canesfan44
New member
No, I was just joking around.
Join me for a strange one...
- Thread starter kcress
- Start date
No, I was just joking around.
Bedroomgangsta
New member
This build is INSANE!!!!
Have you considered a push/pull solenoid? Put a handle on the butterfly and with a heim joint tie in a connecting rod to the handle, or go directly to the solenoid. You could use a car door lock solenoid, maybe from an old Cadillac type. You could probably get a ReefKeeper channel to do your random timings...
..."We just want you to know, we're all counting on you, good luck"
..."We just want you to know, we're all counting on you, good luck"
kcress
New member
Hi ya delmo!
Yes! I've considered Mr. Solenoid numerous times. In this case I think the stroke is too large for any normal solenoid.
I have the ticket though. It's a windshield wiper motor. It weighs about 2 lbs and has a 1.5" long arm on it that has a swivel nobber-deally projecting from it. It's worm gear driven so when the motor stops the arm seizes up instantly. It also has that wiper function where you can trigger it and it will go around and stop at the same spot every time.
My plan is to put a bell-crank on the butterfly valve that is just the right shape that when this wiper arm makes a full revolution the bell-crank will turn 90 degrees and come back to zero. Zero will be closed. Think - steam locomotive.
This way I can run the motor for 200ms and have the valve open to 20 degrees andf have a long low force wave. Once the water is all dumped, run the it the rest of the cycle so it homes back to closed. Next time around I can run it long enough to open the valve to 90 degrees and get a short high impact wave.
Motor and valve.
Gear motor close-up.
Counting on me? That's fine. Just count s l o w l y..
kcress
New member
Hi folks,
I have created this:
And you realize that if I have this I must have...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
THIS!!!
Ta dah!
I made a litany of truly speck tack you lar mistakes in the production of my first flange, but what the heck, it's completely usable.
I confused the CNC's Z height and promptly drove the bit straight down thru the entire plate in the groove that's not supposed to go-all-the-way-thru. See about 1 o'clock.
Then I accidentally set the initial height to 0.7". This caused the tool to plunge into the same - hole after a complete reset - and then proceed around the groove at 100 inches per second until I could pound the E-Stop. Note the serious remelt on the inside edge from 1 o'clock to 10 o'clock.
Once the groove was done I had to switch up from an 0.125" bit to a 1/4" to have enough reach to get thru 1" of acrylic. In all the excitement I failed to reset the Z height to reflect the much larger bit. I then watched in horror as the tool moved over one of the central spacers(not shown) and proceeded to plunge in about 3/4" and rip a circle then increment down thru the table and rip another before I got to the E-Stop.
This was right after it dropped to where it thought it was at 0.4" above the work piece then rapided across it to where the aforementioned issue occurred. Unfortunately the bottom of the bit was not 0.4" above the workpiece. It was actually 0.2" into the workpiece. Note the 1/4" wide groove where this started - at 7 o'clock.
I do have some meager excuse because I also installed a vacuum pickup-chuck which obscures and confuses things a bit for this first use.
Now I have to make an identical one for the other side of the butterfly valve.
I will be heating and forming a piece of 8" PVC pipe to make the injection chute into the tank. If I can't get that to work to my satisfaction, (and it's certainly a possibility), then I'll use the 8" as just a transition to an acrylic chute.
I have created this:
And you realize that if I have this I must have...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
THIS!!!
Ta dah!
I made a litany of truly speck tack you lar mistakes in the production of my first flange, but what the heck, it's completely usable.
I confused the CNC's Z height and promptly drove the bit straight down thru the entire plate in the groove that's not supposed to go-all-the-way-thru. See about 1 o'clock.
Then I accidentally set the initial height to 0.7". This caused the tool to plunge into the same - hole after a complete reset - and then proceed around the groove at 100 inches per second until I could pound the E-Stop. Note the serious remelt on the inside edge from 1 o'clock to 10 o'clock.
