There's nothing better than the feeling of discovering a concept for the first time. Don't worry if someone had the idea before. We're all travelers in invention space, and there is so much darkness that every flashlight counts. Enjoy the journey :)
Sorry to burst your bubble but I have a book from 1949 that already describes "You're new CDCP Technology" and the other possible compound planetary gear configurations that can be created. It also analyzes the gear ratios and efficiencies of all these compound planetary gear configurations.
@@GearDownForWhat The title of the book is Traité théorique et pratique des engrenages (1949) from Georges Henriot. He's a big name in the gear industry. He was part of the DIN, ISO, and AGMA (among others) technical committees that determined and standardized how to calculate the load capacity of spur and helical gears.
Except, you weren't the first to come up with it, because ya know.... nearly 7-8 billion people on this planet.. the chances of 'you' being the only person who has came up with this, is pretty slim... there's also probably PLENTY of real world applications of this already in existence. . .
Would be great for a rotary powered 4wd, as you could keep a uniform driveline axis between the axles... providing the engine had a hollow eccentric shaft.
This is so cool. So fucking cool. I don't care about the applications of a carrier driven compound planetary gear sets, and i likely never will. But the fact that the average person has the ability to create important industrial innovations like this with a 3d printer and daisy BB's from Walmart is incredible.
Your comment is right on regarding lower efficiency. Mechanical engineers refer to "apparent power" in mechanisms, which is torque times speed. Loss in mechanism is proportional to apparent power, not transmitted power. In sun-less gear-set, apparent power is input speed times output torque. That is higher by factor of gear ratio to real output power. You must also consider the "cost" of compound planetary gear. Planets are harder to construct (as well as the 2 ring gears, if constructing from "real materials" such as steel), & the split output places upsetting twisting stresses upon the planetary bearings. In simple planetary gear set, all these stresses are in the same plane so there are no upsetting torques on planet bearings. The sun also supports the planets from moving inward. The planet bearing forces are pure circumferential. It is better to stack simple planetary stages for higher ratios, inside a common ring "tunnel". By the way, there is no need to evenly spread the planets. A rather common design arranges 4 planets in a rectangle rather than square. If done right, when one opposing pair of planets have tooth facing the sun, the others 2 have space between teeth facing sun. This reduces the harmonic noise & vibration of the gear imperfections. Gear design you propose is best when you want high ratio & don't care about efficiency or wear (such as in infrequently but finely adjusted mechanism).
let me get some of that interlacing conical biz on these things, stick and stack like cuboids. make them snap together so that this whole thing is a planet gear
For low speed applications, this may not be a problem... but high speed applications would be limited by the bearing speeds. You could use ceramic bearings for low load/high speed applications... but ceramic bearings do not handle shock loads very well.
The animated Einstein simulation sounds like CNC Kitchen. Damn, looks like he was given credit at the end of the video, so I didn't actually need to speculate.
@@GearDownForWhat Yup, he could wiggle around and point to tips with his tip, or a laser. Because laser + robots never become a Skynet dream machine :D I do like C&C kitchen though and it was fitting.
designing a dual stage planetary, is there any reasoning behind having a 1st stage gear ratio being more or less than the second stage gear ratio, material properties wise?
Could you design one that doesn’t need very tight tolerances and is fully 3D printable? As a proof of concept, for the viewers that only have a shitty old/cheap Chinese 3D printer and no additional tools..
It's good that you've created the first of what you have knowledge of, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are the first to do it. Carrier driven epicyclic gear sets have been done before. Sunless epicyclic gear sets have been done before. Compound gear sets have been done before. There's way too many various products and prototypes to actually search them all to determine if you're first or not, it makes logical sense that one would exist if all the prerequisites exist, especially when there's many gear sets with very specific needs. This is just one of the many combinations that compound epicyclic gearsets give. As for conceptual model, no, you're not first. The idea of this has been around for awhile. Basic teaching of epicyclic gear sets will teach about various drive inputs, outputs, ratios, and compounding; it's logical to think that someone would have noticed the existence of this specific combination based on basic knowledge within the long lifetime of epicyclic gears. Hell, I even had this exact idea, years ago, when I was first conceptualizing an idea I had, though I've ended up moving onto hypocycloid gears for their smaller size and larger ratios. There's various sites similar to 507movements, some with more specific subjects than others, and I'm sure one of them out there will have this specific kind of gearset on there.
I think you forgot another downside: when you have a sun, the planets can't back out from the ring gear under torque, which allows for a smaller module.
But then adding a reforcement to the carrier, like a bearing with full surface contact on the gears at all times, would be even stiffer and smoother under similar deflection loads. Point being you are right, however a well designed carrier will offer more stiffness than the sun ever could.
