Thread Tools
Apr 19, 2013, 06:43 AM
Jack
jackerbes's Avatar
OK, I think I get it now.

But you also have to keep track of the fact that it appears that the motors that work best are those that have the mass of the camera located so as to be balanced on the gimbal. When it is that way there is less need for torque to turn the mass and, I assume, hold it in position again the forces created by the movements of the airframe, air pressure, and other external forces.

Jack
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Apr 25, 2013, 04:17 AM
Registered User
so can this motor carry the canon mark2? or similar?
May 19, 2013, 12:01 AM
Registered User
This is an old thread, but I'm replying anyway because I've got a bit of experience with this motor, and others, and a DSLR sized gimbal. I've modified one of the older cinestar 3 axis gimbals for brushless drive. I'm using one of these (4114) to drive the yaw axis, because there's a ton of inertia to move when panning. For either of the other two axes this would be total overkill (rctimer 5010s are working fine for these).

Brushless gimbals are more about finesse than about raw power. Take your time, balance the gimbal carefully, and then for the most part all the motors have to do is make something *not* move. In a properly set up gimbal there is less load on the motors than you think.

Steve
May 19, 2013, 03:35 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegalle
This is an old thread, but I'm replying anyway because I've got a bit of experience with this motor, and others, and a DSLR sized gimbal. I've modified one of the older cinestar 3 axis gimbals for brushless drive. I'm using one of these (4114) to drive the yaw axis, because there's a ton of inertia to move when panning. For either of the other two axes this would be total overkill (rctimer 5010s are working fine for these).

Brushless gimbals are more about finesse than about raw power. Take your time, balance the gimbal carefully, and then for the most part all the motors have to do is make something *not* move. In a properly set up gimbal there is less load on the motors than you think.

Steve
Yes quite right. People often forget or don't realise that (apart from when manually changing pitch or yaw) the camera isn't moving at all, it's the airframe that is moving about. In fact if your gimbal is perfectly balanced and the bearings are well aligned with minimal resistance it almost works without being turned on. Of course when the copter is moving then an amount of air resistance, prop wash and inertia come into play, but the forces aren't huge.
May 20, 2013, 05:54 PM
Registered User
You guys are talking for when the camera is perfectly balanced. But what if you want the camera to be pointing down for a shot? You need to have a motor that can hold the load don't you?

I think that's why this motor was made.
May 20, 2013, 07:11 PM
checkout my Blog
otlski's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalios
You guys are talking for when the camera is perfectly balanced. But what if you want the camera to be pointing down for a shot? You need to have a motor that can hold the load don't you?

I think that's why this motor was made.
No. Balanced means that the CG of each axis is coincident with its own pivot (axle). This means the camera assembly is in balance no matter which direction the camera is gazing.

On a separate note. Torque is not expressed in Kg. Rather Kg-meters or g-cm, or lb-in are appropriate units. The seller listing Kg as "torque" is pretty meaningless.

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/member.php?u=195984

Dan
May 21, 2013, 04:25 AM
Professional UAV Services
Redemptioner's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegalle
This is an old thread, but I'm replying anyway because I've got a bit of experience with this motor, and others, and a DSLR sized gimbal. I've modified one of the older cinestar 3 axis gimbals for brushless drive. I'm using one of these (4114) to drive the yaw axis, because there's a ton of inertia to move when panning. For either of the other two axes this would be total overkill (rctimer 5010s are working fine for these).

Brushless gimbals are more about finesse than about raw power. Take your time, balance the gimbal carefully, and then for the most part all the motors have to do is make something *not* move. In a properly set up gimbal there is less load on the motors than you think.

Steve

Steve kinda hit the nail on the head, clearly the likes of ABLomas has never actually setup a professional setup or used any decent weight in glass on a camera slung under a multirotor.

Leaving the wind resistance out of it...

Yes setting up a gimbal with the camera setup perfectly on the center of all three access means there is little to no load on the motors to move the gimbal/camera around. This is all good while nothing is in motion (doing the stupid static crazy dance in front of the mirror with the gimbal setup), the second you put some motion/speed into things then you start to load up the various axis depending on what you are doing.

