -Yoonseo

I have a brand new one with the frame that i will send with Tristan. Its at least that big, I think maybe twice that size. -LoadTest

Thank you -Yoonseo

"Searching for a leadscrew and leadscrew nut supplier that provides end machining services " Why do you have to machine the ends? Can you just grip the threads with the right sized coupler? -Especially if your going to use a flex coupler.

Machining the ends is critical for reducing operation failure (easier to wear down threads than solid rod), reducing clamp wear (easier to clamp and deform threads than solid rod), maintaining the rated torque (higher slipping torque with clamp-down on solid rod than threads), absolutely necessary for pre-loading and mounting inside thrust bearings (the leadscrew needs to have a lower diameter on the ends so that it can mount onto thrust bearings and have tension applied to the ends such that when high axial loads are transmitted, the leadscrew does not "give". The shaft coupling should not be taking the axial force of the rotary-to-linear motion conversion, for both torque (a rigid fastened block does much better than a clamp-on fit that is handling rotary forces also) and precision (the shaft of the driving motor bears the axial load, which adds the motor shaft's play to the imprecision; increases vulnerability of system to axial loads where imperfect shaft alignment exists- that increases wear) reasons.- Yoonseo

What do you need the Casters for? Capactiy, quantity(rigid/swivel), concrete(solid/reliable/easy to push underload) or offroad(pneumatic)? I'll see what i've got laying around and send them with Tristan if they're not to heavy for his Golfcart.

Or if you're building the GVCS Official Caster, then lets talk about how we can incorporate the new Universal Rotor, then you can plug a hydraulic motor into it and drive what ever it is that you are castering into town with a micro-power cube! ...or not -LoadTest

Casters for welding screen frames, tables and mini-tables, equipment support frames, stools, adjustable height platforms, various machines ... -Yoonseo

Its 10-23 13:00 Tristan is stopping by. Do you need any power supplies for the torch table, i have various CNC grade models? I have some big MCG servos too but you probably want to stick with steppers.Need any short linear rail/bearings? Look at the caster discussion page, if you still want to send stainless hardware i'll send some.

Talk:Caster

2012-10-23T08:37:59Z

LoadTest: Created page with " Is the stainless-steel for corrosion resistance or otherwise better then a grade 8 or 10.9 non stainless bolt that would be stronger? Do standard commercial casters with bushing..."

Is the stainless-steel for corrosion resistance or otherwise better then a grade 8 or 10.9 non stainless bolt that would be stronger? Do standard commercial casters with bushings have SS shafts? Per this excellent article [http://www.copper.org/applications/industrial/bronze_bearing.html Copper.org](bottom) the 954 Aluminum-Bronze that you selected needs a harder shaft then will be found in a Stainless bolt. This forum states that other types of bronzes(tin, low graphite, oil impregnated) work well with 410 SS but not 303 or 416.

Should design allow for easy upgrade to ball or roller bearings?

Caster Bearing types: [http://www.casterconnection.com/wheel-rig-bearing-types.phtml] [http://www.casterindustries.com/selectrightcaster.html]

Wheel Selection per application: [http://www.colsoncaster.com/products/select_caster/application-guide/default.aspx]

Should discuss the 6 common caster combinations: [http://www.colsoncaster.com/products/select_caster/combination-trucks/default.aspx]

Caster page should list the decision points for deciding between putting a specific object on casters or using a pallet jack. Pallet jacks are a necessity for handling pallets of materials, and are widely used/preferred for moving machines and tables instead of casters. It is a common unnecessary learning curve endured by new replicators. [http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?145252-Pallet-truck-vs-casters-Isues As discussed on several forums.]

The decision points could be moved to a "Material Handling" page where other useful tools for moving machines and heavy objects in a shop environment are introduced. The four main ones are: [http://images.google.com/images?q="machinery skate" Machinery Skate], [http://images.google.com/images?q="johnson bar" Johnson bar], [http://images.google.com/images?q="toe jack" toe jack] and [http://images.google.com/images?q="gantry crane" gantry crane].

More on using bronze as bearings: [http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/12499/self-lubricating-bearings], [http://machinedesign.com/article/bronze-and-copper-alloy-bearings-1115]

Talk:Yoonseo Log

2012-10-22T06:17:16Z

LoadTest:

Talk:Yoonseo Log

2012-10-22T06:06:15Z

LoadTest:

You need welding curtain or soundproofing? What size? -LoadTest

Welding curtain. 4' x 6', because we have a frame to match that size right now. Documentation at [[Light Screen]]. -Yoonseo

I have a brand new one with the frame that i will send with Tristan. Its at least that big, I think maybe twice that size. -LoadTest

Thank you -Yoonseo

"Searching for a leadscrew and leadscrew nut supplier that provides end machining services " Why do you have to machine the ends? Can you just grip the threads with the right sized coupler? -Especially if your going to use a flex coupler.

Machining the ends is critical for reducing operation failure (easier to wear down threads than solid rod), reducing clamp wear (easier to clamp and deform threads than solid rod), maintaining the rated torque (higher slipping torque with clamp-down on solid rod than threads), absolutely necessary for pre-loading and mounting inside thrust bearings (the leadscrew needs to have a lower diameter on the ends so that it can mount onto thrust bearings and have tension applied to the ends such that when high axial loads are transmitted, the leadscrew does not "give". The shaft coupling should not be taking the axial force of the rotary-to-linear motion conversion, for both torque (a rigid fastened block does much better than a clamp-on fit that is handling rotary forces also) and precision (the shaft of the driving motor bears the axial load, which adds the motor shaft's play to the imprecision; increases vulnerability of system to axial loads where imperfect shaft alignment exists- that increases wear) reasons.- Yoonseo

What do you need the Casters for? Capactiy, quantity(rigid/swivel), concrete(solid/reliable/easy to push underload) or offroad(pneumatic)? I'll see what i've got laying around and send them with Tristan if they're not to heavy for his Golfcart.

Or if your building the GVCS caster, then lets talk about how we can incorporate the new Universal Rotor, then you plug a hydraulic motor into it and drive what ever it is your castering to town with a micro-power cube! -LoadTest

Talk:Yoonseo Log

2012-10-22T05:32:07Z

LoadTest:

Backhoe Log

2012-10-21T17:03:01Z

LoadTest:

=Oct 21 2012=
Please help me locate all the files, folders and discussion for this design that aren't listed on this page, the backhoe main page on the wiki, or MarcinOSE's youtube channel:
(list here)

Marcin, Your last post says: "blog post". Where is that blog located?

I'm just trying to understand the communication/info channels and protocol so i can be a part of the discussion.

=Oct 19. 2012=
<html><img src="https://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=16y7VVgtAbCpDDkqgLv_7WhjibEYdp3net10WgCXZlgw&w=1100&h=500"></html>

[https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/16y7VVgtAbCpDDkqgLv_7WhjibEYdp3net10WgCXZlgw/edit edit]

<html><img src="https://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=1fKqtzIQaT-yjgESd-rURicNx6x0PUVIjrQ1FZ01C7Xo&w=939&h=366"></html>

[https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1fKqtzIQaT-yjgESd-rURicNx6x0PUVIjrQ1FZ01C7Xo/edit edit]

[[Image:bhdouble.jpg|500px]]

==Monday, Oct 15, 2012==
[[File:Backhoe_-_Please_Review.zip]]

==Wednesday 0ct 12, 2012==
[[File:Bitmap_Update_38.jpg|200px]]

'''CAD'''

[[File: boom.zip]]

Use Ctr+Shift and click to rotate the view in 3D!

CNC Torch Table Log

2012-10-21T08:06:42Z

LoadTest: /* Oct. 21, 2012 */

==Oct. 21, 2012==
This project is beyond my electronics knowledge. But when i was planning on building a Plaz table a while back from a kit my research concluded that CandCNC.com was the best way to go. I've been following his message board for a couple years and all his end users are very happy and amazed at the quality and low cost. His digital torch height control really seems to be impressive an unmatched for less then 10x the $. You don't have to have torch height control to get started cutting, but you have to plan for it because you quickly decide its a necessity. I have one of his 5 axis servo kits waiting until i have more room for a table, if you have any questions just ask. And if you decide to put an oxyfuel torch on it i have some machine-style torches and regulators you can have. Keep up the awesome progress. -LoadTest

==Oct. 19, 2012==

'''Darren'''

I love this idea,

Static compensation would be easy enough to map out deviance and do a best fit approximation between start and end of each line. Dynamic compensation would be a little more involved; only if someone had a line on cheap linear scales. What are your thoughts on where this compensation is performed? If it is done on the PC side you would have a lot more move commands to transmit; a lot of little slightly adjusted lines making up the one long line. If it is done on the Arduino that wouldn't be a problem, but I question the muscle of the atmel uController. What were you thinking about methods of implementing this?

Cheers,

Darren

----
'''Chuck'''

If I remember correctly, it was a flat plate with four bolt holes.

Chuck

==Oct. 18, 2012==

'''Chuck'''

I'd be interested to see the torch table serve a second purpose as a
layout & marking tool.

There are plenty of metal parts that involve classic layout techniques
like machinist's square, scribe, center punch, and steel measuring
tape. With just one or two tools (e.g. a scribe and a spot drill)
mounted on the XYZ table we could automate a lot of this.

I have seen the accuracy of the torch table spec'd at 1/32 inch, but I
think we can do better, especially if we calibrate it and incorporate
software compensation for machine structural inaccuracy. I think
0.005-0.010 may be achievable.

A very useful addition (for both standard torch cutting and for an
automatic layout tool) would be a rugged touch probe that can be used
to pick up the edges of a part. Clever code should take a part that is
not laid square on the bed and rotate the coordinate system to match
it.

One bottom line is to make sure the tool (torch) mount is a nice
modular interface. Which I suspect it is, though I haven't seen the
pictures yet.

Thoughts?

Chuck

==Oct. 16, 2012==
'''Chuck'''

Starting to cook here, check the video:

<html>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//ZY9TiVzhfO8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</html>

This sounds better after changing to the series winding connection on
the X steppers.

