h a l f b a k e r yOK, we're here. Now what?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
trackblade
cutting teeth are pushed around a track | |
I don't know if this has been done, maybe the materials, milling capabilities were not up to the task.
On a regular chainsaw, the chain actually means there is only one plane the chain can cut. What if the teeth were independent but pushed each other along.
The tooth as a whole component would
act like a curtain hook which slides in a track. The tooth has three components, the cutting surface, the bearing part, that moves with the other teeth either side, and the connection system hooked into the track. The connection system also bears the drive force from the motor.
I was thinking that this way of making moving teeth opens up all sorts of possibilities. Cutting in only certain areas, teeth are tracked out of the way. All shapes that a chain can't form such as a concave curve.
On a cylinder the track could spiral and with a tube the teeth could return down the centre.
Thinking like train tracks or dominoes, the track could even split and join giving multiple cutting tracks with moving teeth. Admittedly the tooth bearing surfaces will have to be more complex. Think zip links.
I was thinking the motion could be hydraulic, pneumatic but speed and sealing might be a problem so a cog system might be the best.
Looking at this idea, Death knew exactly what Death wanted Father Christmas to bring , on his early morning visit.
[link]
|
| |
This might just be one of those brilliant ideas that
would have made you very rich, had you not
disclosed it here. I'm sure there are industrial
applications for a saw that can cut complex curves
as this one could. |
|
| |
You could, for instance, have a track in the form of
a rounded-corner rectangle (or any other shape),
thereby cutting said shape in a single plunge
without the hassle of
moving a jigsaw/bandsaw around. |
|
| |
If I were you, I'd delete this before anyone notices,
and go build a prototype. |
|
| |
On a chainsaw, there are no rollers, just tabs that ride in a slot flooded with chain oil. I think this is because anything more complex would be prone to jamming with swarf. Even so the blade is worn down in a matter of weeks. There's also a substantial amount of centrifugal force, you wouldn't want individual teeth escaping. |
|
| |
Yes, but that wouldn't stop the idea from working.
As I see it, you have basically the same
mechanism,
except that |
|
| |
(a) the teeth are held into a wrapped-round C-
shaped
track, instead of conforming to a U-shaped one
due
to chain tension and |
|
| |
(b) teeth are pushed along the track by the teeth
behind them, instead of being pulled by the chain. |
|
| |
One concern, though. Pulled chains tend to be
stable against jamming. In contrast, a series of
things being pushed would be prone to jam: if one
tooth sticks, another will ram up against the back
of it and potentially drive it sideways (sort of
"buckling" the line of teeth). |
|
| |
However, this problem could be overcome: the
teeth can still be linked in a chain and pulled along
the curved track, as long as the linkages can flex
from side to side to go around curves. |
|
| |
But then again, again, this then becomes a bit like
a conventional chainsaw (where the chain flexes to
go around the tip of the blade), but with the
cutting teeth set at right-angles to the blade of
the chainsaw. |
|
| |
You could make a sort of prototype of this if you: |
|
| |
(1) Take a regular chainsaw
(2) Grind off the teeth to leave just the chain
(3) Also cut out most of the metal of the chainsaw
blade, leaving just the outer edge to support the
chain
(4) Weld new teeth onto each chain link, at right-
angles to the original teeth. |
|
| |
This would only let you make U-shaped cuts,
similar to the shape of the original chainsaw blade,
but it would prove the concept. |
|
| |
eh, you're all jammed with swarf. Go jam it with swarf, you bunch. Heh. Swarf. New word! |
|
| |
My question for wjt: currently chainsaw teeth are pushed along / pulled along by the chain. Now there is no chain. Yes the teeth push each other. Without the chain on a gear, what transmits propulsion energy from motor to teeth? Would there be cogs that hopefully fell between the teeth to push them? |
|
| |
Pushing rather than pulling on a system like this is
baked, but I don't know of any cases where it's
been successfully commercialized. (I saw it as a
bike chain years ago). |
|
| |
If I were designing this, it would be linear motor
powered, with each tooth on it's own carriage, but
that's expensive. Alternatively, drive it with a
friction wheel, or a toothed pulley that can still
engage each tooth while the tooth is in contact
with the next. None of those are difficult. |
|
| |
All of that being said, I don't think I'd get rid of the
chain. A two axis flexing chain is a real thing, and
it would work just fine for everything mentioned
above except the splitting and recombining. You'd
still have to design the anchor so the teeth could
go around an inside corner, but that's doable. |
|
| |
I don't think I would have the skill to prototype not really patient enough. If the idea stimulates humanity to further advances, that's good enough for me. |
|
| |
The fit of each tooth might seal against swarf but I think escape channels would be necessary at choking points. |
|
| |
Could electromagnetic pulses be used to push multiple teeth and therefore mitigate the front tooth jam senario? |
|
| |
[Max] would that prototype actually work? You still want the cutting edge running in the direction of the track. A full U shaped tooth might make this work. |
|
| |
//would that prototype actually work? // Why not?
You've still got a chainsaw, but with the cutting teeth
set on one side of the chain, as opposed to on the
outside edge of the chain. The teeth would need to
be as wide as the chain-plus-support as viewed from
the side, just as (in a conventional chainsaw) they
need to be as wide as the chain-plus-support as
viewed parallel to the plane of the blade. |
|
| |
Due to forces and reactions involved, flex in the chain, structural integrity needed by the bar, the loss of bar cog, this prototype sounds flimsy. Making the teeth slightly bigger might help removing swarf down through the centre. |
|
| |
The trackblade was imagined to be more like a file where the teeth moved (extrapolating ultimately to a light sabre), though on failure, flying teeth would not be fun. |
|
| |