I think the use of cycloidal gears for clocks was debunked a long time ago. I've quoted the link in previous posts. For involute gears, the tooth form for internal teeth is the inverse of an external gear with the same number of teeth. If this is a large number, straight teeth might work?
I think the use of cycloidal gears for clocks was debunked a long time ago. I've quoted the link in previous posts. For involute gears, the tooth form for internal teeth is the inverse of an external gear with the same number of teeth. If this is a large number, straight teeth might work?
Not my usual standard, but you know what I mean David.
With too many unforeseen issues, I'm no longer able to take this much further.
Anyway, who cares if it's cycloidal, involute, convolute, or even inefficient at this stage, you've got to start somewhere. A scrap of plywood and some panel pins comes to mind.
By the way, you're to be congratulated on the progress you've made since we began swapping notes.
I think the use of cycloidal gears for clocks was debunked a long time ago. I've quoted the link in previous posts. For involute gears, the tooth form for internal teeth is the inverse of an external gear with the same number of teeth. If this is a large number, straight teeth might work?
IIRC since there is only one involute curve for a circle of given radius, the effect of varying centre distance of a pair of involute gears is just to vary the effective pressure angle. Nevertheless there are other aspects of tooth design that are important that do depend on pressure angle and pitch circle so it's desirable to use the "right" centre distance.