Once the groove was done I had to switch up from an 0.125" bit to a 1/4" to have enough reach to get thru 1" of acrylic. In all the excitement I failed to reset the Z height to reflect the much larger bit. I then watched in horror as the tool moved over one of the central spacers(not shown) and proceeded to plunge in about 3/4" and rip a circle then increment down thru the table and rip another before I got to the E-Stop.
This was right after it dropped to where it thought it was at 0.4" above the work piece then rapided across it to where the aforementioned issue occurred. Unfortunately the bottom of the bit was not 0.4" above the workpiece. It was actually 0.2" into the workpiece. Note the 1/4" wide groove where this started - at 7 o'clock.
I do have some meager excuse because I also installed a vacuum pickup-chuck which obscures and confuses things a bit for this first use.
Now I have to make an identical one for the other side of the butterfly valve.
I will be heating and forming a piece of 8" PVC pipe to make the injection chute into the tank. If I can't get that to work to my satisfaction, (and it's certainly a possibility), then I'll use the 8" as just a transition to an acrylic chute.
Nice work!! Those acrylic pieces were none too big I see. Glad it worked for ya.
Thinking about your heat forming operation yesterday while running pvc conduit to my shop. I first used a heat gun (old wagner paint stripper). Then I fired up the propane radiant heater and used that to heat the pipe. Not a whole lot quicker for a 1" pipe, but with your 8" pipe, the heater will give you much more surface area heated at once. Especially the thin wall, it should heat up to forming temp rather quickly.
Get after it! :hammer:
Thinking about your heat forming operation yesterday while running pvc conduit to my shop. I first used a heat gun (old wagner paint stripper). Then I fired up the propane radiant heater and used that to heat the pipe. Not a whole lot quicker for a 1" pipe, but with your 8" pipe, the heater will give you much more surface area heated at once. Especially the thin wall, it should heat up to forming temp rather quickly.
Get after it! :hammer:
kcress
New member
That is an EXCELLENT idea. I was just trying to figure out what to use. I have an acetylene torch, MAP gas torch, and a 1200F electric heat gun, but none of those were especially jumping out as middle-of-the-road-spread-out-enough for an 8 inch pipe.
I have a radiant heater that you bolt onto a propane tank. Mistakenly thinking more is always better, I bought a large one. It's so hot we really can't use it, even when turned all the way down. If you're closer than about 20 feet you're being par-broiled. I think that thing running, while pointed somewhere else, and dipping the pipe in front of it and turning the pipe should do the trick nicely. I can use a temp gun to monitor the actual temperature of the pipe.
I think I'll need to make a box to try to wedge it into, as it gets hot and flexible - as you suggested.
I have a radiant heater that you bolt onto a propane tank. Mistakenly thinking more is always better, I bought a large one. It's so hot we really can't use it, even when turned all the way down. If you're closer than about 20 feet you're being par-broiled. I think that thing running, while pointed somewhere else, and dipping the pipe in front of it and turning the pipe should do the trick nicely. I can use a temp gun to monitor the actual temperature of the pipe.
I think I'll need to make a box to try to wedge it into, as it gets hot and flexible - as you suggested.
kcress
New member
Here's a few more shots of flange business. I got the second one routed.
It's hard to show this stuff with a camera. So here's with different backdrops.
Since my pressures are so much less than what the butterfly is made for I'm just going to use 3/8" bolts instead of 3/4" - still $50 bucks worth of bolts!!.
This causes some issues with lining everything up since the bolts will rattle around in the big holes.
Enter the acrylic-spacers.
Three is all I need to force alignment.
Here's how all this will assemble.
It's hard to show this stuff with a camera. So here's with different backdrops.
Since my pressures are so much less than what the butterfly is made for I'm just going to use 3/8" bolts instead of 3/4" - still $50 bucks worth of bolts!!.
This causes some issues with lining everything up since the bolts will rattle around in the big holes.Enter the acrylic-spacers.
Three is all I need to force alignment.