Important request to Darren

Please connect the X2 AND gate in the *step* line, not the *enable*
line. I found that gating the enable causes the X2 motor to jump up to
a half-step (8 microsteps) between enabled/disabled conditions, which
wreaks havoc with the X1-X2 homing action.

Alpha-quality code is at https://github.com/chuck-h/grbl .

==Oct. 13, 2012==

'''Chuck'''

Hi Darren,

I've got an X1-X2 test bed now! I have to make a cut/jumper on the
interface board so I can independently enable X2, then I can work up
some new grbl homing code.

http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/CNC_Torch_Table_Control_Overview#Test_mule

I am getting quite a bit of noise, the microstepping doesn't seem
perfectly even. I should try with different current levels.

Possible issue: grbl seems to disable the drivers at the end of a
move, which will cause the stepper to drop into its nearest magnetic
detent. When drivers are re-enabled I believe we should pull back into
the previous microstep location, but I think there is a potential for
losing position with this logic if we happen to stop at an ambiguous
phase. I am going to check whether I see this problem. Any way
steppernug could go to "idle current level" instead of full shutdown?

==Oct. 5, 2012==

'''Yoonseo'''

Control for torch and plasma cutter- digital high to activate relay would suffice.

Z axis should operate the same as the X and Y axes (move in response to interpreted gcode). For incremental dev's sake, I think we can table the arc voltage feedback.

Start-of-cut should be based on the gcode CAM prep, yup. For versatility's sake. Vann has previously made some gcode edit code that revises the gcode file for oxyacetylene cutting. http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Gcode_Preheat

Gctrl is a GUI gcode streamer/jogger/homer already out there, so i think we're good on this part. http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Gctrl

Will get you picture soon. Smartphone is having issues charging.

Oh- also, I'd love to get the details on how to modify the GRBL code for other project purposes- the challenge is getting the intention correctly mapped to the right change. Ex. how to change which pins are for which step/dir for which axes.

Cheers,

Yoonseo

----

'''Chuck'''

This would drive an off-board SSR? Or should we put a heavier duty
driver on board (e.g. open drain power mosfet)?

Any need for regulated 12V to come off the board?

BTW I was thinking 24/28V for motor supply, what about you?

Cheers,

Chuck

==Oct. 2, 2012==

'''Chuck'''

I've been looking at the grbl code but haven't done much beyond making
it talk to the StepperNug board. Repo at
https://github.com/chuck-h/grbl.

I have a 4-drive StepperNug kit and 4 stepping motors but I haven't
yet assembled a "mule" for functional testing. I am not expecting to
build a full-scale torch table at my location.

I am planning to adapt the code to work with double home switches on
the x axis so that the two motors can be sync'd repeatably at startup.

Open questions for me
*what control outputs are required for the torch?
*gas torch
plasma cutter
*what do we need to do with z axis?
*preprogrammed (G-code) moves?
*arc voltage height control for plasma cutter?
*What do we want to do for start-of-cut
*build a custom G-code into the grbl interpreter?
*push it back to CAM prep?
*What sort of interactive manual controls are needed
*grbl is primarily a non-interactive G-code interpreter
*x,y,z jog functions
*home all function
*pick up zero reference from part

YK> The mechanical side of the torch table is near completion.
A snapshot of current status would be very helpful!

Cheers,
Chuck

----

'''Darren'''

Hey Chuck,

I like your idea of using a port expander off of the I2C to sense and interrupt for limit switches. If you want to design around that for your dual X-Axis I think it would be great. Adds a lot more flexibility... As long as someone is willing to code it :) (Looking at you Chuck)

I was going to send some of those port expander signals to the expansion ports as well and I think adding the voltage sense for z-height adjustment as a module for that port is a good idea. I don't think everyone will want that voltage sense (Circuit Mill doesn't need that for example.)

Do you think we are going to be able to fit all of this into the Atmel part?

Cheers,

Darren

[[Category:CNC Torch Table]]

CNC Torch Table Log

2012-10-21T07:46:36Z

LoadTest:

==Oct. 21, 2012==
This project is beyond my electronics knowledge. But when i was planning on building a Plaz table a while back from a kit my research concluded that CandCNC.com was the best way to go. I've been following his message board for a couple years and all his end users are very happy and amazed at the quality and low cost. His digital torch height control really seems to be impressive an unmatched for less then 10x the $. You don't have to have torch height control to get started cutting, but you have to plan for it because you quickly decide its a necessity. I have one of his 5 axis servo kits waiting until i have more room for a table, if you have any questions just ask. Keep up the awesome progress. -LoadTest

==Oct. 19, 2012==

'''Darren'''

I love this idea,

Static compensation would be easy enough to map out deviance and do a best fit approximation between start and end of each line. Dynamic compensation would be a little more involved; only if someone had a line on cheap linear scales. What are your thoughts on where this compensation is performed? If it is done on the PC side you would have a lot more move commands to transmit; a lot of little slightly adjusted lines making up the one long line. If it is done on the Arduino that wouldn't be a problem, but I question the muscle of the atmel uController. What were you thinking about methods of implementing this?

Cheers,

Darren

----
'''Chuck'''

If I remember correctly, it was a flat plate with four bolt holes.

Chuck

==Oct. 18, 2012==

'''Chuck'''

I'd be interested to see the torch table serve a second purpose as a
layout & marking tool.

There are plenty of metal parts that involve classic layout techniques
like machinist's square, scribe, center punch, and steel measuring
tape. With just one or two tools (e.g. a scribe and a spot drill)
mounted on the XYZ table we could automate a lot of this.

I have seen the accuracy of the torch table spec'd at 1/32 inch, but I
think we can do better, especially if we calibrate it and incorporate
software compensation for machine structural inaccuracy. I think
0.005-0.010 may be achievable.

A very useful addition (for both standard torch cutting and for an
automatic layout tool) would be a rugged touch probe that can be used
to pick up the edges of a part. Clever code should take a part that is
not laid square on the bed and rotate the coordinate system to match
it.

One bottom line is to make sure the tool (torch) mount is a nice
modular interface. Which I suspect it is, though I haven't seen the
pictures yet.

Thoughts?

Chuck

==Oct. 16, 2012==
'''Chuck'''

Starting to cook here, check the video:

<html>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//ZY9TiVzhfO8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</html>

This sounds better after changing to the series winding connection on
the X steppers.

Important request to Darren

Please connect the X2 AND gate in the *step* line, not the *enable*
line. I found that gating the enable causes the X2 motor to jump up to
a half-step (8 microsteps) between enabled/disabled conditions, which
wreaks havoc with the X1-X2 homing action.

Alpha-quality code is at https://github.com/chuck-h/grbl .

==Oct. 13, 2012==

'''Chuck'''

Hi Darren,

I've got an X1-X2 test bed now! I have to make a cut/jumper on the
interface board so I can independently enable X2, then I can work up
some new grbl homing code.

http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/CNC_Torch_Table_Control_Overview#Test_mule

I am getting quite a bit of noise, the microstepping doesn't seem
perfectly even. I should try with different current levels.

Possible issue: grbl seems to disable the drivers at the end of a
move, which will cause the stepper to drop into its nearest magnetic
detent. When drivers are re-enabled I believe we should pull back into
the previous microstep location, but I think there is a potential for
losing position with this logic if we happen to stop at an ambiguous
phase. I am going to check whether I see this problem. Any way
steppernug could go to "idle current level" instead of full shutdown?

==Oct. 5, 2012==

'''Yoonseo'''

Control for torch and plasma cutter- digital high to activate relay would suffice.

Z axis should operate the same as the X and Y axes (move in response to interpreted gcode). For incremental dev's sake, I think we can table the arc voltage feedback.

Start-of-cut should be based on the gcode CAM prep, yup. For versatility's sake. Vann has previously made some gcode edit code that revises the gcode file for oxyacetylene cutting. http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Gcode_Preheat

Gctrl is a GUI gcode streamer/jogger/homer already out there, so i think we're good on this part. http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Gctrl

Will get you picture soon. Smartphone is having issues charging.

Oh- also, I'd love to get the details on how to modify the GRBL code for other project purposes- the challenge is getting the intention correctly mapped to the right change. Ex. how to change which pins are for which step/dir for which axes.

Cheers,

Yoonseo

----

'''Chuck'''

This would drive an off-board SSR? Or should we put a heavier duty
driver on board (e.g. open drain power mosfet)?

Any need for regulated 12V to come off the board?

BTW I was thinking 24/28V for motor supply, what about you?

Cheers,

Chuck

==Oct. 2, 2012==

'''Chuck'''

I've been looking at the grbl code but haven't done much beyond making
it talk to the StepperNug board. Repo at
https://github.com/chuck-h/grbl.

I have a 4-drive StepperNug kit and 4 stepping motors but I haven't
yet assembled a "mule" for functional testing. I am not expecting to
build a full-scale torch table at my location.

I am planning to adapt the code to work with double home switches on
the x axis so that the two motors can be sync'd repeatably at startup.

Open questions for me
*what control outputs are required for the torch?
*gas torch
plasma cutter
*what do we need to do with z axis?
*preprogrammed (G-code) moves?
*arc voltage height control for plasma cutter?
*What do we want to do for start-of-cut
*build a custom G-code into the grbl interpreter?
*push it back to CAM prep?
*What sort of interactive manual controls are needed
*grbl is primarily a non-interactive G-code interpreter
*x,y,z jog functions
*home all function
*pick up zero reference from part

YK> The mechanical side of the torch table is near completion.
A snapshot of current status would be very helpful!

Cheers,
Chuck

----

'''Darren'''

Hey Chuck,

I like your idea of using a port expander off of the I2C to sense and interrupt for limit switches. If you want to design around that for your dual X-Axis I think it would be great. Adds a lot more flexibility... As long as someone is willing to code it :) (Looking at you Chuck)

I was going to send some of those port expander signals to the expansion ports as well and I think adding the voltage sense for z-height adjustment as a module for that port is a good idea. I don't think everyone will want that voltage sense (Circuit Mill doesn't need that for example.)