I loved stripping down and rebuilding a Sturmey Archer 3 speed hub gear back in the late '70's as a child. I also convinced myself of perpetual motion using geared dynamos and motors. I would have loved 3D print just to prove my theories could be instantly falsified, but I had imagination and was only 9 so hadn't been taught physics yet. Lego and Meccano was enough to totally destroy my ideas... I just couldn't understand why?
I'm not entirly sure if i understand it but belive me if i tell you that something like this already exists in the automotive world, torque converter automatic gearboxes use all sorts of different kinds of planetary gearset. The only problem i see in this configuration is that you can't change the direction of rotation since you lost the sun gear but is not relevant if you intend to drive this with an electric motor.
Wouldn't a lack of a sun be bad when building gearboxes? Most automatic ones rely on some kind of sun - carrier or sun-planet arrangement. I feel like removing the sun would just make them unneseccarily more complicated.
@ 4:00 - ish .... i had the same problem when designing my planetary gear. The solution wast to adjust the teeth number on the sun and ring to be multiple of planets. This will change the PG ratio but for me worked quite well.
and that works - but you are still loosing the option of using that exact ratio, with compound planetary, the more options you have the better off you are.
I JUST thought of this idea and scoured the internet to see if it already existed. You earned my SUB! Very creative and i have no doubt someone will find an application for it
Great video! Are the teeth stressed more than a normal planetary? I wonder what the weight difference would be between this and a normal planetary when both have a set gear ratio and torque requirement. I hope you explore the trade-offs a bit more in the future. You've probably touched on this in the past but what printer are you using for these builds?
I am looking into making a prostetic arm and wondering if you have a design that could be used as a shoulder, elbow and wrist joints with a brushless motor mounted in side the center of the gear box, so it was self contained.
To be honest, lots of that went over my head. Sounds like a fantastic idea though. Would love to see some head to head comparisons, endurance/stress testing, and some real world applications.
I have always wanted to build a geared apparatus like a coo coo clock that could pick up a heavy concrete weight using a solar panel during the day and use the weight to drive a generator at night. I think you could do it. It would be interesting to figure how it could be done while solving the solar batter problem.
After watching your videos I have a try at combining a pulley system with a gear set to lift 800 lb object 18 inches while at the same time lifting two others just 7 inches and a third 1 inch. It’s very tricky. If I place the pulleys in different configuration I exceed the small electric motor but can get closer to the desired elevations and forces necessary. You’re much more expert than me. Maybe a problem you would know how to do easily?
Here this might help I find it quite helpful. Section 17 talks all about planetaries and other systems khkgears.net/new/gear_knowledge/gear_technical_reference/index.html
If you could speak German I Could send you some pretty sweet shit from my university We did a whole semester on planetary and we programmed a thing where you can find out the possible teeth numbers and stuff... Well
Look, I even made one. Not only that, this is a "carrier less carrier driven system". ruclips.net/video/SZV0vCfRiEE/видео.html But all planetary sets apply forces to each output. It is just some are grounded and some are not. But from the perspective of the specific output, it is grounded and the rest are moving.
the carrier may be transferring the load, but your clearly driving the sun. I would like to see another example of a carrier driven compound planetary that works like the one in my video.
@@GearDownForWhat what you are failing to see is that because the planets are normally idle gears, by deleting the sun and using the carrier as the input, you are just making the planets in drive gears. You then reverse this and do the exact opposite for the out put. So the second stage of my gear set is exactly the same as both stages of yours.
So. Can I buy the second version? Or is the first version the only one available? I would love to put this inside my bicycle to see how it works. But, I would prefer version 2 because of what you stated at the end.
Great work! I'm using a similar configuration in a continuously variable ratio transmission I'm developing called Inception Drive. I think that compound planetary drives really benefit from planet carriers with bearings because the radial forces on the planets are not symmetrical. The ring gears generate much larger radial forces than the sun gear if there is one, so the forces are not properly balanced on the planets. If you don't have a planet carrier, the sun basically gets crushed between the planets, dramatically lowering efficiency. Another option is to add physical pitch circles to the gears to carry the radial loads. I like that you found that! I think compound planetary drives can make a lot of sense. Maybe we will start to see more of them in the future.
hey! I'm designing a planetary 4:1 geared extruder for my 3d printer, but how much tolerance should I have the gears have? and what geometry? (spur or herringbone) it needs to be very low backlash, and high torque, it's meant to go on a nema17 motor (typical), with a 30t sun and planet, and a 90t outer gear also what's the best way to do a planet Carrier? it needs to have a bolt on it (or is it easier to go with a regular 2 gears extruder? main goal and why it atratced me is compactness
@@GearDownForWhat I don't think efficiency losses would be a factor of consideration when it's an emergency situation, or need to charge your phone when your out camping or can't get to a regular power supply. Just spit balling some ideas for practical application.
