Roll on the 20th June

[sm0ky2]

@all,

Part of Archer's latest statement from the countdown page:

Is he implying, that if you had magnets lined up on the outside arc as follows:
                                  NNNNNNNNNNN
It would be changed to N NN NNN NNNN

Any constructive viewpoints appreciated?

Thanks, Larry

he means in stacks. not next to each other..  First magnet is a single, 2nd magnet is 2-stacked, 3rd is 3 stacked, ect. so it starts off small, and increases as it nears 9 o'clock/3 o'clock

[sm0ky2]

that's a really nice drawing-

but I'm missing a plan for dealing with the centrifugal forces- which are going to move the rods to the outside, away from the optimal postion, between 6:00 and 12:00.  We're going to need magnets nearly all the way around!

given the slow speed of the wheel, and the mass of the sliding rods - i dont think its turning fast enough to lift the rods through gravity.  Also, little deductive reasoning - the rods sticking further out will be pulled more to that side of the wheel - which will be in the 3:00 - 6:00 quadrant. During this time we WANT the rods to be extended. I dont see a need for magnets from 9:00 - 12:00, would just be a waste of magnets, and possibly be  detrimental the momentum of the wheel.

[LarryC]

Exx and SmOky2,

Thanks for your input.
Glad to see that there is a few who are interested in testing the concepts presented.

Thanks, Larry

[kremlin01]

Hello folks, it's getting very near, I sure hope he does it, if only to stuff the 'friggin' knockers.
And who the hell wants to argue about some bad spelling at a time like this?!

'and still they watch, and still their wonder grew'

Regards Bren.

[sm0ky2]

@ sm0key2

I know this was a page or 2 back now but, is the the "roller-coaster" linear bearing four 90' elbows with four 1/4" nipples (and bearings)?  If so, it seems like an easy build.  Not to mention cost effective.

EvilToeKnee

well,. the original idea as propossed by @Exx,  was to use a rod bend into a square. I decided to go with 4x 1-inch rod segments, inserted into 1/2" x1/2" wooden squares - as corner-blocks.
(not sure what you mean by "nipples"?) 
4 standard ball bearings are slid over (one each) of the rods
The large sliding-rods are going to be made of the same 1/2" x 1/2" square wood. Designed to fit perfectly between the 4 bearings.

it is NOT cost effective!!  - at least from a production standpoint.  The materials to build one of these linear-bearings is MUCH GREATER cost than the materials to build an industry standard linear bearing.
HOWEVER - the RETAIL PRICE of linear bearings is MORE than what i paid to construct these things...
Still trying to wrap my mind around that one.......
AND - these im building are more efficient (less friction).  So, for a builder using off-the-shelf products, this can be more cost effective. However, if we were mass producing these wheels in a factory - It would be very expensive in comparison to buying industry standard linear bearings in bulk.

Hope that didnt come across too confusing.... 

ALSO - i must note that this type of "caged bearing" handles stress a lot better, in all directions.
Some of you guys may have noticed that the Demo bearing in my video did not slow down at all as i rotated the square-rod.   The actuall function of the bearing will be the inverse of what i show in the video,
the bearing will mount to the wheel, and the rod slides through it, but my table-top tests show that the rod still slides very freeley even under some serious rotational-torque.  Complete side-effect, but it just so happens to come in handy, if the weight-extensions imbalance the rod to 1 side, or the magnetic wall tries to make the rod twist. Both of these factors have become a problem in a few replications.
In this type of bearing, a great deal of that misdirected torque, is converted into linear motion.
And to imagine , this wonderful bearing design was just handed to me by a guy that's almost as stoned as I am....  who would have thought?



[Edit]: If anyone else is going to make these bearings - PLAND AHEAD!! try to get a standard size inner diameter of your bearings, like 1/4", because 1/4" rods are easy to find.

on the contrary my bearings are 7/32 on half and some unknown metric value on the other half.
using 7/32 brass rod and some good o'l ghetto engineering to fit the bearings to the rod.. it works, but in hindsight, i could have made this a LOT easier on myself....

its a serious investment in parts too (not to mention labor),
just to make 2 roller-coaster bearings for each rod x 3 rods uses 24 ball-bearings. pricewise it came to about half the cost of 6 high-quality industry linear bearings, which dont work as well.
  I;m kinda crazy though, and this seemed like one of those ideas i just HAD TO TRY!! glad i gave it a serious look, i dont understand why these aren't used in more places than amusement parks and conveyor-systems. (and a company that makes Ski-Lifts, that use these on the carts, for when they round the turn at each end. )