This is nice. It looks simpler than the original with fewer parts and easier to manufacture. However, why would you need a second cycloidal disc? In a conventional cycloidal drive, several fixed cylindrical roller bearings/bushings are placed through the discs' holes. My understanding is that due to the disc's eccentric motion, these circular holes are made wider to accommodate the wider range of motion. This causes instability as the holes allow for too much play between the disc and the fixed roller, so a second disc that moves in lockstep but staggered with the first disc helps to stabilize it. But, with this setup, there are no fixed cylindrical roller bearings or bushings to necessitate a second disc, as the ball bearings are internal to the disc. Though, there is a second destabilizing factor, and that's on the system as a whole due to the eccentric motion driven by the shaft. One reason to use a second disc is to offset lateral forces due to its eccentric motion, so that all lateral motions of one disc is exactly countered by the second disc 180° around. Yet, with this example the second disc doesn't move to oppose the first disc's off-centering (i.e. preserve co-axial symmetry). One disc would have to move at the same rate as the other but protrude out on the other end (which means that it needs to have a dedicated opposing eccentric cam on the same shaft). The two discs don't necessarily have to protrude out in exactly opposite directions, but it would have to maintain symmetry (e.g. the second disc has two peaks protruding out on one end, which is bisected by the first disc's one peak on the opposite end). Fundamentally, I think it has potential. But I believe that it needs more refinement to make it even better.
This is nice. It looks simpler than the original with fewer parts and easier to manufacture.
However, why would you need a second cycloidal disc? In a conventional cycloidal drive, several fixed cylindrical roller bearings/bushings are placed through the discs' holes. My understanding is that due to the disc's eccentric motion, these circular holes are made wider to accommodate the wider range of motion. This causes instability as the holes allow for too much play between the disc and the fixed roller, so a second disc that moves in lockstep but staggered with the first disc helps to stabilize it. But, with this setup, there are no fixed cylindrical roller bearings or bushings to necessitate a second disc, as the ball bearings are internal to the disc.
Though, there is a second destabilizing factor, and that's on the system as a whole due to the eccentric motion driven by the shaft. One reason to use a second disc is to offset lateral forces due to its eccentric motion, so that all lateral motions of one disc is exactly countered by the second disc 180° around. Yet, with this example the second disc doesn't move to oppose the first disc's off-centering (i.e. preserve co-axial symmetry). One disc would have to move at the same rate as the other but protrude out on the other end (which means that it needs to have a dedicated opposing eccentric cam on the same shaft). The two discs don't necessarily have to protrude out in exactly opposite directions, but it would have to maintain symmetry (e.g. the second disc has two peaks protruding out on one end, which is bisected by the first disc's one peak on the opposite end).
Fundamentally, I think it has potential. But I believe that it needs more refinement to make it even better.
That is a wonderful work you have done. I‘d like to do something like this. Can you tell me the software you used ? Very thank you.
Which software did you use for motion study?
PRETY COOL MAN