Was thinking of doing exactly that haha! Would work pretty well I was thinking how the outside with the support could be driven like a electric hub motor, custom electric longboard wheels
I need to do a little homework before I can understand all this. Fascinating though. Maybe I'll get 3d printing, get some bearings and just try. Perhaps that's a good way to learn about it, because I have no idea.
Isn't the sun gear on the outside? I always thought sun gear just means input but you placed the sun gear parallel to the ring gear. But I still is a nice Idea! I hope that some people got inspired by the Idea. It has allot of Applications.
You can also make a ringless version, where the input side has a large fixed sun gear and output side has large movable sun, and motor drives the planet carrier. I think the sunless version is better though, especially for applications that change direction frequently since the planets are kept closer to the center where they have less momentum. But you can fit more planets around the outside of a gear (more teeth engaged = higher torque capacity), plus it can be used to directly turn a shaft that has gear teeth cut into the end of it, eliminating the need for fasteners between the gearbox and load.
If you would just put some vaseline, cooking oil, or at least powdered graphite as a lubricant, your gearboxes wouldn't melt down so quickly, and would be easier to work with.
Almost two years late to the party but this is what I’ve been looking for! Finally my 8 year project procrastination can die and the broken prototypes can be put to rest.
You could argue this is kind of similar to a compound cycloid reduction, except this uses many small planets instead of one large planet e.g. Oskar Van Deventers 'grinder gears'. You can also have a hollow centre with a cycloid, and keep it balanced using counterweights. These gear arrangements can actually exceed the compound planetary ratios (or at least the highest I've seen on your channel) e.g. a gearbox with two ring gears with 45 and 44 teeth, and then the compound planetary gear with 44 and 43 teeth you get a ratio of 1:44^2 or 1:1936. This is a null point though like you said these ratios are useless practically. This arrangement can have as low as four moving parts for the simplest arrangements: the two ring gears, the compound planet gear and the eccentric drive shaft. Cycloid drives can withstand very high torques since there is a high relative radius of curvature where the teeth meet due to the large rounded shape and more conformal shapes between the contacting surfaces. Plus the fact that many teeth are in contact at any given point minimises the stress under a given load. The disadvantages are that the simple drives are a little less efficient due to sliding friction I believe and they are not really backdriveable (although this could be an advantage in a robotics application). I've just found a video which has blown my mind and takes this to the next level by using a special type of cyclodial drive which incorporates rollers to take away the sliding friction completely. ruclips.net/video/NiQ9LaskvFU/видео.html He's also designed a version which magnetic 'teeth' rather than contact force transfer.
Great video! I have a question though. Why is your Planetary calculator program running on an Arduino? It seems to me that it would be Trivial to write that application in a Web app for example in JS or as a desktop program in C# or Java. The speed difference would be on the order of several hundreds of times faster, easier to debug and make quick updates, and provide visualizations even. No more bloated Arduino IDE, requirement for special Arduino hardware, or wasted ATMEGA 328P Flash memory write cycles ;) I can help you convert your calculator to a web-app if you want or something. Can have it do Patreon Sign-in to let just Patreon supporters use it? Just tossing Ideas. Enjoy watching your Videos!
Dang, ya beat me to it :) I just invented this thing last week and have been searching around to see if it was original. Although I was initially inspired by Skyentific's timing belt version, so it wasn't completely original anyway. But from what I can tell, this is a pretty revolutionary concept. A new way to leverage gear teeth, which gives many times higher torque to weight ratio by increasing the distance in the equation work = force * distance. If you imagine riding on the carrier, it looks like the rings are spinning at about the same RPM as the motor, and planets a few times faster. And since gears can transmit much higher horsepower at high speed, that apparent high speed of the output ring is the key. It's only in our stationary frame of reference that the power materializes as huge torque. At least, I think it will. Does that sound right to you? I haven't come up with a good test apparatus to verify one way or the other.
I did a compound one without the sungear of the output stage but found that that sungear was important as it kept the planets from skipping due to flexing. I would like to see a torque comparison. The problem with standard gears which this kinda is is that the teeth of gears try to push the gears apart from each other that is why there is a pressure angel the lower the pressure angle the more force is transmitted in the rotary direction and the less at the direction to the center (or away from the center in the case of a ring gear). Multiply the force by the Sin(x) of the torque an you about get the axle load which now as in a stationary standard gear system the bearings and axles of your planets have to carry. Now in a planetary with a sun you do not have to worry about that as the sun puts the same force outward onto the planet as the ring puts inward so all the gear has to withstand is compression forces and the sheer force on the gears when transmitting torque. Hence you can do a multi stage planetary without a planet carrier if you use herring bone (double helical) gears. In which case the planets kinda act like bearing balls in a bearing as at its core a bearing is a planetary without teeth. So I see your design working well for low loads but I doubt you will be picking up 600 lbs with it. (I think that was you?). As for frowning on not having a planet carrier - well I say if it works then it works. Now a lot of design considerations went out of the window with 3d printing and a whole range of new ones came in. So I am not saying planer carriers are good or bad just use them if you need them and don''t if you don't
It is really nice to not need ball bearings, and for most purposes, I would not use a carrier, but with compound planetary you either need a carrier, or a mirrored design. (3rd module) or really long planets to keep the planets from skewing.
