Noise reduction efforts - 10EE
Close
Login to Your Account
Likes Likes:  0
Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Nevada
    Posts
    529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    66

    Default Noise reduction efforts - 10EE

    Since finishing my 10EE in between making stuff I have been working to reduce the noise. The first thing I did was replace the big bearings in the reduction gearbox. I detailed this work in a previous thread, and while there was a slight reduction in the gearbox noise, it was less than I had hoped for.

    Next I replaced the 4 sliders in the gearbox. Mine were worn, I knew it and ignored it, but I had to quit ignoring it. $40 each from Monarch. Best purchase I have made from them. The new sliders made a huge difference. Less rattle while running, and even more noticeable, my Parker 514 can stop the spindle in about a second, but before there would be a claptrap of noise when stopping. Now it stops with essentially no noise.

    img_0970.jpg

    Noise that I thought was coming from from the tach turned out to be the phenolic gears in the headstock. Can't do anything about that.

    Along the way I borrowed Everettengineer's pulleys and was able to true my two pulleys. My lathe had been run with one belt for obviously many years and I had uneven wear between the two grooves, as well as uneven wear from one side to the other in each groove, on both pulleys. After truing the pulleys I was able to use two belts instead of one, which reduced the noise further. My theory on this is that with one belt, there is a very slight torsional vibration. As the belt hops around the effective diameter of the pulleys change, which changes the RPM, which is the same as a rotational acceleration/deceleration, which causes vibrations. Vibrations are noise. With two belts the hopping around of one belt is cancelled by the hopping around of the other belt which reduces the vibration and noise.

    Next I trued the zinc idler pulleys. The wear grooves were different on both pulleys, so now with two belts both belts were not running on the same diameter which meant one or both had to slip. Slipping is noise. With the pulleys trued the noise decreased further. Dealing with the pulleys brought to light the bolt issue I asked about in a previous thread, and as a result I loctited the bearings onto the bushings on both pulleys. Further reduction in noise as there is no possible movement of the bearings on the bushings.

    With the drive pulleys and idlers true it became apparent how inconsistent "identical" belts are in length. Browning offers a machine matching service to get belts as close as possible to the same length. Expensive, but now obviously worth it. With the matched belts the tension is even between the two belts so I was able to adjust the tension properly. There is less noise as the hopping around of the two belts is much more even than with the previous "identical" length belts and I don't have to compromise tension, with one belt too loose or the other belt too tight.

    https://www.regalbeloit.com/-/media/...hly-Vol-23.pdf

    So now with all this accomplished the predominant noise is the whirring of the phenolic gears in the headstock, even up to 4000 RPM, pretty impressive.

    Off-topic now. Cal showed his zirc fitting caps for the leadscrew and feed shaft bearings. I made removeable plugs out of delrin and used an o-ring to seal the fit. The two upper plugs have an extension to grip with pliers to remove, the ELSR rod plug doesn't need to be pulled out since the rod can be used to knock it out.

    img_0961.jpgimg_0963.jpgimg_0968.jpg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    28,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bll230 View Post
    Since finishing my 10EE in between making stuff I have been working to reduce the noise. The first thing I did was replace the big bearings in the reduction gearbox. I detailed this work in a previous thread, and while there was a slight reduction in the gearbox noise, it was less than I had hoped for.

    Next I replaced the 4 sliders in the gearbox. Mine were worn, I knew it and ignored it, but I had to quit ignoring it. $40 each from Monarch. Best purchase I have made from them. The new sliders made a huge difference. Less rattle while running, and even more noticeable, my Parker 514 can stop the spindle in about a second, but before there would be a claptrap of noise when stopping. Now it stops with essentially no noise.

    img_0970.jpg

    Noise that I thought was coming from from the tach turned out to be the phenolic gears in the headstock. Can't do anything about that.

    Along the way I borrowed Everettengineer's pulleys and was able to true my two pulleys. My lathe had been run with one belt for obviously many years and I had uneven wear between the two grooves, as well as uneven wear from one side to the other in each groove, on both pulleys. After truing the pulleys I was able to use two belts instead of one, which reduced the noise further. My theory on this is that with one belt, there is a very slight torsional vibration. As the belt hops around the effective diameter of the pulleys change, which changes the RPM, which is the same as a rotational acceleration/deceleration, which causes vibrations. Vibrations are noise. With two belts the hopping around of one belt is cancelled by the hopping around of the other belt which reduces the vibration and noise.

