Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vipersan" data-source="post: 846635" data-attributes="member: 325666">Huevos commented that the QARL jack counts less pulses per inch ..and I'm wondering why they felt the need to do this ..Obviously you would have less accurate (fine) control of the position on of the dish on the arc ..and yet it's thinner less heavy duty cousin isn't limited in this way..I'm also wondering if a more accurate count can be re-introduced to the QARL..after all ..it's just a rotating magnate and a reed switch..I haven't looked at the practicalities as yet ..but put simply a second reed switch diametrically positioned to the original switch and wired in parallel with it ..would simply count 2 pulses for every previous single pulse...per magnate revolution.Has anyone ever tried this ..The idea may not be practical as I haven't looked in the motor case as yet ..It's raining atm ..Or indeed if there is a reason related to gearing and possibly braking why this wouldn't be practical.Anyone?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vipersan, post: 846635, member: 325666"] Huevos commented that the QARL jack counts less pulses per inch ..and I'm wondering why they felt the need to do this .. Obviously you would have less accurate (fine) control of the position on of the dish on the arc ..and yet it's thinner less heavy duty cousin isn't limited in this way.. I'm also wondering if a more accurate count can be re-introduced to the QARL.. after all ..it's just a rotating magnate and a reed switch.. I haven't looked at the practicalities as yet ..but put simply a second reed switch diametrically positioned to the original switch and wired in parallel with it ..would simply count 2 pulses for every previous single pulse...per magnate revolution. Has anyone ever tried this .. The idea may not be practical as I haven't looked in the motor case as yet .. It's raining atm .. Or indeed if there is a reason related to gearing and possibly braking why this wouldn't be practical. Anyone? [/QUOTE]

Verification