Nearholmer Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 Fun? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp1 Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 Fun?Or life and death? - model railways are much more serious than that....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted November 19, 2016 Author Share Posted November 19, 2016 What hasn't been explained by the OP is the why. To irritate proponents for DCC? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 Of course you have to support the theory that model run better on DCC...after spending all that money!!! A model runs as well on DC as DCC ........if it runs well on DC then you can tweak the performance, but DCC will never cure ill's in a bad DC runner. The good are the same, the bad are always bad. Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 I am a solid proponent of the 'sort the mechanism completely on vanilla DC before installing a decoder' method. I asked the 'why' question, simply because the electronic simulation of a flywheel available from DCC is very effective. And it has considerable benefits of flexibility in installation and operation, which exceed by a significant margin what a directly mechanically coupled flywheel can offer. But if the OP wants to fork over the money for the fun of it, I can thoroughly recommend a DU annulus flywheel on needle roller bearings. These are well proven and worth every penny. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted November 20, 2016 Author Share Posted November 20, 2016 But if the OP wants What's with the "OP" silliness? I don't mind if you use my name. BTW, what is your name? Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 ...what is your name? His name is only spoken in high places. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 What's with the "OP" silliness? I don't mind if you use my name. BTW, what is your name? OP is an abbreviation used on many fora for 'original poster'. My given name is Paul. (I don't reveal my surname on line, for very good reasons.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 ...(I don't reveal my surname on line, for very good reasons.) Ah, that means he works for GCHQ.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Ah, that means he works for GCHQ.... ...or the Daily Mail Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 ...or the Daily Mail Oh God, not: ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 OP is an abbreviation used on many fora for 'original poster'. My given name is Paul. (I don't reveal my surname on line, for very good reasons.) Thanks Paul. I fully understand about the surname - and mine isn't ID either. I'm familiar with the OP acronym. My objection is that it's a bit like talking about someone in the third person when they are sitting in the same room Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Andy, I'll have to reconsider use of 'OP'; bearing in mind you are the first person to raise an objection, in what must be nearing ten years of online forum activity on my part. Neither a spook nor a journo, and when I was last in an organisation that loved job titles, my director of the day said he was divided on whether troublemaker or troubleshooter was the more appropriate. Oh God, not: Not nearly shifty enough looking. Never, ever, succeeded in selling a used car. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Not seeing Wood for trees issues here. This is a brilliant concept. The key to a successful flywheel drive is limiting the torque to the gearing. The original spur geared Dyna Drive concept suffered from the drive train stripping if the loco stopped abruptly, such as ramming a buffer stop. Using rubber rings which can slip rather than epicyclic gearing which cannot means the flywheel can keep revolving even if the loco stops dead. The flywheel can also overspeed beyond motor speed to store "free" energy at cruising speed. Effectively you can use a very heavy flywheel and still not overstress a crown wheel or bevel final drive when everything stops abruptly. My metal working skills are not up to this but it is a bit of an eueka moment as I have been looking for a torque limiting or "Slipper" clutch for my own plans for flywheel drive. I'm currently thinking should the motor should drive the flywheel and the gearing be to the output shaft, or should the flywheel be simply be as drawn. Anyway Thanks Brilliant! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted November 26, 2016 Author Share Posted November 26, 2016 Not seeing Wood for trees issues here. This is a brilliant concept. The key to a successful flywheel drive is limiting the torque to the gearing. The original spur geared Dyna Drive concept suffered from the drive train stripping if the loco stopped abruptly, such as ramming a buffer stop. Using rubber rings which can slip rather than epicyclic gearing which cannot means the flywheel can keep revolving even if the loco stops dead. The flywheel can also overspeed beyond motor speed to store "free" energy at cruising speed. Effectively you can use a very heavy flywheel and still not overstress a crown wheel or bevel final drive when everything stops abruptly. My metal working skills are not up to this but it is a bit of an eueka moment as I have been looking for a torque limiting or "Slipper" clutch for my own plans for flywheel drive. I'm currently thinking should the motor should drive the flywheel and the gearing be to the output shaft, or should the flywheel be simply be as drawn. Anyway Thanks Brilliant! Thanks for that David. I'm in the process of insulating and lining my new workshop and I have yet to relocate my machine tools. That should be done within a week or two and then I'll take a shot at a prototype. I'll post the results - even if it's a total disaster Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 If you want to protect the drive gears from the torque of the flywheel, why not try magnets, two neodymium magnets, one turned by the motor, the other attaced to the flywheel, set up to provide enough coupling for normal use, but if the power stops suddenly it will overcome the magnets and let the flywheel come down in speed without straining the drive gear teeth. The gap and arrangement of the magnets would be open to experiment, but thin button magnets could be used with a pair on the flywheel face to keep it in balance, and the motor side a disc with a further two magnets on it to drive the flywheel. Magnets about 1 to 2mm thick, and probably about 2 to 3mm apart, but this distance would be open to testing. In effect it acts as a cushion in the drive, with slip only under large loads. Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted November 26, 2016 Author Share Posted November 26, 2016 If you want to protect the drive gears from the torque of the flywheel, why not try magnets, two neodymium magnets, one turned by the motor, the other attaced to the flywheel, set up to provide enough coupling for normal use, but if the power stops suddenly it will overcome the magnets and let the flywheel come down in speed without straining the drive gear teeth. The gap and arrangement of the magnets would be open to experiment, but thin button magnets could be used with a pair on the flywheel face to keep it in balance, and the motor side a disc with a further two magnets on it to drive the flywheel. Magnets about 1 to 2mm thick, and probably about 2 to 3mm apart, but this distance would be open to testing. In effect it acts as a cushion in the drive, with slip only under large loads. mag drive.jpg Stephen Good idea. Why don't you try it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad McCann Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Just a bit of input from an interested observer with no mechanical or scientific training. What about the kind of mechanism currently use in the ever more popular miniature drones we see today. Is there some aspect of their propulsion mechanism that allows for autorotation and if so, would it operate in a similar manner to a flywheel? Just a thought. Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted November 26, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 26, 2016 If you want to protect the drive gears from the torque of the flywheel, why not try magnets, two neodymium magnets, one turned by the motor, the other attaced to the flywheel, set up to provide enough coupling for normal use, but if the power stops suddenly it will overcome the magnets and let the flywheel come down in speed without straining the drive gear teeth. The gap and arrangement of the magnets would be open to experiment, but thin button magnets could be used with a pair on the flywheel face to keep it in balance, and the motor side a disc with a further two magnets on it to drive the flywheel. Magnets about 1 to 2mm thick, and probably about 2 to 3mm apart, but this distance would be open to testing. In effect it acts as a cushion in the drive, with slip only under large loads. mag drive.jpg Stephen Great minds obviously think alike. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/DAGU-Magnetic-Servo-Clutches-for-Miniature-Servos-/131434353439 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Just tried the idea out and there is a problem, as the drive stops suddenly the flywheel overruns as intended, still applying pull to the gears and motor, via the disk, whose magnets are stationary .........result is awful vibration as the magnets cog other each other as it rotates to a halt. there is a torque reaction as well, and the whole thing shakes like blazes, till it wind down, which is pretty quick due to the drag from the magnets BUT more magnets can be added, say an odd number like 3 or 5, which would smooth out the cogging. It would need experiment to find the sweet spot distance apart to get coupling and then breakaway with the motor stopped. I used 1mm x 10mm Neodymium for the pair, it would need 1mm x 3 or 4mm to do more in a ring, spaced out accurately around the diameter. With the 1x10mm magnets they coupled at about 8mm apart, more than I thought, so with adding more magnets they must be very small to ensure the breakaway point does no involve having the flywheel and disc too far apart! At 1mm apart the coupling is 100% locked, too much so to gain the break away point. Going back to running the flywheel faster, you could add gears to the shaft end behind the disk to speed it up, the magnet flywheel will just follow. But without more magnets the vibration and torque reaction might even throw the loco sideways, especially if the flywheel was very fast. Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Then there's the eddy current drive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 I had thought of eddy current drive but it constantly slips at low revs, taking time to catch up with the motor. As there are no poles, therr is no cogging or vibration when the motor stops or slows. Must be worth experimenting with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted December 1, 2016 Author Share Posted December 1, 2016 I had thought of eddy current drive but it constantly slips at low revs, taking time to catch up with the motor. As there are no poles, therr is no cogging or vibration when the motor stops or slows. Must be worth experimenting with. It slips at any speed. It's the difference in speed that creates the force. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 I had thought of eddy current drive but it constantly slips at low revs, taking time to catch up with the motor. ..... Surely that's a plus, rather like the now unavailable Dyna-Drive centrifugal clutch, in that you get slippage before any damage is done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stanley Melrose Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 See <http://www.magnomatics.com/>for the real world application of this idea. Stan If you want to protect the drive gears from the torque of the flywheel, why not try magnets, two neodymium magnets, one turned by the motor, the other attaced to the flywheel, set up to provide enough coupling for normal use, but if the power stops suddenly it will overcome the magnets and let the flywheel come down in speed without straining the drive gear teeth. The gap and arrangement of the magnets would be open to experiment, but thin button magnets could be used with a pair on the flywheel face to keep it in balance, and the motor side a disc with a further two magnets on it to drive the flywheel. Magnets about 1 to 2mm thick, and probably about 2 to 3mm apart, but this distance would be open to testing. In effect it acts as a cushion in the drive, with slip only under large loads. mag drive.jpg Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.