Time Rotor mechanism ideas

[warmcanofcoke]

Reciprocating gear mechanism! via GrabCAD

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/50/cc/31/50cc3104a2af981783866eaa77d96b61.gif

[noimg width=704 height=469]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/50/cc/31/50cc3104a2af981783866eaa77d96b61.gif[/img]

[The14thDr]

That's awesome, warmcanofcoke!!
This looks like the easiest method of motorising a time rotor I've seen (or at least to my mind; this looks a lot easier than having pulleys, etc.) I might draw up plans for a motorised element in my time rotor soon, using this method....

Kind regards, The14thDr

[elkad]

This concept looks grate, You could call it a clockwork time rotor. 

Find someone who has a 3d printer set up, & see if the concept works with a small step motor. If it works with the weight of a small column on it. Then its time to find someone who can make a rotor mechanism from a CNC wood cut out, or cast it in aluminum.

[Angelus Lupus]

It looks like it should work... I'm just curious how an asymmetric cog would behave once you add the weight. How easy would it be for the teeth to misalign?

Maybe go a simpler root with a cam?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Cam-disc-1_frontview_animated.gif/256px-Cam-disc-1_frontview_animated.gif
You could even get the two-height lift with this one
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Cam-disc-2_frontview_animated.gif

[kiwidoc]

That's one of the models I was looking at for my rotor but have doubts about how well it would work against gravity when housed vertically (assuming you're not planning another stage to convert the action from horizontal).   There are some wonderful examples of this sort of motion though and there was another one there that I thought would work well (darn, can't find it now) - so if anyone builds one it will be very interesting indeed.

[galacticprobe]

When talking weight, gravity, and vertical motion, the Rotor would need some sort of counterweight so this mechanism would be balanced. With a TVM or 2005 console, this wouldn't be a problem because the Rotor has a moving upper and lower section that counterbalance each other.

With all other Classic Rotors (or a glass 2010 Rotor, if you couldn't fashion it from lightweight plastics) where you only have one part moving, and all of the weight is on one end of the mechanism, you'll be fighting gravity through the entire up-swing, and then have the weight of the Rotor pushing things down on the down-swing (again all thanks to gravity). So you'd get some strain on both motor and gears going in both directions, and like Angelus mentioned, a chance of the gear slipping when it comes time for it to change direction.

A good indication of how much weight this would have to carry with a Classic Rotor would be for Tony and "Proper Steve" to weigh their Sharp Console Rotors while they're still out of a console. (I don't think Chris (celation) would care to remove his Brachacki Hartnell rotor from his console to weight it, and I don't know how long it will take the other Hartnell console builders - and there are at least three at the moment, I think - to complete their rotors and weigh them.) So Tony's and Steve's rotors, if they wouldn't mind, would be excellent examples to weigh and see what their weights are. Barring any difference in materials (wood thickness and such), their rotors should have near-identical weights since they were built to the same specs, with the same dims and parts.

I hope some of this makes sense.

Dino.

[Angelus Lupus]

All of this begs the question: Do we know how it was done originally? Also, am I right in remembering that the rotation (if you want that as well) was done separately from the up/down motion? I'm 99% sure I saw it done that way in AAISAT, but I can't recall if that's how Brachaki did it.

[warmcanofcoke]

Well if the above mechanism has load barring problems. What about this for inspiration?: A spinning Fishing reel

http://imgmgr.banggood.com/images/oaupload/banggood/images/03/AF/12ea53f3-f1ea-4ad8-8dd8-21149980c697.gif






video: http://monkeysee.com/fishing-anatomy-of-a-spinning-reel/
only 2 and a half minutes in length -

[warmcanofcoke]

Maybe go a simpler root with a cam?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Cam-disc-1_frontview_animated.gif/256px-Cam-disc-1_frontview_animated.gif
You could even get the two-height lift with this one
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Cam-disc-2_frontview_animated.gif

The cam looks cool - it may be the way to go - I just can't find a 1/4 horse power 10-20 rpm motor to make it work.

[Theta Sigma]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who ever looked at a fishing reel and thought:  I wonder if I can make a time rotor out of that?   

[galacticprobe]

All of this begs the question: Do we know how it was done originally?

I'm not sure if there were any surviving drawings of how the Brachacki console was put together. In Tony's very detailed research to re-create the original Brachacki console room set - and the console control panels and central column - he's never been able to come across any internal drawings for the console. So we would need to ask someone still alive that worked on the construction of the original prop to see if they remember any details (which would be a treasure trove for us if they did).

Also, am I right in remembering that the rotation (if you want that as well) was done separately from the up/down motion?

I believe you are correct, Angelus. There are many scenes throughout the Hartnell and Troughton years where the column is not moving up and down - just sitting in its lowered or raised position, and the internal mechanism is still rotating. This would indicate that the "uppy-downy" part was separate from the rotation part.

I'm 99% sure I saw it done that way in AAISAT, but I can't recall if that's how Brachaki did it.

Well, I'm pretty sure neither could the guys that built the AAISAT console (unless there were drawings of how the original console was put together, and they do survive, and the AAISAT guys had access to those drawings). That would be a great question for someone to ask Mark Gatiss at a convention, if he attends conventions, since AAISAT was his production. He might be able to shed some light on how they put their console together.

(I tried contacting the 'Doctor Who Devious' people many years ago when they were still working on their production, and their console was borrowed for the Comic Relief special "The Curse of Fatal Death" (written by Moffat - his first 'Doctor Who' script!). They has a "Contact Us" link and encouraged people to ask questions. So I did, and I asked about that central column because, at the time, I had the room to build a console and was going to build a Hartnell version. However, they never replied to me.)

So if Mark Gatiss is at a convention and someone gets the chance to ask him a question, this would be a great one to ask.

Dino.

[Angelus Lupus]

The more I've learned about the original console, the more it's become clear that Peter Brachaki was a design genius. So I hope someone is able to (re)discover/reverse-engineer how his column mechanism worked, because I have a feeling it's going to be 'slap-your-forehead' in its beautiful simplicity.

[seanclarke1]

Hello All,

In the book 'The Doctor's Effects' by Steve Cambden Jack Kline states that the column would go up and down by the using a motor car foot pump.  "You'd pump the thing up and then as the air pressure escaped it would fall back down again."

Apparently this was when they didn't know how long the series was going on for and the prop may only be required for a short time.

From my own experience regardless of what mechanism is used it needs to be powered by a motor butch enough to do the job.


Best regards,
Sean Clarke.

[ThePuzzledBoy]

What about this for inspiration?: A spinning Fishing reel

On an off-topic yet personal note, I think a spinning fishing reel would probably make an interesting take for an atom accelerator, especially if the crank was replaced with a motor or something similar, but that's just me being off-topic.

- Hunter

[Theta Sigma]

I'd have to agree with this.  Taking into consideration the violent nature in which the original rotor would rise and fall, I would say the mechanism was definitely pneumatic in nature.  In "Inferno", you can clearly hear the air being compressed and released.