There's one thing that's been bugging me since the start of the gear-based design. I'm not sure we can fix it without breaking the simplicity of the math.
The two pairs of mounts have an asymmetric range of motion. The outer bolts get much closer together than the inner bolts. The inner bolts get much further apart than the outer bolts. Unless my physics are horrendously wrong, what this works out to, in practice, is that you can exert much more torque near the closed position of the arm than you can at the open position.
What I would suggest is rotating the bolts so that they are spaced equally at 90deg. It will give a much more consistent torque curve. This will put the two sets of pulley bolts at a 45 degree angle from the arm's baseline. It might take a bit of a redesign to accomodate the outer bolt, which will need to be mounted in what is now empty space.
I'll have to do the math (I'll take a crack at that when I'm off work in a few hours), but I think it may be more complex. Of course, a second look at it may reveal that the math is identical. We shall see.
The two pairs of mounts have an asymmetric range of motion. The outer bolts get much closer together than the inner bolts. The inner bolts get much further apart than the outer bolts. Unless my physics are horrendously wrong, what this works out to, in practice, is that you can exert much more torque near the closed position of the arm than you can at the open position.
What I would suggest is rotating the bolts so that they are spaced equally at 90deg. It will give a much more consistent torque curve. This will put the two sets of pulley bolts at a 45 degree angle from the arm's baseline. It might take a bit of a redesign to accomodate the outer bolt, which will need to be mounted in what is now empty space.
I'll have to do the math (I'll take a crack at that when I'm off work in a few hours), but I think it may be more complex. Of course, a second look at it may reveal that the math is identical. We shall see.