Do you think we are going to be able to fit all of this into the Atmel part?

Cheers,

Darren

[[Category:CNC Torch Table]]

Quick Connect Wheels

2012-10-19T02:32:34Z

LoadTest: /* Solution Pathway 1 */

See Design Challenge - http://grabcad.com/challenges/lifetrac-quick-connect-wheels

<html>
<iframe src="http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/mini?mid=db4fc2a840b06f6147d83af0b3662c0b&etyp=im&width=400&height=300" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" width="400" height="300"></iframe>
</html>

See also [[Bulldozer Specification]]

=Update on February 3, 2012=
(note: the following CAD file was lost in a computer crash. The only existing CAD is in the Google Warehouse link)

[[Image:qcwheelfab.jpg]]

Source: [[File:qcwheelfab.pdf]]

Notes: reduce the 7.5, 14.63, 7.0, and 14.13 dimensions in the two horizontal plates by 1/2" since a 1/2" spacer on the outer frame member (formerly for 2 peg holes, which were eliminated and replaced with 1/2"x2" stops) has been eliminated in a newer design. The new dimensions should be 7.0, 14.13, 6.5, and 13.63. The length of the top plate should be reduced from 16" to 15.5", and corners should be cut off to allow the cam to turn.

[[Image:qcwheelfabparts.jpg]]

Source: [[File:qcwheelfabparts.pdf]]

=Update January 27, 2012=
Prototype #3 - double chain sprocket coupler. Advantage: larger radius to withstand 15,000 inch pounds of torque

<html><iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//QZ8D7AHczlQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>
.

.

=Update 1/15/12=
Fab drawing - [[File:qcwheelfab.pdf]]

=Update 12.24.11=
Prototype in progress, using [[15,000 Inch Pound Motor]] - promising results:

<html><iframe width="300" height="233" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//L1NSbKDSZ-w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>
.

.

=Introduction=

LifeTrac wheel couplers suffered catastrophic failure when used with tracks - October 2011.

<html><iframe width="300" height="233" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//i4GjoFQ3zsg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>

.

The key on the motor shaft sheared. We put on thicker couplers, and LifeTrac currently works - but we will not take it through destructive testing prior to testing splined motors. NOTE: Discussion at [[31.88 Cubic Inch Motors]] shows hints that pressure setting was too high, and could have been the reason for failure.

<html><iframe width="300" height="233" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//BKoBcslT_Vo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</html>

.

It is suspected that the 4-wheel drive, when coupled by wheel tracks, makes the motors fight each other.

=What we want=

'''[[Requirements for LifeTrac Wheel Motors and Couplings]]'''

=Possible solution: Removing Tracks, Adding Quick Connect Wheels=

To remedy the failing coupler, we will remove the tracks as the first step, and run the motors in series to simplify control valve requirements. That means that a 3000 PSI pump can deliver a max of 1500 PSI to each motor. This puts a low limit on the pressure, while delivering 6525 in lb for each motor - which makes this still higher torque than the 5000 cu in former [[31.88 cu in motors]] used on LifeTrac I-III.

The rough concept of a quick connect wheel is this:

[[Image:quickconnectwheel.jpg|400px]]

==Implementation==

To design the quick connect wheel, complete [[LifeTrac Frame]] geometry must be considered.

See pictures of wheeel:

<gallery>
Image:ltframe1.jpg
Image:ltframe2.jpg
Image:ltframe3.jpg
Image:ltframe4.jpg
</gallery>

and the real object:

<html><iframe width="300" height="233" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//hICQOCHkDsk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>

.

==Concept Quick Release Wheel==

Design Rationale:
*Triple mechanism of holding using peg, a cam lock, and a bolt:

Download [[File:wheelmount.dxf]]

See it:

[[Image:wheelmount.jpg|400]]

Model:

[[Image:wheelmodel1.jpg]]

Download pngs of above and STEP file - [[File:wheelmodel.zip]]

Relation to frame:

[[Image:wheelmodel2.jpg]]

Download the relation to frame, STEP and X_T files - [[File:wheelmodel2.zip]]

==Reducing loads on the shafts and bearings==

In order to reduce the bending load of the shaft the following design could be implemented:

[[Image:Wheelmodel_3.png]]

The idea is moving the main bearing as close to the wheel center as possible. This will reduce the bending moment on the shaft close to zero and reduce the loads on the bearings. The load on the roller element bearing close to the wheel will approximately be halved and the roller element bearing close to the motor could actually be replaced now by a much smaller one.

In this design the 4"x4" transverse tube takes over the whole bending moment for transferring the forces from the wheel to the frame. There are different possibilities for anchoring this tube to the frame. One should only keep in mind that the loads will push the external frame tube upwards and pull the internal one downwards.

You can download the CAD model of this first rough design in the following file

Download FreeCAD model: [[File:Wheelmodel_3.FCStd]]

===Discussion===
====What is the critical clamp-down/disconnect mechanism?====
====What is the impact of reducing bearing loads on lifetime of bearings?====

Lifetime is very load sensitive (more than cube of load):

*Doubling load reduces life to one tenth. Reducing load by one half increases life by ten,
*Doubling speed reduces life by one half. Reducing speed by one half doubles life.

See [http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bearing%20lifetime%20calculation&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.machinediagnostics.com%2Fpdf%2FBearings%2C%2520Gears%2520and%2520Lubrication%2FCalculate%2520Bearing%2520Life%2520(Timken).pdf&ei=9PLhTp3SCcTFtAbxo82RBA&usg=AFQjCNFyQjCQSBaG_XQ_T66lTmoVqWMmdg&sig2=O5puzfjyDgrVAp2SRQkExQ].

====Are there similar industry standard designs?====

=Solution Pathways for Addressing Failing Motor Couplers=
==Solution Pathway 1==

Concept:
*Use a motor with more torque
*Direct coupling to wheel eliminates bearings, shafts, and collars - sorry, this won't work, still need bearings and shaft <the motor already has shaft and bearings, are you assuming they aren't strong enough or have you done design analysis to be sure?
*Retain tracks
*Use one motor per side to eliminate motors 'fighting each other' <This is not practical if the motor is attached directly to the wheel if there are two wheels on each side.

Possible solution: [[15,000 Inch Pound Motor]]
[[Image:15kmotor.jpg|400px]]

=Solution Pathway 2=
*Use 2 motors per side, and same drive train as in [[LifeTrac Wheel Assembly Video]], but with splined shaft motors;
*Use tracks
*Use [[Cushion Valve]] to prevent localized pressure spikes
*Do motors 'fight each other' in this case?
*The new splined motors are [https://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=9-9327&catname=hydraulic these from Surpluscenter]:

[[Image:splinedmotors.jpg|thumb|Splined shaft wheel motors from Surpluscenter]]

[[Image:3188.jpg|thumb|31.88 cubic inch wheel motors from Surpluscenter]]

=Pathway 3=
*Use 2 motors per side, and same drive train as in [[LifeTrac Wheel Assembly Video]], but with [[Splined Shaft Motors]]
*Use no tracks, but [[50/50 Flow Divider]]
*Use double relief valve ([[Cushion Valve]]) to prevent localized pressure spikes
*Do motors 'fight each other' in this case? They may, but they won't break due to double relief valve.
*The new splined motors are [https://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=9-9327&catname=hydraulic these from Surpluscenter]:
=Pathway 4=
*Same as Pathway 3 but with [[https://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=9-8092&catname=hydraulic]]

=Pathway 5=
*Same as Pathway 4 but with [https://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=9-7703&catname=hydraulic] for traction of 4200 lb, comparable to a F250 pickup truck, matching maximum available traction from 16" truck tires
[[Image:tapered.jpg|thumb|45.6 cu in motors]]

=Parts Sourcing=

*Bearings; https://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=1-210-30-4-C&catname= minus the collar, which I take off and use:
*the double split lock collars - https://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=1-2768-187&catname=powerTrans
*Motor: http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/15,000_Inch_Pound_Motor
*Hub: http://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?catname=hydraulic&item=9-9003
*1-7/8" cold rolled steel shaft
*From Surpluscenter:

[[Image:qcwheeelsorder.jpg]]

*[4] 9-10419 45.6 CU IN WHITE DT HYD WHEEL MOTOR 1639.80
*[8] 9-8855-8-8 1/2" BSPPM TO 1/2" NPTF CONNECTOR 72.90
*[4] 9-8855-4-4 1/4" BSPPM TO 1/4" NPTF CONNECTOR 25.75
*[16] 928 1/2" NPT QUICK COUPLER F/F S20-4 271.20
*[4] 9-6314 1/4" NPT QUICK COUPLER S40-2 71.80
*[8] 9-5404-4-4 1/4 NPT HEX NIPPLE 7.60
*[16] 9-5500-8-8 1/2 NPTM TO 1/2 NPTM 90 ELBOW 46.40
*[16] 9-5404-8-8 1/2 NPT HEX NIPPLE 26.40
*[4] 9-4019-50-H 1/2 NPT 30 GPM 1500-3000 PSI HYD CUS 271.80
*[8] 905-1212 1/2" X 12" 1/2 NPTM X 1/2 NPTM 3000 48.00
*[16] 1-2768-187 1.875 DOUBLE SPLIT SHAFT COLLAR 128.00
*<strikethrough bc old design>4 1-1562 1-3/8" 6T SPLINED COUPLING 167-02206 87.80
*[8] 9-1404-8-8 1/2 NPTM x 1/2 NPTF SWIVEL 16.80
*[8] 9-5000-8-8 1/2 X 1/2 NPTF COUPLER 21.60
Total $: 2738.70

==Cut List for Wheel Upgrade==

For [[Image:Qcwheelfab.jpg|200px]]

For each wheel (note dimensions are slightly off in above drawing)