@@GearDownForWhat yes the 3rd module is definitely necessary. It solves so many problems. in effect you could say it takes the role of the planet carrier and if you connect it to the 1st stage which I do then you are driving and supporting the planets from both sides. I have taken a video on putting mine together and just got to edit it a bit and probably post it tomorrow or some when this weekend. Was thinking on also doing one on how to design it in inventor which our robotics kids learn in school but was told by some friends to maybe just do it for the kids on the side cause no one wants to see a video doing math and designing stuff. Well am pretty busy getting ready for robotics season anyway. We really would try to print the whole 32x30x 50ish inch 120 lb robot (we are crazy I guess). Right now I am printing 4 planetaries for the drive wheels - the one in my video - wish us luck. There is probably one more gearbox coming a something close to a 100:1 that reliably repeatedly lifts 150-300lb. I think I will experiment with either a 3 stage planetary driving a double rack setup or a planetary/harmonic mix.
When watching your videos, I even feel proud, just for having subscribed your channel!!! I wanted to tell, that your "german guy speaking english"-pronounciation is on spot, but then you told, that this was the voice of CNC-Kitchen-guy, who is in fact german, and i follow him too, since long... That was a funny moment, realising that I know the person behind the voice...
*Gear Down For What?* I know I've said it before but: You are indeed a genius without question. This video made my day, as I have always been interested in the Nuvinci™ drive system, and your technology approaches the possibilities available using it, utilizing gears. My request would be for you to recreate and design a new and improved hemispherical type fluidic assisted drive similar to the Nuvinci and make videos about it. Thank you again.
@@GearDownForWhat this is if it really needed a name, if it i new. Do you think really that no one did that before? and that it really needs a name? Talk to a mechanical engineer before doing that on a video on the public. It is not good even for you to present yourself as someone like that. Ask, before doing it again. Are you a mechanical engineer? if not, then respect yourself first and then the other engineers. You cannot see a plant you don't know and then make a video and say: "I give it a name, because I think it is new"
@@Adventures_EC Chill out. He's not trying to sell something or claim infinite fame and glory. It's still cool to discover things that others have already discovered.
![မင်းဘဝလက်တွဲဖော်ကို ဘယ်မှာတွေ့မလဲ။ - Astrology [Planets in different houses]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/G_kgNdEfJ1U/mqdefault.jpg)
There's nothing better than the feeling of discovering a concept for the first time. Don't worry if someone had the idea before. We're all travelers in invention space, and there is so much darkness that every flashlight counts.
Enjoy the journey :)
Sorry to burst your bubble but I have a book from 1949 that already describes "You're new CDCP Technology" and the other possible compound planetary gear configurations that can be created. It also analyzes the gear ratios and efficiencies of all these compound planetary gear configurations.
Not surprised
@@GearDownForWhat
The title of the book is Traité théorique et pratique des engrenages (1949) from Georges Henriot. He's a big name in the gear industry. He was part of the DIN, ISO, and AGMA (among others) technical committees that determined and standardized how to calculate the load capacity of spur and helical gears.
I like how he was blue for a second XD
LOL
I was going to comment about that :)
"dorfed."
Except, you weren't the first to come up with it, because ya know.... nearly 7-8 billion people on this planet.. the chances of 'you' being the only person who has came up with this, is pretty slim... there's also probably PLENTY of real world applications of this already in existence. . .
putting an unrelated shaft through a planetary gear, some sort of jet engine maybe?
Using an old turbo as a turbine engine for a moped or go-cart might be a pretty darn interesting project...
How about dual-speed or ratio systems like clock mechanics or even counter-rotation for propellor blades.
QUICK ! CALL COLIN FURZE !
Would be great for a rotary powered 4wd, as you could keep a uniform driveline axis between the axles... providing the engine had a hollow eccentric shaft.
This is so cool. So fucking cool. I don't care about the applications of a carrier driven compound planetary gear sets, and i likely never will. But the fact that the average person has the ability to create important industrial innovations like this with a 3d printer and daisy BB's from Walmart is incredible.
Your comment is right on regarding lower efficiency. Mechanical engineers refer to "apparent power" in mechanisms, which is torque times speed. Loss in mechanism is proportional to apparent power, not transmitted power. In sun-less gear-set, apparent power is input speed times output torque. That is higher by factor of gear ratio to real output power.