Here's how all this will assemble.
der_wille_zur_macht
Team RC
That is pretty insane. But at this point I expect nothing less. 
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
I have the same gearmotor... purchased many years ago on ebay for the same basic purpose. Strong little bugger but kinda noisy.
From the standpoint of adjustment, noise, tuning, maintenance, machanical linkage complexity, it may be easier to use a linear actuator.
Evenb a moderate speed actuator that can do 1ips should suffice and have more then enough machanical advantage.
Secondly, (and from a linkage adjustment standpoint) instead of trying to work with position sensing or physical mechanical linkage adjustment, a heavy spring tying the linkage to the valve would remove the need for a lot of fiddling.
In other words, if you calculate that it takes 9 pounds of force to close the valve and the valve seat and mechanics can handle 20 pounds of force without damage, then a 12-15 pound spring would offer plenty of closing force and allow the linkage to overtravel without binding. (hope that makes sense).
From the standpoint of adjustment, noise, tuning, maintenance, machanical linkage complexity, it may be easier to use a linear actuator.
Evenb a moderate speed actuator that can do 1ips should suffice and have more then enough machanical advantage.
Secondly, (and from a linkage adjustment standpoint) instead of trying to work with position sensing or physical mechanical linkage adjustment, a heavy spring tying the linkage to the valve would remove the need for a lot of fiddling.
In other words, if you calculate that it takes 9 pounds of force to close the valve and the valve seat and mechanics can handle 20 pounds of force without damage, then a 12-15 pound spring would offer plenty of closing force and allow the linkage to overtravel without binding. (hope that makes sense).
rcgates
Premium Member
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Remember the mechanical advantage in your linkage....
Lets say you linkage needs to move the valve linkage 5" and the actuator has a stroke of 1". Your valve needs, lets say 15 pounds (to be safe). Your actuator needs to have over 65 pounds of available force
Using an actuator with a 2" stroke doubles the actuation time, but cuts the required force in half...
Etc.
It should not be hard to find a reasonably priced actuator to fit your needs
Lets say you linkage needs to move the valve linkage 5" and the actuator has a stroke of 1". Your valve needs, lets say 15 pounds (to be safe). Your actuator needs to have over 65 pounds of available force
Using an actuator with a 2" stroke doubles the actuation time, but cuts the required force in half...
Etc.
It should not be hard to find a reasonably priced actuator to fit your needs
rogermccray
Active member
Seems I am too late to see all the pics? Or am I the only one they are not showing up for?
kcress
New member
Yes, you're special and the only one who can't see them. They're not gone. I am still paying money so you better be able to see them! Sometimes the site is slow to put them up but most likely for some reason you have the site blocked. (Most common)
Try going directly to box.net. Mess with your settings until you can reach that site then come back and look again. Lots and lots of pictures in this thread.
Also folks I've been very, very, busy with work and can't wait to get back on track with this.
Try going directly to box.net. Mess with your settings until you can reach that site then come back and look again. Lots and lots of pictures in this thread.
Also folks I've been very, very, busy with work and can't wait to get back on track with this.
der_wille_zur_macht
Team RC
Looking forward to the next installment!
kcress
New member
Any luck so far rogermccray?
Greetings DWZM! Let me at least fill in what has transpired so far.
Here's what the flanged up valve looks like with stainless steel hardware.
I made a model to test the valve cycling. Since the gear motor swings a 1.5" radius at the link point I guessed that I should put a 3" radius on the valve. When linked together a full revolution of the 1.5" arm causes an 80 degree forward rotation of the 3" arm and a 80 degree reverse rotation back to the starting spot. Yah!! Total luck.
So I turn to the next issue of how to mount the gear motor to some plate mounted to the valve's flange.
ARgh!!!!!! Look at the gear motor. I just now see, how the motor has to be mounted.
See the three little lamoid mounting bosses? They face the rotating arm from about a tenth inch below it. Hardly enough space for even screw heads!! How can I fit a piece of steel or aluminum in there and still run in the screws and still clear the rotating arm?