*[1] 1-7/8" shaft - 28" long
*[1] front plate - 1/2"x8"x14" flat (if reusing old plate, just weld 2" on top) (not needed if modifying existing)
*[1] mid plate - 1/2"x8"x9.5" flat (not needed if modifying existing)
*[1] back plate - 1/2"x8"x9.5" flat
*[1] top horizontal plate - 1/2"x8"x15.5" flat
*[1] bottom horizontal plate - 1/2"x8"x21" flat ->-> '''extend by 1/2" to add collars, shorten sprocket coupler by 1/2"''' (see cut [[list for qc wheel upgrades at FeF]])
*[1] bottom reinforcement plate - 1/2"x2"x21" flat -> '''extend by 1/2"'''
*[1] side reinforcement plate - 1/2"x4"x21" flat '''extend by 1/2"'''
*[1] DOM (1/4" wall) - 1"x1-1/2" - 4" long
*[1] DOM (1/4" wall) - 1-7/8"x2-3/8" - 4" long
*[1] Cam handle weld plate - 1/2"x2"x4" flat
*[1] Cam handle 1" rebar - 6" long
*[1] Cam handle 1" rebar - 12" long

==Total for 1 Wheel==

* 1-7/8" shaft - 28" long
* 1/2"x8" flat - 69.5"
* 1/2"x2" flat - 25"
* 1/2"x4" flat - 21"
* DOM (1/4" wall) - 1"x1-1/2" - 4"
* DOM (1/4" wall) - 1-7/8"x2-3/8" - 4"
* 1" rebar - 18"

==Total for 4 Wheels==

* 1-7/8" shaft - 9'4" long
* 1/2"x8" flat - 23'2"
* 1/2"x2" flat - 8'4"
* 1/2"x4" flat - 7'
* DOM (1/4" wall) - 1"x1-1/2" - 16"
* DOM (1/4" wall) - 1-7/8"x2-3/8" - 16"
* 1" rebar - 6'

=Axial Load Test Data=

Updated 4/11/2012

We have performed 20 hours of field testing for axial load capacity in skid-steering operation. This included carrying of 2000 lb pallets of bricks and moving 2400 lb battery banks with the front loader. We have observed successful negotiation of inward axial forces on wheel shafts, and we have observed outward slippage of shafts by 3/8".

This is caused by insufficient holding force via 2 double-split collars as the sole retention mechanism for inward axial thrust. The results indicate further that the 4 double split-collars that prevent inward slippage of the shafts were sufficient to prevent any inward shaft motion -as no inward slippage was observed on any wheel.

To address the problem, we are adding 2 additional double-split collars to the quick connect wheel system - on the inner side of the inner bearing plate. To do this, we are moving the inner bearing plate 1/2" out, and the motor mount plate 1/2" in, and shortening the coupler length by 1/2". This will allow the necessary clearance of 1-3/4" for 2 collars + 2 washers. This was not done before because space considerations did not allow 2 more collars and washers to fit. We are making additional room now. The motor mount plate cannot be moved further back because opposing hydraulic motors do not have sufficient space between them.

<html>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//ba0Z887cGVE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</html>

=Peer Review=

This page should be peer reviewed by hydraulics specialists, mechanical engineers, CAE experts, machine designers, farmers, permaculturalists, and others.

[[Category: LifeTrac]]
[[Category: LifeTrac IV]]

Universal Rotor

2012-10-15T22:51:24Z

LoadTest: /* Details */

{{GVCS Header}}

=Overview=

[[Image:UniversalRotor.png|thumb|400px|Universal Rotor]]

The Universal Rotor(UR) is a standardized triple interface mount that allows for various tasks(work) to be accomplished by harnessing the high rotational torque and speeds generated by a [[hydraulic motor]](or electric motor, etc). This is a fundamental component for any GVCS machine that uses a motor. It provides modularity, redundancy, scalability and represents a significant cost reduction by being able to use only one motor to power many machines. Examples are: Attaching the wheels to [[Lifetrac]] and powering them; a mower, auger or slurry mixer for [[Lifetrac]]; the saw blades on the [[Saw Mill]]

=Details=

This triple interface that allows the UR to harness motor power has 3 interfaces which each have 2 sides to it. The following are the three interfaces with the 2 sides of each interface in parenthesis:

1) Anchor Interface: (Receiver & Attachment)

Is the stationary side of the interface and serves to 'anchor' the UR to a solid object. This is done by connecting/inserting the Attachment on the UR to the Receiver on the solid object.

-Allows the shaft(tool) to be mounted at multiple angles in relation to the machine. This makes the UR useful for vertical shaft applications like an earth auger or mower and horizontal shaft applications like a wheel trencher or wheel drive that powers the [[LifeTrac]]. This can be accomplished with a single square tube which is rotated 90 degrees and reattached.

-Another axis of rotation can be accomplished by adding multiple tubes to either the receiver side of the interface at angles to the primary one. It could also be accomplished by using an angle adapter tube.

2) Power Interface: (Motor & Mounting Plate)

Mounts the motor to the mounting plate which is part of the UR's structure. In addition to how the motor attaches, this interface also considers the space that various motors would need and ensures that the rest of the UR structure nor the machine it is attached to doesn't interfere with the space need for motors. Additionally, space for motor removal and the connection and protection of hydraulic lines needs consideration. There are four common motor mount styles: Face, Wheel Motor(body) Tail, Base. The focus of the UR will be face and wheel motor mounting for hydraulic motors. For face mounting the UR will utilize SAE hydraulic motor mounting dimensions since the GVCS [[hydraulic motor]] will likely adopt these and SAE motors are currently being used by OSE and readily available. Wheel Motor Mounting dimensions are less standardized. In either case by starting with one of the largest SAE face mounting patterns, adapter plates can be bolted to that pattern to accommodate smaller face mount and wheel motors.

3)Tool Interface: (shaft connection & tool connection)

Connects the rotating shaft of the motor to the tool to be rotated. There might be adapters for different applications. For example a tire rim on the [[LifeTrac]] might bolt to the same mount as an 8' diameter wheel trencher. But that might be to large mount for an auger or a 16” cold saw blade. The primary mount needs to be sufficient to handle the forces for all applications, and then smaller adapter mount attached to it. The primary mount should be as compact as possible but still quickly attachable, perfectly concentric and have zero slop. If a wheel style mount is used, there are two types, hub concentric(w/flat lug nuts) and stud centric(with tapered/cone lug nuts)

1,2&3) All three interfaces must individually be:

-Scalable in thickness or dimension for applications with higher forces

The Universal Rotor as a whole must be:

-Withstand extreme radial, axial and twisting(in relation to the motor shaft) generated by all the applications for which it will be used for.

-Light as possible to be managed by hand

-Compact

Other Considerations:

1) Accomodating for gearing and multiple motors

Because there may be a limit to the amount of power or speed that available motors produce, gearing or the use of multiple motors may be needed when the tool requires more power or speed. For gearing with a single motor this can be accomplished by breaking the direct connection between the motor shaft and the tool and routing the power flow thru a gear reduction (chain & sprockets) first. Or additional motors could be added by keeping a direct connection between the tool and motor but mounting a 2nd motor and connecting its shaft to the shaft of the primary motor via chain. However, if the speed and power of the motor is suitable for the application it is best to have a straight connection to the tool.

Decisions:

1) Wheel Motors(bearings built in) or Jack Shaft(with auxiliary bearing support structure)?

Due to the wide range of applications, the UR needs to handle high axial and radial forces. Wheel motors have larger bearings then standard hydraulic motors to resist these much higher forces. Wheel motors are available commercially that will handle the radial and axial loads of all current GVCS applications. However wheel motors are low speed. High speed motors don't usually have such large bearings. While generally you don't need large bearings while doing high speed operations, an accident, such as hitting a tree stump with a high speed mower blade may damage a motor with smaller bearings. Adding a separate shaft(jack shaft) that is supported by separate bearings between the motor shaft and tool effectively isolates the motor shaft and bearings from any radial forces, as well as axial forces if properly designed. This is the design currently being used on LifeTrac III and the MultiAuger. The current design on the LifeTrac is excessive in length and has some proven and suspected issues. A much shorter and simpler jack shaft setup should be possible that is more comparable to a wheel motor in size. If a jack shaft setup is chosen as the primary UR setup, it should be designed so that only wheel motor can be used instead with minimal variation(or none) for replicators who choose to do so.

The current quick connect wheel assembly with the jack shaft and auxilary bearings was a necessary component when the LifeTrac was powered by the original weaker drive motors. However during the redesign, new [[15,000 Inch Pound Motor]]s were purchased which are actually wheel motors that have a much higher carrying capicity which means the whole jack shaft assembly might not even be necessary as the motor is designed to handle up to 11,000 of radial load per the specs provided by the manufacturer. It has already been proposed by Marcin that the wheel connect be redesigned to address several issues, but in reality, it can actually be completely ommited without having to purchase additional motors.

Comparison:

Wheel Motor UR Advantages:

-Much more compact, lightweight, cheaper and very quick to build

-Sealed & lubricated bearings

-Industry Proven

-Less parts to break or wear out

Auxiliary Bearing UR Advantages:

-Can remove the motor with out disconnecting the tool(or the tire when used as wheel drive)

-More motor choices (especially rpm)

-Can use a gear reduction or multiple motors much easier

2) Tapered or Roller Bearings?

If a jack shaft with auxiliary bearings are to be used, will it use tapered bearings to resist axial thrust or just thrust washers? Thrust washers are not good, especially if the tool is hanging, being pushed on(ie. Auger) or anything with constant side loading. The only reason not to use tapered bearings is because they are harder to make and mount out of raw steel and if a suitable off-the-shelf setup might not be found in the mean time They also require preloading of the two opposed tapered bearings against each other by means of a threaded shaft or a press fit. One source might be preassembled “4x4 truck hubs” as found on ebay. A tapered bearing solution will almost always be more compact and robust.

Before spending much time on one particular design, it will help to imagine that design being used in each of the applications that the UR is to be used in.

