I Making a "Planetary Gear Set" using a 3D printer and PLA material

AI Thread Summary
Creating a planetary gear set using a 3D printer and PLA material involves designing a ring gear, sun gear, and two planet gears, with the goal of achieving a 1:1 gear ratio. For the sun and ring gears to rotate in opposite directions at the same speed, they must have the same number of teeth. However, achieving this while keeping the planet gears stationary presents challenges, particularly regarding the sizes of the gears. The tangential speeds of the sun and ring must be equal but opposite, which complicates the design if the gears are not sized appropriately. Ultimately, it may not be feasible to achieve the desired functionality with standard gear sizes.
Joorge
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Obtaining the same speed in the sun and ring gears, while moving in opposite directions in a planetary gear set.
I want to create a set of planetary gears using a 3D printer and PLA material. I'm designing them with the help of Autodesk Inventor 2020 since my knowledge in this area is quite limited. The gear set consists of a ring gear, a sun gear, and 2 planet gears. The sun and the ring gear rotate in opposite directions, while the planet gears remain stationary. I need the rotation speed of the sun and the ring gear to be the same. I mean, one turn of the ring coincides with one turn of the sun, if that's possible, which honestly I have no idea.

I asked ChatGPT, and it tells me the following:

"The basic condition for a functional planetary gear with a 1:1 gear ratio is that the sum of the number of teeth on the ring gear plus twice the number of teeth on the planet gears is equal to the sum of the number of teeth on the sun gear plus twice the number of teeth on the planet gears. Mathematically, this is expressed as:

C + 2P = S + 2P

Where:
C = Number of teeth on the ring gear
S = Number of teeth on the sun gear
P = Number of teeth on each planet gear

This means that the total number of teeth on the ring gear and planet gears must be equal to the total number of teeth on the sun gear and planet gears. By satisfying this equality, the gear ratio will be 1:1, allowing the ring gear and the sun gear to rotate at the same speed and in opposite directions."

Is this true? I'm not sure I can fully trust the AI on this matter, because it gave me a lot of wrong answers before I got to this text, which does seem coherent to me.

Thank you and regards.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Indeed, I'm asking again and it's telling me the last answer I've posted is wrong. I'd appreciate if you can tell me the "truth", LOL. It may not be possible for one turn of the ring to coincide with one turn of the sun, but I guess is right, as long as the ring and the sun have the same amount of teeth. Please let me know.
 
Last edited:
To keep the planets stationary the tangential speeds of sun and ring need to be equal but opposite. If you want their angular speeds to be equal and opposite too, their radii would have to be equal, so the planets would need to be of size zero.
 
Thanks for your answer. Honestly, I don't know that much about tangential and angular speeds. What I need is the ring to turn once at the same time as the sun does, but in opposite directions, hence the planetary set. I understand this is possible as long as the ring and the sun have the same number of teeth, and the problem will be the diameter of the ring to be big enough to hold the sun and planets. It won't be possible for certain sizes. Do you think I'm right?
 
Last edited:
Joorge said:
It won't be possible for certain sizes. Do you think I'm right?
See my post above. It won't be possible for any feasible gear size.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top