Good old inertia adds up pretty quickly and the heavier the camera & lens is the higher the load when you change direction. The weight over the length of the lens is not evenly distributed either so this means the amount of inertia will be greater at the heavier parts inside the lens meaning you technically end up moving the CG (I find it especially in a decent pan when at speed). Now this is not so bad if you are trying to keep the camera in place and move the multirotor in small slow movements around it, but if you want to keep a decent amount of movement from the multirotor out of the footage while changing where the camera is pointing WAMO, a tone of force is needed from the motors to keep everything doing what you want it to do.

If this was not the case ask yourself why we need anything other than a tiny little motor on each axis??

If you are going to sling a couple of KG's in camera and glass then you need the motors to be of a decent torque to overcome the weight during directional changes. There are some people in the professional industry trying to get multiple motors to work in sync together to deal with these higher loads.

Suffice to say if you use something like the RCTimer 5010 motors (as suggested above) on 1.5kg or more of DSLR on something like a Cinestar gimbal they will not generate enough torque to deal with change in direction on a multicopter if it is moving over about 15km/hr.
May 21, 2013, 09:06 AM
Registered User
rafkil's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegalle
This is an old thread, but I'm replying anyway because I've got a bit of experience with this motor, and others, and a DSLR sized gimbal. I've modified one of the older cinestar 3 axis gimbals for brushless drive. I'm using one of these (4114) to drive the yaw axis, because there's a ton of inertia to move when panning. For either of the other two axes this would be total overkill (rctimer 5010s are working fine for these).

Brushless gimbals are more about finesse than about raw power. Take your time, balance the gimbal carefully, and then for the most part all the motors have to do is make something *not* move. In a properly set up gimbal there is less load on the motors than you think.

Steve
please some pics of yours modified cinestar
Jun 07, 2013, 09:02 AM
Registered User
So who has used this motors with canon MK2 7D or similar?
Jun 10, 2013, 11:41 AM
Registered User
michel pet's Avatar
i have test a gimbal with the canon7d and the 5010 motor.
camera is 1.6 kilo.
it works but its not 100% only with slow movement.
i order the 4114 motors and will test this new setup.



this is the gimbal i design. and cnc made.
Jun 18, 2013, 05:08 AM
Registered User
Hi Michel,
have you something news about the new motors? i have made one like yourk with 5010 and i have some problem in a roll motor mechanics...please help me.byeee
Jun 20, 2013, 01:42 PM
Registered User
Hey Steve,

Did you keep the gearing when you put on the brushless motors? or did you make it direct drive


Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegalle
This is an old thread, but I'm replying anyway because I've got a bit of experience with this motor, and others, and a DSLR sized gimbal. I've modified one of the older cinestar 3 axis gimbals for brushless drive. I'm using one of these (4114) to drive the yaw axis, because there's a ton of inertia to move when panning. For either of the other two axes this would be total overkill (rctimer 5010s are working fine for these).

Brushless gimbals are more about finesse than about raw power. Take your time, balance the gimbal carefully, and then for the most part all the motors have to do is make something *not* move. In a properly set up gimbal there is less load on the motors than you think.

Steve
Jun 23, 2013, 08:54 AM
Registered User
michel pet's Avatar








i have problems tune the gimbal with the roll the nick is ok and strong.
the 3 axis comes later i need material to build the rest of the gimbal.
Jul 03, 2013, 08:22 AM
Registered User
Are the 4114 actually stronger than the 5010? Not sure which i should buy.....
Jul 06, 2013, 08:14 AM
Registered User
uszy19922's Avatar
I am wondering which motors buy too. I am planning to build 3-axis gimbal for nex and 5d camera.
Which are better for this setup 5010 or 4114?
Thank's from advance.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Banggood's security cameras, too good to be true? Koo FPV Talk 6 Feb 20, 2013 08:06 AM
Discussion Is the RCTiger MT3506 motor too good to be true? rogue277 Multirotor Drone Talk 20 Feb 01, 2012 07:25 AM
Discussion Motor/Prop too good to be True ? Chophop Power Systems 28 Apr 14, 2009 04:11 AM
gws's new brushless, too good to be true? DeaninMilwaukee Power Systems 18 Dec 01, 2005 10:22 PM
df-package,too good too be true! esb-help Aircraft - Fuel - Airplanes (FS/W) 1 May 21, 2005 08:14 AM