Applications with the LifeTrac for the UR:

Other GVCS machines with UR applications:

=Product Ecology=

[[Image:Multiauger.jpg|400px|thumb|Auger Attachment]]

'''Uses'''
*{{Furnace}} - Steel
*{{Torch Table}} - Parts
*{{Tractor}} - Mounting
*{{PowerCube}} - Power
*{{Hydraulic Motor}} - Power

'''Mounts'''
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=2170 String Trimmer],
*Tree Planting auger,
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=1408 Lathe],
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=2037 drill press],
*soil line cutting rotor,
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=2091 honey extractor].
*[[Trencher]]

=Status=
The '''Universal Rotor''' is currently in the [[Universal Rotor/Research Development|prototyping phase of product development]].

The hydraulic motor is interchangeable, and so far, a 32 cu in and a 6 cu in motors have been used which have a quick mounting plate with 2 3/4" bolts for hold-down. The assembly can be mounted either horizontally or vertically by bolting to a back plate accordingly.

Future prototype designs aim to improve structural integrity, increased ease of mounting for LifeTrac, and improved interchangeability of motors.

Actions are logged in [[Universal Rotor Log]].

=Videos=

{{Video}}

=See Also=
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=1304 Blog Post]
*[http://openpario.mime.oregonstate.edu/projects/unirotor/ CAD]

{{GVCS Footer}}

Universal Rotor Log

2012-10-15T22:50:20Z

LoadTest: /* October 9, 2012 */

Universal Rotor Log

2012-10-15T06:33:36Z

LoadTest: /* October 9, 2012 */

Talk:Precision Machine Design

2012-10-15T06:03:11Z

LoadTest:

I see you only mention ballscrew so far. Is this for the torch table? Are you not considering gear and rack. It is the more common way to set up the long(x/y) axis on cnc tables. I believe it would be easier to machine from raw materials too.

Also I see you are looking into precision ground linear rails. This level of accuracy is overkill for an oxyfuel torch and for a regular plasma torch like your everlast. You can achieve sufficient accuracy with cheap ball bearing v-groove rollers or regular ball bearings on cold roll steel. Even the big companies like Esab have been building machines this way. It doesn't become necessary to use precision ground linear rails unless you get into high-definition plasma, which I believe the units start at about $25,000 for just the cutter. I would suggest designing a system that could easily fit both types of linear motion and the replicator can use whichever they choose.

My opinion in these matters is based on reading lots of other user's experiences (mostly on cnczone) and having put together a couple of tables myself, as well as observing commercially manufactured machine design.
-LoadTest

For the CNC Mill/Lathe. Adding what I know and will cover rack and pinion later. Cheers!

Oh, okay. Then ballscrews are probably the right choice if you can overlook the fact that they might be next to impossible to make accurately from scratch in a crude shop. Look into leadscrews vs ballscrews.

Considering ebay nor precision linear motion manufacturers(thk, skf, etc) might not exist or be accessible for every global village start up I would not use linear rails for the lathe/mill. Theres hundreds of thousands of mills and lathes with traditional box/dovetail ways that are producing high precision parts. Some of these machines are cnc from the factory, and some of them have been converted to cnc by diy. The surface grinder in the fablab doesn't use linear motion rails and they are often used for even more precise work then a standard mill. Once again, you might consider designing it for both, since alot of replicators with ebay accounts might opt for the linear rails since its easy to buy them and bolt them on as opposed to machining traditional ways perfectly parallel and smooth.

From what i've read, the number one failure in lathe/mill builds is the machine not being rigid enough. This results in surface flaws or worse in the part. Its a common cause of "chatter" as most machinist refer to it. Its also common to fill any cavities in the machine base with concrete or special types of polymers.
-LoadTest

Talk:Precision Machine Design

2012-10-15T04:59:28Z

LoadTest: Created page with "I see you only mention ballscrew so far. Is this for the torch table? Are you not considering gear and rack. It is the more common way to set up the long(x/y) axis on cnc tables...."

Universal Rotor Log

2012-10-11T04:26:32Z

LoadTest:

Universal Rotor

2012-10-11T03:20:09Z

LoadTest: /* Details */

{{GVCS Header}}

=Overview=

[[Image:UniversalRotor.png|thumb|400px|Universal Rotor]]

The Universal Rotor(UR) is a standardized triple interface mount that allows for various tasks(work) to be accomplished by harnessing the high rotational torque and speeds generated by a [[hydraulic motor]](or electric motor, etc). This is a fundamental component for any GVCS machine that uses a motor. It provides modularity, redundancy, scalability and represents a significant cost reduction by being able to use only one motor to power many machines. Examples are: Attaching the wheels to [[Lifetrac]] and powering them; a mower, auger or slurry mixer for [[Lifetrac]]; the saw blades on the [[Saw Mill]]

=Details=

This triple interface that allows the UR to harness motor power has 3 interfaces which each have 2 sides to it. The following are the three interfaces with the 2 sides of each interface in parenthesis:

1) Anchor Interface: (Receiver & Attachment)

Is the stationary side of the interface and serves to 'anchor' the UR to a solid object. This is done by connecting/inserting the Attachment on the UR to the Receiver on the solid object.

-Allows the shaft(tool) to be mounted at multiple angles in relation to the machine. This makes the UR useful for vertical shaft applications like an earth auger or mower and horizontal shaft applications like a wheel trencher or wheel drive that powers the [[LifeTrac]]. This can be accomplished with a single square tube which is rotated 90 degrees and reattached.

-Another axis of rotation can be accomplished by adding multiple tubes to either the receiver side of the interface at angles to the primary one. It could also be accomplished by using an angle adapter tube.

2) Power Interface: (Motor & Mounting Plate)

Mounts the motor to the mounting plate which is part of the UR's structure. In addition to how the motor attaches, this interface also considers the space that various motors would need and ensures that the rest of the UR structure nor the machine it is attached to doesn't interfere with the space need for motors. Additionally, space for motor removal and the connection and protection of hydraulic lines needs consideration. There are four common motor mount styles: Face, Wheel Motor(body) Tail, Base. The focus of the UR will be face and wheel motor mounting for hydraulic motors. For face mounting the UR will utilize SAE hydraulic motor mounting dimensions since the GVCS [[hydraulic motor]] will likely adopt these and SAE motors are currently being used by OSE and readily available. Wheel Motor Mounting dimensions are less standardized. In either case by starting with one of the largest SAE face mounting patterns, adapter plates can be bolted to that pattern to accommodate smaller face mount and wheel motors.

3)Tool Interface: (shaft connection & tool connection)

Connects the rotating shaft of the motor to the tool to be rotated. There might be adapters for different applications. For example a tire rim on the [[LifeTrac]] might bolt to the same mount as an 8' diameter wheel trencher. But that might be to large mount for an auger or a 16” cold saw blade. The primary mount needs to be sufficient to handle the forces for all applications, and then smaller adapter mount attached to it. The primary mount should be as compact as possible but still quickly attachable, perfectly concentric and have zero slop. If a wheel style mount is used, there are two types, hub concentric(w/flat lug nuts) and stud centric(with tapered/cone lug nuts)

1,2&3) All three interfaces must individually be:

-Scalable in thickness or dimension for applications with higher forces

The Universal Rotor as a whole must be:

-Withstand extreme radial, axial and twisting(in relation to the motor shaft) generated by all the applications for which it will be used for.

-Light as possible to be managed by hand

-Compact

Other Considerations:

1) Accomodating for gearing and multiple motors

Because there may be a limit to the amount of power or speed that available motors produce, gearing or the use of multiple motors may be needed when the tool requires more power or speed. For gearing with a single motor this can be accomplished by breaking the direct connection between the motor shaft and the tool and routing the power flow thru a gear reduction (chain & sprockets) first. Or additional motors could be added by keeping a direct connection between the tool and motor but mounting a 2nd motor and connecting its shaft to the shaft of the primary motor via chain. However, if the speed and power of the motor is suitable for the application it is best to have a straight connection to the tool.

Decisions:

1) Wheel Motors(bearings built in) or Jack Shaft(with auxiliary bearing support structure)?

Due to the wide range of applications, the UR needs to handle high axial and radial forces. Wheel motors have larger bearings then standard hydraulic motors to resist these much higher forces. Wheel motors are available to handle the loads of all current GVCS applications. However wheel motors are low speed. High speed motors don't have such large bearings. While generally you don't need large bearings while doing high speed operations, an accident, such as hitting a tree stump with a high speed mower blade may damage a motor with smaller bearings. Adding a separate shaft(jack shaft) that is supported by separate bearings between the motor shaft and tool effectively isolates the motor shaft and bearings from any radial forces, as well as axial forces if properly designed. This is the design currently being used on LifeTrac III and the MultiAuger. The current design is excessive in length and has some proven and suspected issues. A much shorter and simpler jack shaft setup should be possible that is more comparable to a wheel motor. If a jack shaft setup is chosen as the primary UR setup, it should be designed so that a wheel motor can be used instead with minimal variation(or none) for replicators who choose to do so.

Comparison:

Wheel Motor UR Advantages:

-Much more compact, lightweight, cheaper and very quick to build

-Sealed & lubricated bearings

-Industry Proven

-Less parts to break or wear out

Auxiliary Bearing UR Advantages:

-Can remove the motor with out disconnecting the tool(or the tire when used as wheel drive)

-More motor choices (especially rpm)

-Can use a gear reduction or multiple motors much easier

Heavy Duty Wheel Motor Example:

45.6 cu in White DT series 3000psi 150rpm 30gpm $279 Handles 20,000lbs of radial load.
http://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=9-7703

2) Tapered or Roller Bearings?

If a jack shaft with auxiliary bearings are to be used, will it use tapered bearings to resist axial thrust or just thrust washers? Thrust washers are not good, especially if the tool is hanging, being pushed on(ie. Auger) or anything with constant side loading. The only reason not to use tapered bearings is because they are harder to make and mount out of raw steel and if a suitable off-the-shelf setup might not be found in the mean time They also require preloading of the two opposed tapered bearings against each other by means of a threaded shaft or a press fit. One source might be preassembled “4x4 truck hubs” as found on ebay. A tapered bearing solution will almost always be more compact and robust.

Before spending much time on one particular design, it will help to imagine that design being used in each of the applications that the UR is to be used in.

