I have recently purchased plans for the Electrical pendulum clock and Silent desk clock - so I am going to be busy making clocks ...
Having a background in electronics, I think I could make some improvements on the pendulum drive circuit.
Although the Chinese modules can no doubt be persuaded to work - my impression is that they could likely prove to be somewhat temperamental.
Furthermore, they are likely to be very wasteful of power.
The battery voltage varies considerably over the life of a battery
Considering a single battery, its voltage would vary from around 1.5v down to 0.8v or so as it becomes fully discharged.
So if the circuit is to work when the battery voltage is 0.8v, then it follows that 2x power is being wasted when the battery is new.
The Chinese module could, in any event, be overdriving the electromagnetic coil (excessive current and/ or pulse duration?) - so probably at least a 5x saving in power, i.e., a 5x improvement in battery life, is practicable.
Additionally, if a boost converter is added, the new circuit could be powered from whatever voltage may be preferred.
The number and type of batteries would be selected based on the desired operating life between battery replacements.
A new design will involve a particular size of coil, PCB and battery holder which will require changes to the base part of the clock.
Is it possible to provide a step file for that base part?
----
Have you any thoughts as to the feasibility of producing a wall-mounting version of this Electrical pendulum clock?
Best Regards,
Douglas
Subject: Coup Perdu
Hi Steve,
Congratulations on finishing your new design!
Your YouTube video discusses the pros and cons of the Coup Perdu and Graham deadbeat alternative mechanisms and I understand that either could be used for this clock (despite it being called "Coup Perdu") which involves usage of the small motor for rewinding. Maybe the alternative variant is best referred to as the "motorised Graham" or something ...?!
Do the plans for the Coup Perdu include for both alternatives?
Based on your comments and, in particular, that the running is quieter, I should favour construction using the Graham deadbeat mechanism.
I already bought plans for the EM pendulum clock and am wondering whether or not to (also?) construct that earlier design of clock.
Does the EM pendulum clock use the same Graham deadbeat mechanism as you are talking about in relation to the Coup Perdu clock design?
Or has a better variant of the Graham deadbeat mechanism been developed since your EM pendulum clock design?
There has been some mention of quirkiness regarding the EM pendulum clock and I noticed in a video that it sometimes seemed to miss a beat.
Does the quirkiness arise from some aspect inherent in the (earlier design of?) Graham deadbeat mechanism (or whatever the mechanism used in the EM clock design is properly called for)/ 3D printed gear construction
or is the issue relating to the electromagnetic kicking aspect?
I appreciate that for any 3D printed clock there is a need for careful adjustments and some fine tuning.
My question is really which should be considered as being the inherently most robust design.
Usage of the small motor for rewinding is an interesting idea.
However, I consider that the electromagnetic kicking approach used in the earlier design also has potential as a means to power such 3D printed clocks.
As I have posted in the EM clock thread, I have some ideas for an improved EM kicking circuit which has the potential to provide more accurate control of amplitude and timing of the EM pulses, together with reduced power consumption.
I shall add to that posting today with some new ideas.
Douglas
P.S. Probably an extra forum category is required for the Coup Perdu?