You must also consider the "cost" of compound planetary gear. Planets are harder to construct (as well as the 2 ring gears, if constructing from "real materials" such as steel), & the split output places upsetting twisting stresses upon the planetary bearings. In simple planetary gear set, all these stresses are in the same plane so there are no upsetting torques on planet bearings. The sun also supports the planets from moving inward. The planet bearing forces are pure circumferential. It is better to stack simple planetary stages for higher ratios, inside a common ring "tunnel".
By the way, there is no need to evenly spread the planets. A rather common design arranges 4 planets in a rectangle rather than square. If done right, when one opposing pair of planets have tooth facing the sun, the others 2 have space between teeth facing sun. This reduces the harmonic noise & vibration of the gear imperfections.
Gear design you propose is best when you want high ratio & don't care about efficiency or wear (such as in infrequently but finely adjusted mechanism).
sounds like gear war propaganda (kidding, rick and morty reference)
Great video Ross!!!!
why does the Einstein sound like Stefan from CNC Kitchen? :D
Oh!
Albert has seen better days
every time he says cdcp i think about sodosopa
muchas gracias!!
let me get some of that interlacing conical biz on these things, stick and stack like cuboids. make them snap together so that this whole thing is a planet gear
For low speed applications, this may not be a problem... but high speed applications would be limited by the bearing speeds. You could use ceramic bearings for low load/high speed applications... but ceramic bearings do not handle shock loads very well.
The animated Einstein simulation sounds like CNC Kitchen.
Damn, looks like he was given credit at the end of the video, so I didn't actually need to speculate.
FILE A PATENT RIGHT THE NOW!
you are not dead
Am I the only one who thinks Richard should make a comeback when things need splaining? Probably, oh well.
You mean Richard the teacher instead of Albert?
@@GearDownForWhat Yup, he could wiggle around and point to tips with his tip, or a laser. Because laser + robots never become a Skynet dream machine :D I do like C&C kitchen though and it was fitting.
designing a dual stage planetary, is there any reasoning behind having a 1st stage gear ratio being more or less than the second stage gear ratio, material properties wise?
Not sure, I would assume no.
Could you design one that doesn’t need very tight tolerances and is fully 3D printable? As a proof of concept, for the viewers that only have a shitty old/cheap Chinese 3D printer and no additional tools..
I laughed, was entertained, and learned so much along the way. Your best video yet! Muchas Gracias! Love from you biggest fan in Ecuador!
Presley Mosher No your not!
Thats crazy. Awesome video! lol the computer screen
Get a C compiler for your computer and quit running calculations on a microcontroller slower than an NES.
no! make computing weird! :D
Might be able to find a way to nest these inside each other for even higher ratios
It's good that you've created the first of what you have knowledge of, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are the first to do it.
Carrier driven epicyclic gear sets have been done before. Sunless epicyclic gear sets have been done before. Compound gear sets have been done before. There's way too many various products and prototypes to actually search them all to determine if you're first or not, it makes logical sense that one would exist if all the prerequisites exist, especially when there's many gear sets with very specific needs. This is just one of the many combinations that compound epicyclic gearsets give.
As for conceptual model, no, you're not first. The idea of this has been around for awhile. Basic teaching of epicyclic gear sets will teach about various drive inputs, outputs, ratios, and compounding; it's logical to think that someone would have noticed the existence of this specific combination based on basic knowledge within the long lifetime of epicyclic gears. Hell, I even had this exact idea, years ago, when I was first conceptualizing an idea I had, though I've ended up moving onto hypocycloid gears for their smaller size and larger ratios.
There's various sites similar to 507movements, some with more specific subjects than others, and I'm sure one of them out there will have this specific kind of gearset on there.
I think you forgot another downside: when you have a sun, the planets can't back out from the ring gear under torque, which allows for a smaller module.
I’m not 100% sure about this, but i think you would be doing damage to the sun gear if the planets were applying pressure to it.
@@GearDownForWhat I think you deflect part of the potential damage thanks to the contact angle.
yes, when you put it that way you're right. hopefully the carrier can support that load.
But then adding a reforcement to the carrier, like a bearing with full surface contact on the gears at all times, would be even stiffer and smoother under similar deflection loads.
Point being you are right, however a well designed carrier will offer more stiffness than the sun ever could.
I loved stripping down and rebuilding a Sturmey Archer 3 speed hub gear back in the late '70's as a child.
I also convinced myself of perpetual motion using geared dynamos and motors.
I would have loved 3D print just to prove my theories could be instantly falsified, but I had imagination and was only 9 so hadn't been taught physics yet. Lego and Meccano was enough to totally destroy my ideas... I just couldn't understand why?
Young man you blew right through my level of incompetents. You’re like Spacelly Sprockets.
An application would to build a complete robot arm. Stepper motors and planetary gears.