Applications with the LifeTrac for the UR:

Other GVCS machines with UR applications:

=Product Ecology=

[[Image:Multiauger.jpg|400px|thumb|Auger Attachment]]

'''Uses'''
*{{Furnace}} - Steel
*{{Torch Table}} - Parts
*{{Tractor}} - Mounting
*{{PowerCube}} - Power
*{{Hydraulic Motor}} - Power

'''Mounts'''
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=2170 String Trimmer],
*Tree Planting auger,
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=1408 Lathe],
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=2037 drill press],
*soil line cutting rotor,
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=2091 honey extractor].
*[[Trencher]]

=Status=
The '''Universal Rotor''' is currently in the [[Universal Rotor/Research Development|prototyping phase of product development]].

The hydraulic motor is interchangeable, and so far, a 32 cu in and a 6 cu in motors have been used which have a quick mounting plate with 2 3/4" bolts for hold-down. The assembly can be mounted either horizontally or vertically by bolting to a back plate accordingly.

Future prototype designs aim to improve structural integrity, increased ease of mounting for LifeTrac, and improved interchangeability of motors.

Actions are logged in [[Universal Rotor Log]].

=Videos=

{{Video}}

=See Also=
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=1304 Blog Post]
*[http://openpario.mime.oregonstate.edu/projects/unirotor/ CAD]

{{GVCS Footer}}

File:Multiauger.jpg

2012-10-05T18:50:19Z

LoadTest: uploaded a new version of "File:Multiauger.jpg": Trying to get the labeled picture to show on the wiki

[[Category: Photographs of Machines]]

File:Multiauger.jpg

2012-10-05T18:48:50Z

LoadTest: uploaded a new version of "File:Multiauger.jpg": Reverted to version as of 18:47, 5 October 2012

[[Category: Photographs of Machines]]

File:Multiauger.jpg

2012-10-05T18:48:12Z

LoadTest: uploaded a new version of "File:Multiauger.jpg": Reverted to version as of 03:04, 22 November 2009

[[Category: Photographs of Machines]]

File:Multiauger.jpg

2012-10-05T18:47:33Z

LoadTest: uploaded a new version of "File:Multiauger.jpg"

[[Category: Photographs of Machines]]

Universal Rotor

2012-10-05T10:02:48Z

LoadTest:

{{GVCS Header}}

=Overview=

[[Image:UniversalRotor.png|thumb|400px|Universal Rotor]]

The Universal Rotor(UR) is a standardized triple interface mount that allows for various tasks(work) to be accomplished by harnessing the high rotational torque and speeds generated by a [[hydraulic motor]](or electric motor, etc). This is a fundamental component for any GVCS machine that uses a motor. It provides modularity, redundancy, scalability and represents a significant cost reduction by being able to use only one motor to power many machines. Examples are: Attaching the wheels to [[Lifetrac]] and powering them; a mower, auger or slurry mixer for [[Lifetrac]]; the saw blades on the [[Saw Mill]]

==Details==

This triple interface that allows the UR to harness motor power has 3 interfaces which each have 2 sides to it. The following are the three interfaces with the 2 sides of each interface in parenthesis:

1) Anchor Interface: (Receiver & Attachment)

Is the stationary side of the interface and serves to 'anchor' the UR to a solid object. This is done by connecting/inserting the Attachment on the UR to the Receiver on the solid object.

-Allows the shaft(tool) to be mounted at multiple angles in relation to the machine. This makes the UR useful for vertical shaft applications like an earth auger or mower and horizontal shaft applications like a wheel trencher or wheel drive that powers the [[LifeTrac]]. This can be accomplished with a single square tube which is rotated 90 degrees and reattached.

-Another axis of rotation can be accomplished by adding multiple tubes to either the receiver side of the interface at angles to the primary one. It could also be accomplished by using an angle adapter tube.

2) Power Interface: (Motor & Mounting Plate)

Mounts the motor to the mounting plate which is part of the UR's structure. In addition to how the motor attaches, this interface also considers the space that various motors would need and ensures that the rest of the UR structure nor the machine it is attached to doesn't interfere with the space need for motors. Additionally, space for motor removal and the connection and protection of hydraulic lines needs consideration. There are four common motor mount styles: Face, Wheel Motor(body) Tail, Base. The focus of the UR will be face and wheel motor mounting for hydraulic motors. For face mounting the UR will utilize SAE hydraulic motor mounting dimensions since the GVCS [[hydraulic motor]] will likely adopt these and SAE motors are currently being used by OSE and readily available. Wheel Motor Mounting dimensions are less standardized. In either case by starting with one of the largest SAE face mounting patterns, adapter plates can be bolted to that pattern to accommodate smaller face mount and wheel motors.

3)Tool Interface: (shaft connection & tool connection)

Connects the rotating shaft of the motor to the tool to be rotated. There might be adapters for different applications. For example a tire rim on the [[LifeTrac]] might bolt to the same mount as an 8' diameter wheel trencher. But that might be to large mount for an auger or a 16” cold saw blade. The primary mount needs to be sufficient to handle the forces for all applications, and then smaller adapter mount attached to it. The primary mount should be as compact as possible but still quickly attachable, perfectly concentric and have zero slop. If a wheel style mount is used, there are two types, hub concentric(w/flat lug nuts) and stud centric(with tapered/cone lug nuts)

1,2&3) All three interfaces must individually be:

-Scalable in thickness or dimension for applications with higher forces

The Universal Rotor as a whole must be:

-Withstand extreme radial, axial and twisting(in relation to the motor shaft) generated by all the applications for which it will be used for.

-Light as possible to be managed by hand

-Compact

Other Considerations:

1) Accomodating for gearing and multiple motors

Because there may be a limit to the amount of power or speed that available motors produce, gearing or the use of multiple motors may be needed when the tool requires more power or speed. For gearing with a single motor this can be accomplished by breaking the direct connection between the motor shaft and the tool and routing the power flow thru a gear reduction (chain & sprockets) first. Or additional motors could be added by keeping a direct connection between the tool and motor but mounting a 2nd motor and connecting its shaft to the shaft of the primary motor via chain. However, if the speed and power of the motor is suitable for the application it is best to have a straight connection to the tool.

Decisions:

1) Wheel Motors(bearings built in) or Jack Shaft(with auxiliary bearing support structure)?

Due to the wide range of applications, the UR needs to handle high axial and radial forces. Wheel motors have larger bearings then standard hydraulic motors to resist these much higher forces. Wheel motors are available to handle the loads of all current GVCS applications. However wheel motors are low speed. High speed motors don't have such large bearings. While generally you don't need large bearings while doing high speed operations, an accident, such as hitting a tree stump with a high speed mower blade may damage a motor with smaller bearings. Adding a separate shaft(jack shaft) that is supported by separate bearings between the motor shaft and tool effectively isolates the motor shaft and bearings from any radial forces, as well as axial forces if properly designed. This is the design currently being used on LifeTrac III and the MultiAuger. The current design is excessive in length and has some proven and suspected issues. A much shorter and simpler jack shaft setup should be possible that is more comparable to a wheel motor. If a jack shaft setup is chosen as the primary UR setup, it should be designed so that a wheel motor can be used instead with minimal variation(or none) for replicators who choose to do so.

Comparison:

Wheel Motor UR Advantages:

-Much more compact, lightweight, cheaper and very quick to build

-Sealed & lubricated bearings

-Industry Proven

-Less parts to break or wear out

Auxiliary Bearing UR Advantages:

-Can remove the motor with out disconnecting the tool(or the tire when used as wheel drive)

-More motor choices (especially rpm)

-Can use a gear reduction or multiple motors much easier

Heavy Duty Wheel Motor Example:

45.6 cu in White DT series 3000psi 150rpm 30gpm $279 Handles 20,000lbs of radial load.
http://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=9-7703

2) Tapered or Roller Bearings?

If a jack shaft with auxiliary bearings are to be used, will it use tapered bearings to resist axial thrust or just thrust washers? Thrust washers are not good, especially if the tool is hanging or anything with constant side loading such as a slurry mixer. The only reason not to use tapered bearings is because they are harder to make and mount out of raw steel and if a suitable off-the-shelf setup might not be found in the mean time They also require preloading of the two opposed tapered bearings against each other by means of a threaded shaft or a press fit. One source might be preassembled “4x4 truck hubs” as found on ebay. A tapered bearing solution will almost always be more compact and robust.

Before spending much time on one particular design, it will help to imagine that design being used in each of the applications that the UR is to be used in.

Applications with the LifeTrac for the UR:

Other GVCS machines with UR applications:

==Product Ecology==

[[Image:Multiauger.jpg|400px|thumb|Auger Attachment]]

'''Uses'''
*{{Furnace}} - Steel
*{{Torch Table}} - Parts
*{{Tractor}} - Mounting
*{{PowerCube}} - Power
*{{Hydraulic Motor}} - Power

'''Mounts'''
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=2170 String Trimmer],
*Tree Planting auger,
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=1408 Lathe],
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=2037 drill press],
*soil line cutting rotor,
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=2091 honey extractor].
*[[Trencher]]

==Status==
The '''Universal Rotor''' is currently in the [[Universal Rotor/Research Development|prototyping phase of product development]].

The hydraulic motor is interchangeable, and so far, a 32 cu in and a 6 cu in motors have been used which have a quick mounting plate with 2 3/4" bolts for hold-down. The assembly can be mounted either horizontally or vertically by bolting to a back plate accordingly.

Future prototype designs aim to improve structural integrity, increased ease of mounting for LifeTrac, and improved interchangeability of motors.

