Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Want to make an curd churner

  1. Mar 5, 2006 #1
    i along with one of my friend want to make an curd churner..Before making the final thing what has to be ensured..
    Should we make the model on Autocad or 3dsmax or just plain drawing with hands..this is first we will be making something//
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 5, 2006 #2

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Unless it is really complicated, use a hand drawn sketch. If you are an expert in Autocad, the use Autocad.

    For me, a sketch would be faster than using software, since I do not have much practical experience in CAD programs. I would like to though. :frown:
     
  4. Mar 5, 2006 #3

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If you're making it yourself, ask yourself what the value in using AutoCAD would be. Since you understand your design intent, you really just need dimensioned sketches to remind yourself of the design. It's not like you're going to be sending a pattern directly to CAM, or to external suppliers for production quotes.

    I wouldn't ever suggest using 3dsmax for technical drawings.
     
  5. Mar 5, 2006 #4
    it just took me 1/2 hour in 3dsmax but Autocad in 2 hrs. i could make only part of that..
    I tried to use these software not for dimensioning but for my own purpose of seeing things.
    i thought that by using softwares i will be able to visualise that everything works correctly or not...Is there any way to judge that it will succeed...like knowing which parts are not required..any software which judges the mechanics of the system..
    By the way which software is used mostly by engineers for doing such things..
     
  6. Mar 5, 2006 #5

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Stand on soapbox: I would suggest getting up to speed in visualizing things in the 2D plane. No matter what software package you use, the final result will be a drawing that will be in 2D and you will have to be able to read it. Don't let the solid modelling get you complacant or lazy in this regard. Step off soapbox. BTW...some of the best work I have ever seen was hand sketched and worked out from there.

    It just doesn't work like that. If all you had to do was to put something into a program and then wait for the magic box to spit out that things were OK, then engineers would not be needed any longer. You have to do the analysis. You need to define what the key elements of this machine are and what criteria need to be fulfilled with it. Software and computers are tools that are no different than the pencil in your pocket. Treat them as such, not a panacea. Use that wonderful tool between your ears! Also, what do you mean by "which parts are required"? If something isn't necessary, whay include them in the design? Hey...how'd I get back up here...

    If you give us some more details we can work through what might have you troubled...
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2006
  7. Apr 14, 2006 #6
    so it is what we had planned out..
     

    Attached Files:

    • xbvx.JPG
      xbvx.JPG
      File size:
      27.7 KB
      Views:
      93
    • cbc.JPG
      cbc.JPG
      File size:
      21.9 KB
      Views:
      89
  8. Apr 14, 2006 #7

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Pardon my bluntness, but all that you really need are the churning paddles with a crank handle on the other end of the shaft. There's no need for any gearing unless you want the suckers turning really fast.
     
  9. Apr 14, 2006 #8
    thats what our aim was..
    we are actually getting churning speed approx. 9 times the input speed,

    Can you illustrate bit more what you have in mind..
     
  10. Apr 15, 2006 #9

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm at work, so all I have in the line of illustration tools is 'Paint'. I'll see if I can get a decent picture out of that, get it into Image Shack, and post it. If you need the speed that high, then all that's required is still much simpler than what you've shown. Two shafts side by side, linked with a 9:1 spur gear set will do it. Your crank handle turns the big gear, which then drives the one attached to the paddle shaft nine times faster. It will also take less input effort to achieve that speed, because there are fewer points at which mechanical losses will occur.

    edit: Okay, here goes...

    [​IMG]

    Hmmm.... for some reason, it's appearing with some lines missing. That's weird, because it's correct on the Image Shack site.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2006
  11. Apr 15, 2006 #10

    Danger,,
    That was the thing we initially had in mind i.e. initial diagram i posted on top shows that... but the problem with that design is that it gives input in horizontal plane but since the rotation in vertical plane is more preferable than in horizontal direction..just an engineering aspect,,thats why we finally had to attach the bevel gear....
     
  12. Apr 15, 2006 #11
    by the way i couldn't see any crank in that drawing...
    We are not producing rotational motion but oscillatory to-fro motion
     
  13. Apr 15, 2006 #12

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Sorry... my bad on both points. I thought that it was rotational motion, and hadn't considered that the crank handle orientation mattered. Back to the drawing board.
     
  14. Apr 15, 2006 #13
    I am thankful to you that you atleast looked up at the problem..
     
  15. Apr 15, 2006 #14

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Geez, but I hate that 'Paint' programme! Here's my next fairly simple take on the matter. The indicated Heim ends are to allow for lateral displacement of the connecting rod as the lever oscillates.

    [​IMG]

    And once again a bunch of lines are missing. What's with that, anyhow? :(
    When I get home, I'll do something up in Illustrator and post it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2006
  16. Apr 17, 2006 #15

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, I finally made it back. Sorry about the delay... W took me out for Easter dinner, and that didn't leave a lot of time for drawing. (I can't believe that I ended up getting involved with a Christian, but the sex makes up for the negatives.) Anyhow, here's a better version of what I was trying to convey. I didn't put in a lot of detail, but the basics should be fairly clear. Feel free to ask for more info if required. And by the by, belated Happy Birthday.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Apr 18, 2006 #16
    I liked the drawing but i am not sure whether thats feasible or not....and more thing please show gears interacting more with bigger drawing of them and yeah i think more supports need to be added to that..
    i hadn't made drawings with paint and i wasn't sure that we could make such drawings with paint....did you draw all the 3 view or just 1?
     
  18. Apr 18, 2006 #17

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Those were drawn in Illustrator 6, which is a vector graphics application similar to Key Draw or Corel. 'Paint' is pretty helpless in comparison.
    There are no gears involved. It's just a crank driving an oscillating lever arm that's attached to the paddle axle. When I get home tonight, I'll upgrade the pictures with more detail (actually, all that I really have to do is enlarge some sections individually and apply some labelling). The basic concept is similar to how a windshield wiper gearbox translates rotational motion from the motor into oscillating linear motion for the blades. You could also think of it as the inverse of an engine crankshaft/piston relationship. It'll be another six hours before I'm off work, so I can only give written details until then. I'm not going to try messing with 'Paint' again.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Want to make an curd churner
  1. Making a parachute (Replies: 4)

Loading...