I would love to someday, the hard part is funding that
Um. Yeah, that's a thing. Check out the machinery handbook
fack. it's still cool though.
Thank you
I'm not entirly sure if i understand it but belive me if i tell you that something like this already exists in the automotive world, torque converter automatic gearboxes use all sorts of different kinds of planetary gearset. The only problem i see in this configuration is that you can't change the direction of rotation since you lost the sun gear but is not relevant if you intend to drive this with an electric motor.
Wouldn't a lack of a sun be bad when building gearboxes? Most automatic ones rely on some kind of sun - carrier or sun-planet arrangement. I feel like removing the sun would just make them unneseccarily more complicated.
@ 4:00 - ish .... i had the same problem when designing my planetary gear. The solution wast to adjust the teeth number on the sun and ring to be multiple of planets. This will change the PG ratio but for me worked quite well.
and that works - but you are still loosing the option of using that exact ratio, with compound planetary, the more options you have the better off you are.
I JUST thought of this idea and scoured the internet to see if it already existed. You earned my SUB! Very creative and i have no doubt someone will find an application for it
Great video!
Are the teeth stressed more than a normal planetary? I wonder what the weight difference would be between this and a normal planetary when both have a set gear ratio and torque requirement. I hope you explore the trade-offs a bit more in the future.
You've probably touched on this in the past but what printer are you using for these builds?
I am looking into making a prostetic arm and wondering if you have a design that could be used as a shoulder, elbow and wrist joints with a brushless motor mounted in side the center of the gear box, so it was self contained.
To be honest, lots of that went over my head. Sounds like a fantastic idea though. Would love to see some head to head comparisons, endurance/stress testing, and some real world applications.
I have always wanted to build a geared apparatus like a coo coo clock that could pick up a heavy concrete weight using a solar panel during the day and use the weight to drive a generator at night. I think you could do it. It would be interesting to figure how it could be done while solving the solar batter problem.
After watching your videos I have a try at combining a pulley system with a gear set to lift 800 lb object 18 inches while at the same time lifting two others just 7 inches and a third 1 inch. It’s very tricky.
If I place the pulleys in different configuration I exceed the small electric motor but can get closer to the desired elevations and forces necessary.
You’re much more expert than me. Maybe a problem you would know how to do easily?
Is Albert CNC Kitchen?
Albert Stefan
haha yesm! I asked Stefan if he would like to participate in my shenanigans, he said yes
@@GearDownForWhat That's awesome
Outrunner is not a slang ... Lol
Here this might help I find it quite helpful. Section 17 talks all about planetaries and other systems
khkgears.net/new/gear_knowledge/gear_technical_reference/index.html
I wonder what Tesla would do with this...
If you could speak German I Could send you some pretty sweet shit from my university
We did a whole semester on planetary and we programmed a thing where you can find out the possible teeth numbers and stuff...
Well
increible
Look, I even made one. Not only that, this is a "carrier less carrier driven system".
ruclips.net/video/SZV0vCfRiEE/видео.html
But all planetary sets apply forces to each output. It is just some are grounded and some are not. But from the perspective of the specific output, it is grounded and the rest are moving.
the carrier may be transferring the load, but your clearly driving the sun. I would like to see another example of a carrier driven compound planetary that works like the one in my video.
@@GearDownForWhat what you are failing to see is that because the planets are normally idle gears, by deleting the sun and using the carrier as the input, you are just making the planets in drive gears.
You then reverse this and do the exact opposite for the out put.
So the second stage of my gear set is exactly the same as both stages of yours.
So. Can I buy the second version? Or is the first version the only one available? I would love to put this inside my bicycle to see how it works. But, I would prefer version 2 because of what you stated at the end.
Great work! I'm using a similar configuration in a continuously variable ratio transmission I'm developing called Inception Drive. I think that compound planetary drives really benefit from planet carriers with bearings because the radial forces on the planets are not symmetrical. The ring gears generate much larger radial forces than the sun gear if there is one, so the forces are not properly balanced on the planets. If you don't have a planet carrier, the sun basically gets crushed between the planets, dramatically lowering efficiency. Another option is to add physical pitch circles to the gears to carry the radial loads. I like that you found that!
I think compound planetary drives can make a lot of sense. Maybe we will start to see more of them in the future.
hey! I'm designing a planetary 4:1 geared extruder for my 3d printer, but how much tolerance should I have the gears have? and what geometry? (spur or herringbone) it needs to be very low backlash, and high torque, it's meant to go on a nema17 motor (typical), with a 30t sun and planet, and a 90t outer gear
also what's the best way to do a planet Carrier? it needs to have a bolt on it (or is it easier to go with a regular 2 gears extruder? main goal and why it atratced me is compactness
You need to team up with Great Scott and apply this to his hand crank charging hack.
I would love to do that, unfortunately 3D printed gear sets aren't very efficient, and you would loose lots of energy in the gear teeth
@@GearDownForWhat I don't think efficiency losses would be a factor of consideration when it's an emergency situation, or need to charge your phone when your out camping or can't get to a regular power supply. Just spit balling some ideas for practical application.
Was thinking of doing exactly that haha! Would work pretty well
I was thinking how the outside with the support could be driven like a electric hub motor, custom electric longboard wheels
@@klschofield71 this would solve my boost pack drive input I need for the small alternator that charges the capacitors. 20-1 is a perfect match...
i dont see what the drill is doing, it looks like the gears aren't movingim glad to see you made a reversible,
Hi, I like your videos a lot. Do you have a video that explains how you computed the gear ratios?
Why arduino software instead of matlab? o-o
Matlab? Never heard of it
Okay, so I'm confused...are you saying you can change ratios while the gear is in motion?
Nope, wrong video...
I need to do a little homework before I can understand all this. Fascinating though. Maybe I'll get 3d printing, get some bearings and just try. Perhaps that's a good way to learn about it, because I have no idea.
Isn't the sun gear on the outside?
I always thought sun gear just means input but you placed the sun gear parallel to the ring gear.
But I still is a nice Idea! I hope that some people got inspired by the Idea. It has allot of Applications.
@Gear Down For What? : why can't you use openscad to share this and all your design ???
you the audio is weird in some parts
in what way? I haven't noticed?
@@GearDownForWhat it sounds slowed down slightly or modulated in pitch a little.
@@GearDownForWhat certain places, if you listen closely, sounds like you are talking through a fan
@@GearDownForWhat 0:42
Love the videos
You can also make a ringless version, where the input side has a large fixed sun gear and output side has large movable sun, and motor drives the planet carrier. I think the sunless version is better though, especially for applications that change direction frequently since the planets are kept closer to the center where they have less momentum. But you can fit more planets around the outside of a gear (more teeth engaged = higher torque capacity), plus it can be used to directly turn a shaft that has gear teeth cut into the end of it, eliminating the need for fasteners between the gearbox and load.
If you would just put some vaseline, cooking oil, or at least powdered graphite as a lubricant, your gearboxes wouldn't melt down so quickly, and would be easier to work with.
It wouldn’t w a big deal to do that if I wasn’t handling camera equipment and computers and the gear sets at the same time.
Almost two years late to the party but this is what I’ve been looking for! Finally my 8 year project procrastination can die and the broken prototypes can be put to rest.
You could argue this is kind of similar to a compound cycloid reduction, except this uses many small planets instead of one large planet e.g. Oskar Van Deventers 'grinder gears'. You can also have a hollow centre with a cycloid, and keep it balanced using counterweights.
These gear arrangements can actually exceed the compound planetary ratios (or at least the highest I've seen on your channel) e.g. a gearbox with two ring gears with 45 and 44 teeth, and then the compound planetary gear with 44 and 43 teeth you get a ratio of 1:44^2 or 1:1936. This is a null point though like you said these ratios are useless practically.
This arrangement can have as low as four moving parts for the simplest arrangements: the two ring gears, the compound planet gear and the eccentric drive shaft. Cycloid drives can withstand very high torques since there is a high relative radius of curvature where the teeth meet due to the large rounded shape and more conformal shapes between the contacting surfaces. Plus the fact that many teeth are in contact at any given point minimises the stress under a given load.
The disadvantages are that the simple drives are a little less efficient due to sliding friction I believe and they are not really backdriveable (although this could be an advantage in a robotics application).
I've just found a video which has blown my mind and takes this to the next level by using a special type of cyclodial drive which incorporates rollers to take away the sliding friction completely. ruclips.net/video/NiQ9LaskvFU/видео.html He's also designed a version which magnetic 'teeth' rather than contact force transfer.
Why does his shirt keep changing colors
It’s some new t shirt technology
Great video! I have a question though. Why is your Planetary calculator program running on an Arduino? It seems to me that it would be Trivial to write that application in a Web app for example in JS or as a desktop program in C# or Java. The speed difference would be on the order of several hundreds of times faster, easier to debug and make quick updates, and provide visualizations even. No more bloated Arduino IDE, requirement for special Arduino hardware, or wasted ATMEGA 328P Flash memory write cycles ;)
I can help you convert your calculator to a web-app if you want or something. Can have it do Patreon Sign-in to let just Patreon supporters use it? Just tossing Ideas.
Enjoy watching your Videos!
I would love that, if you want to help, message me at askgdfw at google mail
@@GearDownForWhat Sent an email :)
sunless planatary gearset
The trouble you encountered during the final credits appears to be lubrication related, try graphite.
