JanRwl@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/30/2005 10:49:54 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> leon.heller@... writes:
>
> You get couplings that take up misalignment, like Oldham couplings.
>
Um why are you guys worrying about misalignment? You're supposed to be
taking it out of the machine not leaving it there. Alignment is the primary
skill required to make anything of this sort. Get a handle on that first and
then don't make things misaligned from the start.
>
> Trouble with those is, they do not "fasten" the "motor-end" of the screw. I
> simply machined hollow hubs with "interference-fit" bores for screw-end and
> motor-shaft, oh, but NOT "set-screws", but CLAMP type fit. Required a bit
> more care in machining, but result is the screw is axial with the motor and is
> rigid, depending on motor's bearings for thrust AND radial bearing.
>
>
You already have to mount bearings for the other end. A few minutes and few
bucks spent making 3 more of the same type mounts or making whole new parts that
required machining in the first place, and care in it in the second. I think I
would go the other way.
Considering I hardly ever touch a set screw, I don't see any benefit to a
clamping system either. These couplers were cheap. If I bothered to find my
loctite and put in the set screws I'd likely never touch them again.
What I've got required nothing but a drill, bits, saw, screwdriver and
wrench, and a good square to make. May have been some other simple, cheap tool
or two used too but I don't recall it off hand. That's for a basically all
metal machine, the wood for the bottom and mounting plate are simply for
convenience to mount things, they could easily be made metal, it just wouldn't
make any sense to do so. The idea of knocking that up ten notches and needing
any type of real machine tool to do something is sort of counter to the whole
thing..
Alan