Stoopid thing.
This is what's derailed me for a while. I am now looking much closer at linear actuators to do an end run on this problem.
Greetings DWZM! Let me at least fill in what has transpired so far.
Here's what the flanged up valve looks like with stainless steel hardware.
I made a model to test the valve cycling. Since the gear motor swings a 1.5" radius at the link point I guessed that I should put a 3" radius on the valve. When linked together a full revolution of the 1.5" arm causes an 80 degree forward rotation of the 3" arm and a 80 degree reverse rotation back to the starting spot. Yah!! Total luck.
So I turn to the next issue of how to mount the gear motor to some plate mounted to the valve's flange.
ARgh!!!!!! Look at the gear motor. I just now see, how the motor has to be mounted.
See the three little lamoid mounting bosses? They face the rotating arm from about a tenth inch below it. Hardly enough space for even screw heads!! How can I fit a piece of steel or aluminum in there and still run in the screws and still clear the rotating arm?
Stoopid thing.
This is what's derailed me for a while. I am now looking much closer at linear actuators to do an end run on this problem.
Late to the party but...
Late to the party but...
I just found this thread, I got reminded of a bridge that crosses the Delaware river in NJ, called the Burlington-Bristol Bridge. It seems that this kind of counter weight system could do the lifting of the tank. It uses counter weights, letting gravity do the work for you rather then fighting against it. As they say a pic is worth a thousands words.
Notice the 2 large concrete blocks (counter weights) that have many steel cables that loop around an axle at the top of the bridge towers then the cables attach the floating road deck in the middle of the bridge. 2 small motors turn the axles in sync and the entire middle road deck rises.
The bridge is actually only about 1/2 open the in the picture. The counter weight blocks (concrete) actually go all the way down to the road level. The bridge was built in 1931 and hasn't had a major malfunction as far as I know.
I have always thought this bridge to be an elegant design but it is over kill for a draw bridge, openings really don't need to be that wide.
From your pictures it doesn't look like you have the room on the sides of your tank to do anything like this. I was just thinking counter weights like this could actually lift the bulk of the weight and take much of the stress off of the lifting mechanisms.
Late to the party but...
I just found this thread, I got reminded of a bridge that crosses the Delaware river in NJ, called the Burlington-Bristol Bridge. It seems that this kind of counter weight system could do the lifting of the tank. It uses counter weights, letting gravity do the work for you rather then fighting against it. As they say a pic is worth a thousands words.
Notice the 2 large concrete blocks (counter weights) that have many steel cables that loop around an axle at the top of the bridge towers then the cables attach the floating road deck in the middle of the bridge. 2 small motors turn the axles in sync and the entire middle road deck rises.
The bridge is actually only about 1/2 open the in the picture. The counter weight blocks (concrete) actually go all the way down to the road level. The bridge was built in 1931 and hasn't had a major malfunction as far as I know.
I have always thought this bridge to be an elegant design but it is over kill for a draw bridge, openings really don't need to be that wide.
From your pictures it doesn't look like you have the room on the sides of your tank to do anything like this. I was just thinking counter weights like this could actually lift the bulk of the weight and take much of the stress off of the lifting mechanisms.
Last edited:
kcress
New member
Welcome to RC Jim.
Interesting idea. I'd have given it serious consideration before embarking on this. You could, conceivably, use pulleys to route over and under the stand. On the other hand that also means you have to have, and support, double the weight of the tank since you have the tank and the the same weight in the counter weights. 3,000lbs of concrete is actually not much smaller than a tank full of rock and water. Yeah, I guess space would be an issue.
Interesting idea. I'd have given it serious consideration before embarking on this. You could, conceivably, use pulleys to route over and under the stand. On the other hand that also means you have to have, and support, double the weight of the tank since you have the tank and the the same weight in the counter weights. 3,000lbs of concrete is actually not much smaller than a tank full of rock and water. Yeah, I guess space would be an issue.
