Vintage DD turntables. Are we living dangerously?

Thuchan,
A DD affords possibilities not available to BD and suspended, and when looking at the complete design I think you should also consider other aspects. Energy dissipation is of paramount importance.
J Carr tells us that only a very small percentage of cart mechanical energy is used by the generator. The rest goes into the cart body, headshell, then travels down the arm. Some of it will be absorbed (converted) by the mass of the counterweight and arm structure. Then it goes into the plinth/subchassis or is dissipated to the mounting base.

Just as a plinth can convert or transmit cart mechanical energy, it can transmit motor or acoustic energy to the arm. Doing away with plinth/chassis does not entirely free you from this consideration. A mounting base could potentially do the same.
Slate happens to be good at transmitting vibrations. I suspect its successful use in tables like Saskia, is due to its weight. That table weighs 200 lbs. but I don't know much else about its construction. Mass/weight tends to convert mechanical energy to heat. Which brings us to your 101 pod. Steel is much heavier than aluminum, almost 3X for the same volume, and brass is heavier yet. Lead is even heavier and is very good at slowing vibrations. In the past it was used in tables and speakers in combination with other materials.

Feickert Triple uses two steel(?) bars on each pod connecting them to the platter base. He also has some kind of anti-resonance circuit. Without his testing capability it might be better/easier without the connecting rods? You could plant the pods at locations convenient for different length arms and still use armboards.
Regards,

Fleib, What are "DD motor vibrations"? In any decent DD motor, the platter either is the rotor or is securely bolted to the rotor. The stator surrounds the spindle. Thus the only source of vibration is bearing friction, which can afflict any type drive system. Cogging is also an issue for all types of drive systems. I hate to go into this yet again, but in theory one wants the tonearm and the tt bearing to be subject to the exact same external forces so they can respond in unison, resonate in the same way at the same frequency, etc, which should result in minimal dissociation between them in terms of energy dissipation. Thus the stylus is least disturbed from doing its job of following the groove. I'm convinced that this is the best way to go. I am not upset if others do not agree. This IS only a hobby after all. Not that music is not seriously important to me. Another way to say this: "Do what you want".

Truthfully, Thuchan, I think that the major flaw in the much loved Micro Seiki turntables are those cantilevered tonearm mounts. They are much too flimsy to achieve what I am talking about above. Once again, look at an L07D for comparison.

Sorry, Fleib. After reading some of your most recent posts, I see that we are not that far apart in our thinking. Just a little bit apart.

I wonder where is Halcro to argue the other side?

I use gunmetal micro-seiki arm boards cantilevered off of a 20lb steel weight to hold my tonearm. The bottom of the weight is double stick taped to a wall mounted platform. The turntable is on brass cones which are double stick taped to the can, including a critical cone in the center of the can. The cones sit on brass disks which are double stick taped to the same platform as the tonearm pod. Nothing moves independently from anything else.

The ms gunmetal arm boards are massive and allow me to rotate them in order to set the geometry. I use the Feickert protractor. Everything stays in the correct geometry until I deliberately move it.

I can't envision a use for a connection Btwn TT and armpod. But to each their own.

On the subject of platter mats I just want to re-iterate that I am using a lead mat glued to an Achromat. I thought that Fleib or someone else was about to try the same thing and wonder how that worked for them?