Tables That Feature Bearing Friction

Ghosts of the past.........that particular unit is from 1993.
The base plates are corian on dural with polyurethane layer.
80% of the technical periphery is inside the integrated "stands" of turntable and motor unit (including active air suspension, surge tanks, automatic leveling.
Dimensions were 4 feet wide x 2.2 feet deep and 4 feet high. Total weight approx. 580 lbs.
Every wife's nightmare.
The motor unit does feature selective air supply for up to 3 airborne tangential tonearms (adjustable pressure and amount of air - these were the days of Air Tangent and ET 2 back then.....), adustable air supply for active suspension and radial / lateral air-bearing. All speeds 33, 45 and 78 are precisely tuneable.
And this was 1993........

Dear Dertonarm,
My compliments.
Being the son of an architect has certainly paid off with a design that even the Bauhaus would be proud of?......but I know that only the laws of physics determined its appearance? :-)

The string "belt" on the mammoth turntable in the photo is WAY too long for optimum control of platter rotation, even if the string has no stretch at all, but I guess the inertia of the humongous platter mass compensates for this problem to a degree. I am also guessing that the very long distance between motor and platter is an exteme attempt to isolate the platter from motor vibration, a la the Verdier on a grand scale. Nevertheless, it is a "compromise". IMO, it is impossible to avoid all compromises in any design and in any other human endeavor. Wherever there is a choice between two options that each has its own justification, there will have to be a "compromise" with respect to some feature of the desired outcome of the project. God help the perfectionist.

Dear Lewm, we can not achieve perfection - we can only try. The long string is no compromise at all. Yes, the string has no stretch at all (a special kevlar derivate). The point is not control of the platter rotation. The point was to prevent the platter from loosing any speed. Control is futile. The platter must be stablized by inertia. Control and correction in speed will always result in a constant error-correction-loop. Thus creating instability and a constant change in speed. I think this is a clear fact - everybody into technical affairs and physics will agree in this after giving it enough thought. The inertia of the rotation platter is so stable - you can't even dream getting that stability with any direct controlled (= speed control both positive AND negative by the motor via direct coupling ) platter (dd, idler or belt drive).
I certainly do not want to start any philosophical disscusion here, I just tried to illustrate the point that all too often we go for a compromise WAY TOO EARLY and WAY TOO EASY.
Compromise in our culture is a positive term - because it helps to accept unpleasant facts and things the way they are.
For me compromise is another word for surrender.
I think we should not accept surrender (=compromise) too early - without trying our very best.

Dear Halcro, thank you very much.
To speak in the words of an era in architecture we both do favour: .....form follows function..... ;-))