=Videos=

{{Video}}

=See Also=
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=1304 Blog Post]
*[http://openpario.mime.oregonstate.edu/projects/unirotor/ CAD]

{{GVCS Footer}}

Universal Rotor

2012-10-05T09:55:15Z

LoadTest:

{{GVCS Header}}

=Overview=

[[Image:UniversalRotor.png|thumb|400px|Universal Rotor]]

The Universal Rotor(UR) is a standardized triple interface mount that allows for various tasks(work) to be accomplished by harnessing the high rotational torque and speeds generated by a [[hydraulic motor]](or electric motor, etc). This is a fundamental component for any GVCS machine that uses a motor. It provides modularity, redundancy, scalability and represents a significant cost reduction by being able to use only one motor to power many machines. Examples are: Attaching the wheels to [[Lifetrac]] and powering them; a mower, auger or slurry mixer for [[Lifetrac]]; the saw blades on the [[Saw Mill]]

==Details==

This triple interface that allows the UR to harness motor power has 3 interfaces which each have 2 sides to it. The following are the three interfaces with the 2 sides of each interface in parenthesis:

1) Anchor Interface: (Receiver & Attachment)
Is the stationary side of the interface and serves to 'anchor' the UR to a solid object. This is done by connecting/inserting the Attachment on the UR to the Receiver on the solid object.

-Allows the shaft(tool) to be mounted at multiple angles in relation to the machine. This makes the UR useful for vertical shaft applications like an earth auger or mower and horizontal shaft applications like a wheel trencher or wheel drive that powers the [[LifeTrac]]. This can be accomplished with a single square tube which is rotated 90 degrees and reattached.

-Another axis of rotation can be accomplished by adding multiple tubes to either the receiver side of the interface at angles to the primary one. It could also be accomplished by using an angle adapter tube.

2) Power Interface: (Motor & Mounting Plate)
Mounts the motor to the mounting plate which is part of the UR's structure. In addition to how the motor attaches, this interface also considers the space that various motors would need and ensures that the rest of the UR structure nor the machine it is attached to doesn't interfere with the space need for motors. Additionally, space for motor removal and the connection and protection of hydraulic lines needs consideration. There are four common motor mount styles: Face, Wheel Motor(body) Tail, Base. The focus of the UR will be face and wheel motor mounting for hydraulic motors. For face mounting the UR will utilize SAE hydraulic motor mounting dimensions since the GVCS [[hydraulic motor]] will likely adopt these and SAE motors are currently being used by OSE and readily available. Wheel Motor Mounting dimensions are less standardized. In either case by starting with one of the largest SAE face mounting patterns, adapter plates can be bolted to that pattern to accommodate smaller face mount and wheel motors.

3)Tool Interface: (shaft connection & tool connection)
Connects the rotating shaft of the motor to the tool to be rotated. There might be adapters for different applications. For example a tire rim on the [[LifeTrac]] might bolt to the same mount as an 8' diameter wheel trencher. But that might be to large mount for an auger or a 16” cold saw blade. The primary mount needs to be sufficient to handle the forces for all applications, and then smaller adapter mount attached to it. The primary mount should be as compact as possible but still quickly attachable, perfectly concentric and have zero slop. If a wheel style mount is used, there are two types, hub concentric(w/flat lug nuts) and stud centric(with tapered/cone lug nuts)

1,2&3) All three interfaces must individually be:
-Scalable in thickness or dimension for applications with higher forces

The Universal Rotor as a whole must be:
-Withstand extreme radial, axial and twisting(in relation to the motor shaft) generated by all the applications for which it will be used for.
-Light as possible to be managed by hand
-Compact

Other Considerations:

1) Gearing or Multiple Motors
Because there may be a limit to the amount of power or speed that available motors produce, gearing or the use of multiple motors may be needed when the tool requires more power or speed. For gearing with a single motor this can be accomplished by breaking the direct connection between the motor shaft and the tool and routing the power flow thru a gear reduction (chain & sprockets) first. Or additional motors could be added by keeping a direct connection between the tool and motor but mounting a 2nd motor and connecting its shaft to the shaft of the primary motor via chain. However, if the speed and power of the motor is suitable for the application it is best to have a straight connection to the tool.

Decisions:

1) Wheel Motors(bearings built in) or Jack Shaft(with auxiliary bearing support structure)?

Due to the wide range of applications, the UR needs to handle high axial and radial forces. Wheel motors have larger bearings then standard hydraulic motors to resist these much higher forces. Wheel motors are available to handle the loads of all current GVCS applications. However wheel motors are low speed. High speed motors don't have such large bearings. While generally you don't need large bearings while doing high speed operations, an accident, such as hitting a tree stump with a high speed mower blade may damage a motor with smaller bearings. Adding a separate shaft(jack shaft) that is supported by separate bearings between the motor shaft and tool effectively isolates the motor shaft and bearings from any radial forces, as well as axial forces if properly designed. This is the design currently being used on LifeTrac III and the MultiAuger. The current design is excessive in length and has some proven and suspected issues. A much shorter and simpler jack shaft setup should be possible that is more comparable to a wheel motor. If a jack shaft setup is chosen as the primary UR setup, it should be designed so that a wheel motor can be used instead with minimal variation(or none) for replicators who choose to do so.
Comparison:
Wheel Motor UR Advantages:
-Much more compact, lightweight, cheaper and very quick to build
-Sealed & lubricated bearings
-Industry Proven
-Less parts to break or wear out

Auxiliary Bearing UR Advantages:
-Can remove the motor with out disconnecting the tool(or the tire when used as wheel drive)
-More motor choices (especially rpm)
-Can use a gear reduction or multiple motors much easier

Heavy Duty Wheel Motor Example:
45.6 cu in White DT series 3000psi 150rpm 30gpm $279 Handles 20,000lbs of radial load.
http://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=9-7703

2) Tapered or Roller Bearings?
If a jack shaft with auxiliary bearings are to be used, will it use tapered bearings to resist axial thrust or just thrust washers? Thrust washers are not good, especially if the tool is hanging or anything with constant side loading such as a slurry mixer. The only reason not to use tapered bearings is because they are harder to make and mount out of raw steel and if a suitable off-the-shelf setup might not be found in the mean time They also require preloading of the two opposed tapered bearings against each other by means of a threaded shaft or a press fit. One source might be preassembled “4x4 truck hubs” as found on ebay. A tapered bearing solution will almost always be more compact and robust.

Before spending much time on one particular design, it will help to imagine that design being used in each of the applications that the UR is to be used in.

Applications with the LifeTrac for the UR:

Other GVCS machines with UR applications:

==Product Ecology==

[[Image:Multiauger.jpg|400px|thumb|Auger Attachment]]

'''Uses'''
*{{Furnace}} - Steel
*{{Torch Table}} - Parts
*{{Tractor}} - Mounting
*{{PowerCube}} - Power
*{{Hydraulic Motor}} - Power

'''Mounts'''
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=2170 String Trimmer],
*Tree Planting auger,
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=1408 Lathe],
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=2037 drill press],
*soil line cutting rotor,
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=2091 honey extractor].
*[[Trencher]]

==Status==
The '''Universal Rotor''' is currently in the [[Universal Rotor/Research Development|prototyping phase of product development]].

The hydraulic motor is interchangeable, and so far, a 32 cu in and a 6 cu in motors have been used which have a quick mounting plate with 2 3/4" bolts for hold-down. The assembly can be mounted either horizontally or vertically by bolting to a back plate accordingly.

Future prototype designs aim to improve structural integrity, increased ease of mounting for LifeTrac, and improved interchangeability of motors.

=Videos=

{{Video}}

=See Also=
*[http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=1304 Blog Post]
*[http://openpario.mime.oregonstate.edu/projects/unirotor/ CAD]

{{GVCS Footer}}

Quick Connect Wheels

2012-10-05T04:51:03Z

LoadTest: /* Solution Pathway 1 */

See Design Challenge - http://grabcad.com/challenges/lifetrac-quick-connect-wheels

<html>
<iframe src="http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/mini?mid=db4fc2a840b06f6147d83af0b3662c0b&etyp=im&width=400&height=300" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" width="400" height="300"></iframe>
</html>

See also [[Bulldozer Specification]]

=Update on February 3, 2012=
(note: the following CAD file was lost in a computer crash. The only existing CAD is in the Google Warehouse link)

[[Image:qcwheelfab.jpg]]

Source: [[File:qcwheelfab.pdf]]

Notes: reduce the 7.5, 14.63, 7.0, and 14.13 dimensions in the two horizontal plates by 1/2" since a 1/2" spacer on the outer frame member (formerly for 2 peg holes, which were eliminated and replaced with 1/2"x2" stops) has been eliminated in a newer design. The new dimensions should be 7.0, 14.13, 6.5, and 13.63. The length of the top plate should be reduced from 16" to 15.5", and corners should be cut off to allow the cam to turn.

[[Image:qcwheelfabparts.jpg]]

Source: [[File:qcwheelfabparts.pdf]]

=Update January 27, 2012=
Prototype #3 - double chain sprocket coupler. Advantage: larger radius to withstand 15,000 inch pounds of torque

<html><iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//QZ8D7AHczlQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>
.

.

=Update 1/15/12=
Fab drawing - [[File:qcwheelfab.pdf]]

=Update 12.24.11=
Prototype in progress, using [[15,000 Inch Pound Motor]] - promising results:

<html><iframe width="300" height="233" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//L1NSbKDSZ-w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>
.

.

=Introduction=

LifeTrac wheel couplers suffered catastrophic failure when used with tracks - October 2011.

<html><iframe width="300" height="233" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//i4GjoFQ3zsg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>

.

The key on the motor shaft sheared. We put on thicker couplers, and LifeTrac currently works - but we will not take it through destructive testing prior to testing splined motors. NOTE: Discussion at [[31.88 Cubic Inch Motors]] shows hints that pressure setting was too high, and could have been the reason for failure.

<html><iframe width="300" height="233" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//BKoBcslT_Vo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</html>

.

It is suspected that the 4-wheel drive, when coupled by wheel tracks, makes the motors fight each other.

=What we want=

'''[[Requirements for LifeTrac Wheel Motors and Couplings]]'''

=Possible solution: Removing Tracks, Adding Quick Connect Wheels=

To remedy the failing coupler, we will remove the tracks as the first step, and run the motors in series to simplify control valve requirements. That means that a 3000 PSI pump can deliver a max of 1500 PSI to each motor. This puts a low limit on the pressure, while delivering 6525 in lb for each motor - which makes this still higher torque than the 5000 cu in former [[31.88 cu in motors]] used on LifeTrac I-III.

