 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi all
Does anybody have an idea, where I can get a planetary gear-set that has the
SAME SIZE of gears in the centre AND outer rim??
Like in the image
In most cases, the gears have DIFFERENT sizes like here:
http://www.landyzone.co.uk/lz/members/kernowdragon-albums-odds-n-sods-picture2164-scan0001.jpg
Any idea welcome!
Best rgds,
Holger
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'planet_gears.png' (38 KB)
Preview of image 'planet_gears.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/30/2011 19:26, H. Karsten wrote:
> Does anybody have an idea, where I can get a planetary gear-set that has the
> SAME SIZE of gears in the centre AND outer rim??
Wouldn't that be the same as having no gears at all? I don't think people
would make that for real. They'd just use race bearings.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It baffles me that in this day and age, people still use images with
dithering. I mean, how long have the display technologies and file
formats for true 24-bit colour been around?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Wouldn't that be the same as having no gears at all? I don't think people
> would make that for real. They'd just use race bearings.
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
> "Coding without comments is like
> driving without turn signals."
In normal cases, I would fully agree, but actually, I like to use the thing for
a complete different thing. What I need is actually just the mechanical
behaviour of a movement, coming from gears with all the same size.
I could build this thing, using all the same gears on my on, but heaving a
planetary gear-set would make everything much easier.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> It baffles me that in this day and age, people still use images with
> dithering. I mean, how long have the display technologies and file
> formats for true 24-bit colour been around?
When I'm saving images not to show beauty but content, I always try to make them
small.
The same image, I've already sent by e-mail. With less then 40K I'm not doing
any harm to someone ;)
And as long as the content is transported, I'm not increasing the size, the
colours, or the quality - all this will not increase the content at all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/07/2011 10:12 PM, H. Karsten wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> It baffles me that in this day and age, people still use images with
>> dithering. I mean, how long have the display technologies and file
>> formats for true 24-bit colour been around?
>
> When I'm saving images not to show beauty but content, I always try to make them
> small.
You realise that /not/ dithering it down to 256 colours would probably
make the file drastically /smaller/, right?
Anyway, I didn't mean to rant at you particularly. But I've noticed a
lot of so-called "professional software" still has icons and things in
256 or even 16 colours. For no apparent reason.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 01/07/2011 10:12 PM, H. Karsten wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> It baffles me that in this day and age, people still use images with
>>> dithering. I mean, how long have the display technologies and file
>>> formats for true 24-bit colour been around?
At least 1994, common by 1997.
>>
>> When I'm saving images not to show beauty but content, I always try to
>> make them
>> small.
>
> You realise that /not/ dithering it down to 256 colours would probably
> make the file drastically /smaller/, right?
Without dithering and using a custom optimisez palete, you need white, 2
blues, red, red-green mix, black and 2 grays, the rest can be used for
the greens (leaving 248 shades of green to chose from...).
The current image only use 76 colours.
>
>
My experience on that mather:
I started with a true colours JPG file about 16K.
I converted it as GIF using dithering and optimised palete. The result
was rather poor, and the file size jumped to around 150K! Almost the
same as the 24 bits BMP version...
Yeah! Right, dithering plays havok on compression. It introduce
non-compressible noise, most of it is essentialy random.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> I started with a true colours JPG file about 16K.
> I converted it as GIF using dithering and optimised palete. The result
> was rather poor, and the file size jumped to around 150K! Almost the
> same as the 24 bits BMP version...
> Yeah! Right, dithering plays havok on compression. It introduce
> non-compressible noise, most of it is essentialy random.
Converting from JPEG to GIF (or PNG) also has the drawback that JPEG
artifacts will worsen the compression (compared to the original).
When I want to, for example, show a screenshot of my desktop or some
program to someone (and assuming there aren't very many colors overall),
I always convert the screenshot to a 256-color PNG undithered (and then
optimize the PNG using one of several PNG optimizers out there). It usually
gives by far the best compression for a lossless snapshot (well, at least
if 256 colors is enough to represent your screen or the program you are
taking the snapshot of).
Avoiding the dithering is, indeed, a very crucial step in this process.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/07/2011 12:26 PM, H. Karsten wrote:
> Hi all
> Does anybody have an idea, where I can get a planetary gear-set that has the
> SAME SIZE of gears in the centre AND outer rim??
>
Not real, not equal sized and not having the planetary ring gear.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'gearb01.png' (156 KB)
Preview of image 'gearb01.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