    Next I trued the zinc idler pulleys. The wear grooves were different on both pulleys, so now with two belts both belts were not running on the same diameter which meant one or both had to slip. Slipping is noise. With the pulleys trued the noise decreased further. Dealing with the pulleys brought to light the bolt issue I asked about in a previous thread, and as a result I loctited the bearings onto the bushings on both pulleys. Further reduction in noise as there is no possible movement of the bearings on the bushings.

    With the drive pulleys and idlers true it became apparent how inconsistent "identical" belts are in length. Browning offers a machine matching service to get belts as close as possible to the same length. Expensive, but now obviously worth it. With the matched belts the tension is even between the two belts so I was able to adjust the tension properly. There is less noise as the hopping around of the two belts is much more even than with the previous "identical" length belts and I don't have to compromise tension, with one belt too loose or the other belt too tight.

    https://www.regalbeloit.com/-/media/...hly-Vol-23.pdf

    So now with all this accomplished the predominant noise is the whirring of the phenolic gears in the headstock, even up to 4000 RPM, pretty impressive.

    Off-topic now. Cal showed his zirc fitting caps for the leadscrew and feed shaft bearings. I made removeable plugs out of delrin and used an o-ring to seal the fit. The two upper plugs have an extension to grip with pliers to remove, the ELSR rod plug doesn't need to be pulled out since the rod can be used to knock it out.

    img_0961.jpgimg_0963.jpgimg_0968.jpg
    Marvelous work, and inspirational. Good on yah!

    Were you aware the belts hysteresis issue could have been solved without need of a perfect match by fabbing independent idlers and then... positioning them at slightly different points in the free span?

    The solution for the tacho drive gear noise is removal, altogether... in favour of electrical or electronic tacho, either analog or digital and/or/else digitally controlled with analog display. See Marine diesel to heavy truck goods for approprate RPM band. Passenger motorcar range runs too high, wastes resolution.

    The other plus is it can then read as well in reverse as forward.

    Right about now it may be wise to NOT go into two stage full Butterworth LC filters for the Parker Armature AND field power. Accel and decel still "growl" a bit, but it isn't onerous.

    Too expensive to "JFDI" on speculation, but I still had the second Hammond I ordered when I furnished everettengr with one sitting spare, and a box full of new us-made 480 Volt "run" caps, so it got "breadboarded" up.

    Nice, but not enough gain over the single ripple filter to justify it for MY use, given I'm kinda DEAF anyway! And do NOT really want to introduce age-degradation vulnerable capacitors not really needed.

    Besides.. ANY machine tool TOO damned quiet can be a hazard to the operator, "surprise-wise".

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Salinas, CA USA
    Posts
    4,056
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    241
    Likes (Received)
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    Were you aware the belts hysteresis issue could have been solved without need of a perfect match by fabbing independent idlers and then... positioning them at slightly different points in the free span?
    Bill, great suggestion. 10EE’s have two idler mount locations, so easy to implement.

    Re: Tacho gear noise, I haven’t noticed it before. Maybe the tacho gear mesh needs adjusting or some parts need replacing. I have lots of tacho drive parts, going for cheap, so contact me if you want to pursue that.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    dallas,tx
    Posts
    2,540
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    584
    Likes (Received)
    475

    Default

    Mine has two noisy issues. One is the blower, new motor and it works real good, I would like to dial it down a bit. The other is in backgear. All new bearings, etc, just those big gears and dogs howling, oh well. I know they went to a spined shaft in the backgear box replacing those big lug dogs. Maybe noise was the issue?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    28,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rimcanyon View Post
    Bill, great suggestion. 10EE’s have two idler mount locations, so easy to implement.
    One of my two HAS NO idlers, nor even the slotted mounting blocks.

    Accident of long years wandering the Earth as a beggar for trade to turn, one supposes. Two owners back, it was in New Yawk making the odd Architectural fitting to eke out an old age pension. Larry Eda in nawth Carolina then worked on it with the intent of making a "spinning lathe" of it, as he already had his late Dad's pristine 10EE in the shop.

    Brand-new belts combined with perished motor-plate mounts that dropped the plate a tad, and "for now" they are just-right-tight with NO idlers, back or front, either one.