The rough concept of a quick connect wheel is this:

[[Image:quickconnectwheel.jpg|400px]]

==Implementation==

To design the quick connect wheel, complete [[LifeTrac Frame]] geometry must be considered.

See pictures of wheeel:

<gallery>
Image:ltframe1.jpg
Image:ltframe2.jpg
Image:ltframe3.jpg
Image:ltframe4.jpg
</gallery>

and the real object:

<html><iframe width="300" height="233" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//hICQOCHkDsk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>

.

==Concept Quick Release Wheel==

Design Rationale:
*Triple mechanism of holding using peg, a cam lock, and a bolt:

Download [[File:wheelmount.dxf]]

See it:

[[Image:wheelmount.jpg|400]]

Model:

[[Image:wheelmodel1.jpg]]

Download pngs of above and STEP file - [[File:wheelmodel.zip]]

Relation to frame:

[[Image:wheelmodel2.jpg]]

Download the relation to frame, STEP and X_T files - [[File:wheelmodel2.zip]]

==Reducing loads on the shafts and bearings==

In order to reduce the bending load of the shaft the following design could be implemented:

[[Image:Wheelmodel_3.png]]

The idea is moving the main bearing as close to the wheel center as possible. This will reduce the bending moment on the shaft close to zero and reduce the loads on the bearings. The load on the roller element bearing close to the wheel will approximately be halved and the roller element bearing close to the motor could actually be replaced now by a much smaller one.

In this design the 4"x4" transverse tube takes over the whole bending moment for transferring the forces from the wheel to the frame. There are different possibilities for anchoring this tube to the frame. One should only keep in mind that the loads will push the external frame tube upwards and pull the internal one downwards.

You can download the CAD model of this first rough design in the following file

Download FreeCAD model: [[File:Wheelmodel_3.FCStd]]

===Discussion===
====What is the critical clamp-down/disconnect mechanism?====
====What is the impact of reducing bearing loads on lifetime of bearings?====

Lifetime is very load sensitive (more than cube of load):

*Doubling load reduces life to one tenth. Reducing load by one half increases life by ten,
*Doubling speed reduces life by one half. Reducing speed by one half doubles life.

See [http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bearing%20lifetime%20calculation&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.machinediagnostics.com%2Fpdf%2FBearings%2C%2520Gears%2520and%2520Lubrication%2FCalculate%2520Bearing%2520Life%2520(Timken).pdf&ei=9PLhTp3SCcTFtAbxo82RBA&usg=AFQjCNFyQjCQSBaG_XQ_T66lTmoVqWMmdg&sig2=O5puzfjyDgrVAp2SRQkExQ].

====Are there similar industry standard designs?====

=Solution Pathways for Addressing Failing Motor Couplers=
==Solution Pathway 1==

Concept:
*Use a motor with more torque
*Direct coupling to wheel eliminates bearings, shafts, and collars - sorry, this won't work, still need bearings and shaft
*Retain tracks
*Use one motor per side to eliminate motors 'fighting each other' <This is not practical if the motor is attached directly to the wheel if there are two wheels on each side.

Possible solution: [[15,000 Inch Pound Motor]]
[[Image:15kmotor.jpg|400px]]

=Solution Pathway 2=
*Use 2 motors per side, and same drive train as in [[LifeTrac Wheel Assembly Video]], but with splined shaft motors;
*Use tracks
*Use [[Cushion Valve]] to prevent localized pressure spikes
*Do motors 'fight each other' in this case?
*The new splined motors are [https://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=9-9327&catname=hydraulic these from Surpluscenter]:

[[Image:splinedmotors.jpg|thumb|Splined shaft wheel motors from Surpluscenter]]

[[Image:3188.jpg|thumb|31.88 cubic inch wheel motors from Surpluscenter]]

=Pathway 3=
*Use 2 motors per side, and same drive train as in [[LifeTrac Wheel Assembly Video]], but with [[Splined Shaft Motors]]
*Use no tracks, but [[50/50 Flow Divider]]
*Use double relief valve ([[Cushion Valve]]) to prevent localized pressure spikes
*Do motors 'fight each other' in this case? They may, but they won't break due to double relief valve.
*The new splined motors are [https://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=9-9327&catname=hydraulic these from Surpluscenter]:
=Pathway 4=
*Same as Pathway 3 but with [[https://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=9-8092&catname=hydraulic]]

=Pathway 5=
*Same as Pathway 4 but with [https://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=9-7703&catname=hydraulic] for traction of 4200 lb, comparable to a F250 pickup truck, matching maximum available traction from 16" truck tires
[[Image:tapered.jpg|thumb|45.6 cu in motors]]

=Parts Sourcing=

*Bearings; https://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=1-210-30-4-C&catname= minus the collar, which I take off and use:
*the double split lock collars - https://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=1-2768-187&catname=powerTrans
*Motor: http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/15,000_Inch_Pound_Motor
*Hub: http://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?catname=hydraulic&item=9-9003
*1-7/8" cold rolled steel shaft
*From Surpluscenter:

[[Image:qcwheeelsorder.jpg]]

*[4] 9-10419 45.6 CU IN WHITE DT HYD WHEEL MOTOR 1639.80
*[8] 9-8855-8-8 1/2" BSPPM TO 1/2" NPTF CONNECTOR 72.90
*[4] 9-8855-4-4 1/4" BSPPM TO 1/4" NPTF CONNECTOR 25.75
*[16] 928 1/2" NPT QUICK COUPLER F/F S20-4 271.20
*[4] 9-6314 1/4" NPT QUICK COUPLER S40-2 71.80
*[8] 9-5404-4-4 1/4 NPT HEX NIPPLE 7.60
*[16] 9-5500-8-8 1/2 NPTM TO 1/2 NPTM 90 ELBOW 46.40
*[16] 9-5404-8-8 1/2 NPT HEX NIPPLE 26.40
*[4] 9-4019-50-H 1/2 NPT 30 GPM 1500-3000 PSI HYD CUS 271.80
*[8] 905-1212 1/2" X 12" 1/2 NPTM X 1/2 NPTM 3000 48.00
*[16] 1-2768-187 1.875 DOUBLE SPLIT SHAFT COLLAR 128.00
*<strikethrough bc old design>4 1-1562 1-3/8" 6T SPLINED COUPLING 167-02206 87.80
*[8] 9-1404-8-8 1/2 NPTM x 1/2 NPTF SWIVEL 16.80
*[8] 9-5000-8-8 1/2 X 1/2 NPTF COUPLER 21.60
Total $: 2738.70

==Cut List for Wheel Upgrade==

For [[Image:Qcwheelfab.jpg|200px]]

For each wheel (note dimensions are slightly off in above drawing)

*[1] 1-7/8" shaft - 28" long
*[1] front plate - 1/2"x8"x14" flat (if reusing old plate, just weld 2" on top) (not needed if modifying existing)
*[1] mid plate - 1/2"x8"x9.5" flat (not needed if modifying existing)
*[1] back plate - 1/2"x8"x9.5" flat
*[1] top horizontal plate - 1/2"x8"x15.5" flat
*[1] bottom horizontal plate - 1/2"x8"x21" flat ->-> '''extend by 1/2" to add collars, shorten sprocket coupler by 1/2"''' (see cut [[list for qc wheel upgrades at FeF]])
*[1] bottom reinforcement plate - 1/2"x2"x21" flat -> '''extend by 1/2"'''
*[1] side reinforcement plate - 1/2"x4"x21" flat '''extend by 1/2"'''
*[1] DOM (1/4" wall) - 1"x1-1/2" - 4" long
*[1] DOM (1/4" wall) - 1-7/8"x2-3/8" - 4" long
*[1] Cam handle weld plate - 1/2"x2"x4" flat
*[1] Cam handle 1" rebar - 6" long
*[1] Cam handle 1" rebar - 12" long

==Total for 1 Wheel==

* 1-7/8" shaft - 28" long
* 1/2"x8" flat - 69.5"
* 1/2"x2" flat - 25"
* 1/2"x4" flat - 21"
* DOM (1/4" wall) - 1"x1-1/2" - 4"
* DOM (1/4" wall) - 1-7/8"x2-3/8" - 4"
* 1" rebar - 18"

==Total for 4 Wheels==

* 1-7/8" shaft - 9'4" long
* 1/2"x8" flat - 23'2"
* 1/2"x2" flat - 8'4"
* 1/2"x4" flat - 7'
* DOM (1/4" wall) - 1"x1-1/2" - 16"
* DOM (1/4" wall) - 1-7/8"x2-3/8" - 16"
* 1" rebar - 6'

=Axial Load Test Data=

Updated 4/11/2012

We have performed 20 hours of field testing for axial load capacity in skid-steering operation. This included carrying of 2000 lb pallets of bricks and moving 2400 lb battery banks with the front loader. We have observed successful negotiation of inward axial forces on wheel shafts, and we have observed outward slippage of shafts by 3/8".

This is caused by insufficient holding force via 2 double-split collars as the sole retention mechanism for inward axial thrust. The results indicate further that the 4 double split-collars that prevent inward slippage of the shafts were sufficient to prevent any inward shaft motion -as no inward slippage was observed on any wheel.

To address the problem, we are adding 2 additional double-split collars to the quick connect wheel system - on the inner side of the inner bearing plate. To do this, we are moving the inner bearing plate 1/2" out, and the motor mount plate 1/2" in, and shortening the coupler length by 1/2". This will allow the necessary clearance of 1-3/4" for 2 collars + 2 washers. This was not done before because space considerations did not allow 2 more collars and washers to fit. We are making additional room now. The motor mount plate cannot be moved further back because opposing hydraulic motors do not have sufficient space between them.

<html>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed//ba0Z887cGVE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</html>

=Peer Review=

This page should be peer reviewed by hydraulics specialists, mechanical engineers, CAE experts, machine designers, farmers, permaculturalists, and others.

[[Category: LifeTrac]]
[[Category: LifeTrac IV]]