Wind vane self steering design

Yes, you are quite right. Sorry I misunderstood your question yesterday.

The wind-vane will never be aligned straight forward except to stow it in a storm, and will always be operable in a range from about 30 degrees left of dead ahead around to about 30 degrees right, so 300 degrees in total. Perhaps a little more given weirdness in apparent wind angle. The design I show has a full 360 degrees, which is handy when tacking because you don't need to crank the thing all the way around the back side to re-set it . . but this is just a convenience not a necessity.

BillyDoc

 

Thanks Alan,

I will definitely keep this approach in mind as I get nearer to actually implementing my self-steerer.

BillyDoc

 

Inertia is no good in a reciprocating device. Even without any friction, inertia has too much memory. Inertia, the flywheel effect, resists accelleration and decelleration, which is why iron flywheels absorb the unequal impulses of cylinders firing, and why pistons are light aluminum.
In attempting to eliminate friction, one has to take into account the friction that is generated by a rudder hesitating in returning to a neutral position, until the boat figures out what the rudder is doing and turns a bit, only to present more of its sails to the wind, or to put the wind behind the sails, either of which cause the vane to find out how to correct the situation that occurred five seconds ago, but no longer exists.
Nor are ball and roller bearings exempt from becoming involved in inertial memory. Any reciprocating control device will work better with light, strong levers and links, and plain bearings.
It's not so much an approach as it is an acceptence of simple geometric laws. An "approach" would imply that what is being approached is the same thing.

Alan

 

That's weird! Alan, your post that was between what is now #16 and #17 has disappeared. Did you delete it?

BillyDoc

 

Yes, I deleted all of my posts. Your last comment indicated that your level of interest had peaked, as you found no reason to discuss the mechanism I'd drawn.
This is fine, but you had asked for assistance, which required a rather tedious communication process, which is also fine and always to be expected.
Wading through that, I finally understood (or thought I did) what it was you were trying to achieve. I recognized at that point that the bevel gear cluster(as far as I understood its purpose) wasn't necessary to achieve change in ratio or remote indexing. I could get infinite ratios, reversing, remote indexing, motor drive capability, low cost, home buildability, reliability, and a few other benefits using only a few simple and cheap parts.
This drawing I showed represents what came of many hours of concentrated effort. Without constructive feedback, its value to anyone but me was questionable. It might be analyzed and shot down if necessary, but what I got was a kind of a "Thanks, I'll keep your idea on file."
That was strange to me. I didn't feel comfortable at that point leaving my comments and drawing up. I don't like things half-finished.
You asked for help with it, I apparently misunderstood what you meant by that, and if I am missing something here, let me know.

Regards, Alan

 

Alan, I am very sorry if I offended you in any way, or made you feel uncomfortable. The truth is, I got swamped with things I had to attend to and recognized that I didn't have the time to continue this discussion with the attention it deserved. I also recognized that you had come up with another way of achieving part of what I was trying to do, but not all of it, and I could see that we would both be spending way too much time getting that sorted out, so, as you say, I guess my interest had indeed "peaked."

You did help me a great deal, and I am grateful! I don't need a "V" drive at this time, but if I ever do I will certainly be implementing your design, which I think is elegant. And the "L" drive you showed us is nice too, and I may very well use that to replace the bevel gears driving the servo-rudder in my own design.

BillyDoc

 

No problem, Bill. I wasn't offended at all. I never did discuss with you what the rest of the goal was, which made my own work seem incomplete. I pulled the picture because it appeared to be unimportant to anyone but me and it being only a partial design, apparently uncompletable for lack of interest or time on your part. I'm not paranoid about having ideas stolen or anything like that. I get into a project 100% and this was a good project to work with, and it would have been very productive to have produced a finished design for anyone who wished to build it.
I've designed mechanisms since I was a kid, and my approach is obviously not the same as others use.
Mechanical design approaches a mystical level for me. There is a point one reaches, when one has spent enough time absorbed in contemplation over thousands of designs, that not even paper is needed. I have spent, for example, several hours staring at a piece of paper without moving and drawn the entire thing out in one shot. Some complex designs live entirely in my head, and have never been drawn even once.
I work with wood for a living, on boats when I can. I don't particularly like working so hard to make a living. It is generally repetitious and physically exhausting at times. When I get an opportunity to do what I really love, design work, I see the project as a work of art, a true definition of geometric integrity.
I wanted to know what it was you wanted to achieve. How to do it was what I had offered. I went back this morning to read again your request to eliminate gears and come up with a solution to your windvane idea.
What you said, I took seriously. No whimsical idea, but a clean and elegant mechanism that made for a basis for continuing on to the complete design.
I've done it a lot of times in the past. No prototype has ever failed to achieve its objective, nor have any one-offs I've built ever required changes or improvements, even after years of hard use.

Alan

 

Just because you like elegant designs, Bill, here's a sailboat winch that has five ratios and no gears. It also has only three basic parts, all rolling contact, and near 100% efficiency. Here shown with the drum on.

 

Then I'll re-post the drawing, Rayk. I apologize for not considering others who might be interested. Here it is, as it stands, along with the right angle drive.

Alan

 

Hi Alan, your second pic in the last post, what is the rotary cable for, motor drive?

And how does the winch work?

-
Maybe a hydraulic piston each on the vane and the rudder could work?
I like them, they seem reliable, and gearing, reversing and offsetting doesn't seem so complicated. Plus the drivetrain is so easy to hide away if it is long.
I prefer ropes and pulleys though, cheaper, lighter and easier to fix.

 

and here is a 4speed winch.

 

Hi Sigurd,

The rotary cable goes to the cockpit, to rotate the vane. A motor would be mounted on the unit itself. Handcrank would have no place to go, as shown, if both remote crank and motor are hooked up, so in such a case, I would put the motor inside the boat along the run of the rotary cable.

Regarding the winch, I suppose I don't care to patent it any more. It's impossible to get a patent cheaply these days. The system has broken down and corporations hardly care to even look at a design that isn't already patented. Then you patent it yourself, and when it's stolen, you'd better be a millionaire to fight the case.
This may not have copied well. Sorry about the neck pain. I have to learn to rotate pictures.
Now, the design...

 

A better picture... The drawing is diagramatic, or rather an instructive mental desktop model. the actual design is very compact and harder to visualize.

 

I wanted to be able to rotate 360 to save back-winding. That's winding as in clock-winding.
Ropes are simpler and better, I agree. They won't work with this design as the rotating control orients with the rudder position, so the cable housing bends as the rudder turns. There are ways, of course. the nice thing about the cable is that it can pierce the deck/aft cabin and be out of the way. Ropes along the deck are one more thing to trip over or catch other ropes.
All that said, I like ropes for their visibility and simplicity, which means reliability and ultimate safety. For that reason, I would have a quick-disconnect to the cable in case of failure.

 

Alan,
Nice winch. the E, R and F and G is one piece? I'm not sure I see the function of the grooved "gate" part.

BillyDoc,
could you explain what part of your requirement Alan's sketch doesn't fulfill? Then maybe it would be easier for me to understand why you made yours the way you did.