[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: R: counter wieght queistion

Hi Domenico, et al,

I appreciate your practical engineering observation about the 'rocking'
of the gears being what causes wear, more so than a _reasonable_
constant load.
In that respect, I would add that the placement of any counterweight
should preferably be such that the center of moment of the antennas
does not flip over the pivot center (boom), when higher elevations
are used.
Another way of agreeing that a constant load in the _same_ direction,
all the way from horizontal to vertical is better, just so long as the
load is not _heavy_ on the gears and motor.

73 Jens    ZL2TJT
Amsat-ZL #218

i8cvs wrote:

> Hi John K6YK,
> Normally i put a small counterweight in the front side of the array in
> order to get the antennas a little bit  unbalanced with more weight  to
> the director side.
> This unbalance force the gears teeth in contact and eliminate any
> back lash in the gear box so that the elevation pointing and the
> control box indication are more accurate.
> In addition if the antennas are exactly balanced in weight it happens
> that any weeak flow of wind put the system going up and down
> in to the space between the same last gears
> teeth.............tic.tac.......tic...tac
> and is this continuous movement in the same point that wears the metal,not
> the gears operation.
> 73" de i8CVS Domenico

Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org