    "The plan".. is to adopt four-each packaged spring-loaded idlers as used on the Mitsubishi-V6 engined MOPAR "caravan". Why re-invent that wheel when all I need is mounts for them and I've then got a NAPA or RockAuto parts-bin replaceable item, ready-to-use?

    Re: Tacho gear noise, I haven’t noticed it before. Maybe the tacho gear mesh needs adjusting or some parts need replacing. I have lots of tacho drive parts, going for cheap, so contact me if you want to pursue that.
    I was GLAD to have that possibility put onto the community radar. Hadn't twigged to it. Thot it was my costly spindle-bearings grumbling a warning as to impending DOOM!

    I don't WANT the OEM tacho anyway. I want its replacement to:

    - work in REV as well as FWD
    - have a LARGER face and dial
    - angle toward the operator position for on-angle view
    - be shrouded under an eyeshade/eyebrow for easier fast read, all lighting.

    Plus some eye-candy such as a percentage load indicator and coloured lighting showing FWD REV or brake/idle, given the SSD's "command ZERO" feature will fight you if you try to move the spindle without releasing the 4Q logic from guard-duty.

    The cosmetics are just easier than re-doing the frustrating instruments on the Jaguar!

    Overly patronizing old grandmum doesn't even reflect "true" coolant temp. So long as one of the five "puters don't consider it TOO far-out, it just commands the stepper-motor of the "pretend analog" coolant temp gage to point to a perfect mid-range value. IOW, "it lies". Essentially ALWAYS, yet.

    Got me a set of vintage Veglia-Borletti's out of a Jensen Interceptor part out. Those tell truth AND have a blinkin' light embedded to grab you by the eyeballs and LOOK at what truth is being told when Bad News is on yer doorstep.

    Veglia-Borletti gages were one of the few features I remember with any fondness off the back of a lotta miles and too many rusticles in a FIAT 124 "Sport" Coupe. Or I once thought it was.

    A few miles in it's evil cousin - a good bud's Lancia Delta "Integrale" over England's "special" twisty one-point-four-lane Tarmac surely put the LIE to THAT misconception!



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Nevada
    Posts
    529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    66

    Default

    RC, thanks for the offer. I think the noise is coming from the top phenolic gear. It wobbles slightly, I trued it a bit so it would not rub on the oil wiper on the oil reservoir. I may try making a delrin replacement gear for it at some point, but I have my top cover siliconed in place and so far no oil seepage, so I don't want to open it up.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Webster Groves, MO
    Posts
    7,462
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1899
    Likes (Received)
    3482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    Marvelous work, and inspirational. Good on yah!

    Were you aware the belts hysteresis issue could have been solved without need of a perfect match by fabbing independent idlers and then... positioning them at slightly different points in the free span.
    Nope, you didn't think it through. With one worn sheave, a smaller diameter, the spindle is trying to run at two different speeds so one belt must slip.

    Bill

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    28,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9100 View Post
    Nope, you didn't think it through. With one worn sheave, a smaller diameter, the spindle is trying to run at two different speeds so one belt must slip.

    Bill
    No.. YOU didn't think it though. The driving and driven sheaves have to match when ganged. Of course

    The idlers - all we were addressing, BTW - do not have to match. Not to put too fine a point on it.. but that's why we call them "idlers".

    Intentionally mis-matching idlers and the points in a span they apply force is a tool to reduce the conspiracies of resonance. Add that to the natural dispersion and inherent damping of resilient reinforced elastomer belting, and yah get a fair-decent smooth operation, all RPM of a broad range.

    See ATW "Pacemaker" belting. "Many" lighter belts, not fewer stiffer ones.

    Nor, for than matter, do even the belt lengths have to match.

    Their linear velocity or rate of advance per unit of time will match so long as the sheave pitch-lines do, but their full-length or circle-cycle or "RPM" need not match.

    Each could be diverted - or not - to pick-off a different auxiliary load, length according to displacement in the route.

    Wise design choice? It has been DONE, but I wouldn't want to. The loads can vary.

    Different amounts of deflection under diversely arranged idlers, OTOH?

    That actually WORKS. Even when, or especially when, it is a very modest delta.

    First laid eys on the OEM use of one idler across two belts?