Patents now
I honestly just subbed because I like the sound of the gears turning
I've seen something pretty similar years ago I'll look around and give a link
why were you aqua blue in one scene
I love it
Animated Einstein pops up on screen.
me: IM OUT YEET
Why does Albert Einstein sound French
Google "albert einstein spoken languages".. maybe he really nailed the French language and it just came out in this video
He sounds very German. Source: am German and most people here can't speak.
Thank you animated Einstein!
Dang, ya beat me to it :) I just invented this thing last week and have been searching around to see if it was original. Although I was initially inspired by Skyentific's timing belt version, so it wasn't completely original anyway.
But from what I can tell, this is a pretty revolutionary concept. A new way to leverage gear teeth, which gives many times higher torque to weight ratio by increasing the distance in the equation work = force * distance. If you imagine riding on the carrier, it looks like the rings are spinning at about the same RPM as the motor, and planets a few times faster. And since gears can transmit much higher horsepower at high speed, that apparent high speed of the output ring is the key. It's only in our stationary frame of reference that the power materializes as huge torque. At least, I think it will. Does that sound right to you? I haven't come up with a good test apparatus to verify one way or the other.
That spins fast
What about out runner?
"stop trying to read my computer screen" lmao
I did a compound one without the sungear of the output stage but found that that sungear was important as it kept the planets from skipping due to flexing. I would like to see a torque comparison. The problem with standard gears which this kinda is is that the teeth of gears try to push the gears apart from each other that is why there is a pressure angel the lower the pressure angle the more force is transmitted in the rotary direction and the less at the direction to the center (or away from the center in the case of a ring gear). Multiply the force by the Sin(x) of the torque an you about get the axle load which now as in a stationary standard gear system the bearings and axles of your planets have to carry. Now in a planetary with a sun you do not have to worry about that as the sun puts the same force outward onto the planet as the ring puts inward so all the gear has to withstand is compression forces and the sheer force on the gears when transmitting torque. Hence you can do a multi stage planetary without a planet carrier if you use herring bone (double helical) gears. In which case the planets kinda act like bearing balls in a bearing as at its core a bearing is a planetary without teeth. So I see your design working well for low loads but I doubt you will be picking up 600 lbs with it. (I think that was you?). As for frowning on not having a planet carrier - well I say if it works then it works. Now a lot of design considerations went out of the window with 3d printing and a whole range of new ones came in. So I am not saying planer carriers are good or bad just use them if you need them and don''t if you don't
It is really nice to not need ball bearings, and for most purposes, I would not use a carrier, but with compound planetary you either need a carrier, or a mirrored design. (3rd module) or really long planets to keep the planets from skewing.
@@GearDownForWhat yes the 3rd module is definitely necessary. It solves so many problems. in effect you could say it takes the role of the planet carrier and if you connect it to the 1st stage which I do then you are driving and supporting the planets from both sides. I have taken a video on putting mine together and just got to edit it a bit and probably post it tomorrow or some when this weekend. Was thinking on also doing one on how to design it in inventor which our robotics kids learn in school but was told by some friends to maybe just do it for the kids on the side cause no one wants to see a video doing math and designing stuff.
Well am pretty busy getting ready for robotics season anyway. We really would try to print the whole 32x30x 50ish inch 120 lb robot (we are crazy I guess). Right now I am printing 4 planetaries for the drive wheels - the one in my video - wish us luck. There is probably one more gearbox coming a something close to a 100:1 that reliably repeatedly lifts 150-300lb. I think I will experiment with either a 3 stage planetary driving a double rack setup or a planetary/harmonic mix.
When watching your videos, I even feel proud, just for having subscribed your channel!!! I wanted to tell, that your "german guy speaking english"-pronounciation is on spot, but then you told, that this was the voice of CNC-Kitchen-guy, who is in fact german, and i follow him too, since long... That was a funny moment, realising that I know the person behind the voice...
*Gear Down For What?* I know I've said it before but: You are indeed a genius without question. This video made my day, as I have always been interested in the Nuvinci™ drive system, and your technology approaches the possibilities available using it, utilizing gears. My request would be for you to recreate and design a new and improved hemispherical type fluidic assisted drive similar to the Nuvinci and make videos about it. Thank you again.
K
really? you think no one made it before and you give it a name?
Talk to a mechanical engineer
It needed a name
@@GearDownForWhat this is if it really needed a name, if it i new. Do you think really that no one did that before? and that it really needs a name?
Talk to a mechanical engineer before doing that on a video on the public. It is not good even for you to present yourself as someone like that.
Ask, before doing it again. Are you a mechanical engineer? if not, then respect yourself first and then the other engineers. You cannot see a plant you don't know and then make a video and say: "I give it a name, because I think it is new"
@@Adventures_EC Chill out. He's not trying to sell something or claim infinite fame and glory. It's still cool to discover things that others have already discovered.
@@asboxerb Well put- I bet Einstein and definately ol' Edison reinvented a few things we give them credit for.