    "That's just WRONG", sez I. Even if "A" section belts ARE very, very well matched as-manufactured - they'll NEVER be "perfect". And then they age and wear?

    Not hard to improve on that. Why would one NOT?


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Salinas, CA USA
    Posts
    4,056
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    241
    Likes (Received)
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    No.. YOU didn't think it though. The driving and driven sheaves have to match when ganged. Of course
    The sheaves on one pulley have to match *each other* in diameter. Otherwise the speed of the belts would be different and one would slip. Independent idlers wont help in any way. They only help with length differences between the belts.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Webster Groves, MO
    Posts
    7,462
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1899
    Likes (Received)
    3482

    Default

    The operative word here is SHEAVE, not idler. He started by cleaning up the difference in the spindle pulley. BTW, the motor pulley would wear also, but not as much because of the greater contact surface.

    Bill

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    28,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rimcanyon View Post
    They only help with length differences between the belts.
    Glad SOMEBODY finally GOT IT.

    That WAS the major point of migrating to independent idlers!


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    28,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9100 View Post
    The operative word here is SHEAVE, not idler. He started by cleaning up the difference in the spindle pulley. BTW, the motor pulley would wear also, but not as much because of the greater contact surface.

    Bill
    Discussion isn't about that. Those needful steps had been DONE already.

    And the motor pulleys wear easily as much if not MORE on a 10EE. More abrupt slip and more often at a(ny) input power/reversing/braking source, and the diameter was nearly the same - 2500 spindle-RPM MG-era as well.


    It's about idlers.

    "The plan".. is to adopt four-each packaged spring-loaded idlers...
    One each belt, front. One each belt, rear.

    No longer put a single, fixed, idler roller across TWO belts.

    Belts are a "perfect" match, still a gain on noise reduction.

    Belts are not the same age nor a perfect match? Gain more "goodness", yet.

    Capiche?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Nevada
    Posts
    529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    66

    Default

    Interesting reading thoughts about different idler locations to give the two belts different harmonics, may try that at some point.

    To clarify about the pulleys since some of the debate has been misdirected, I wrote:

    "Along the way I borrowed Everettengineer's pulleys and was able to true my two pulleys."

    I was lucky Mark had his lathe down getting the same spindle regrind I got. Mark lent me both his pulleys so I was able to true both my pulleys. The gearbox pulley had noticeably more wear than the spindle pulley. There was a slight snag in that Mark's lathe is a 3000 RPM machine and mine is a 4000 RPM lathe, so with his bigger spindle pulley I had to get a longer belt than what I had. $8 to Amazon.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    28,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bll230 View Post
    Interesting reading thoughts about different idler locations to give the two belts different harmonics, may try that at some point.
    "Per the book" (Morse or Browning, 50 years back), you aren't meant to have an idler on the tension side at all. SOME chronically reversing drive systems actually use a rocker arrangement so "an" idler is applied to the "slack" side and only the slack side, when reversing the mechanism. Not impossible to re-rig a 10EE that way with a dog-legged slider-bar, but it is under low per-belt load for the belts and sheave sizes chosen, so I don't see the gain.

    My personal favourite has always been swing-plate mounting the motor and not having ANY idlers, but that isn't viable for the rather long free span of a 10EE's belts. They benefit from the mid-span excursion limiting for vibration damping, regardless of operating tension level.

    Rigid idlers rather than sprung are generally better if you cannot do "selectable" sprung ones, but "in theory" they should then have very frequent attention as to adjusting tension achieved. As said, my "hot button" is I don't like to see them "ganged" one idler covering more than one belt. "A" section are as good as it gets in legacy Vee belt, but the best belts in the world WILL vary over time, one from another, if not also "already" when brand-new.

    If I ever run out of projects before hours of life, it is sore tempting to re-do the whole shebang with a single, wider, PolyVee belt. I actually have here a set of flat-belt sheaves and near-as-dammit new flat belt off another round-dial part-out. All yah do is groove those and go.

    "Anecdotal evidence" is that flat-belt final-drive 10EE's now and then shed a belt under heavy working, so I'm not planning to go back to THAT.



    BTW .. Not a lot of evidence the typical 10EE's "out of sight, out of mind" idlers got much in the way of regular adjustment, either. Buut.. it's actually a very forgiving final-drive system, even on just one belt and a perishing belt at that.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •