Roll on the 20th June

[capthook]

@Everyone,
    I was sat here just vegetating in front of the box, ( as you do ( or is it just me  )) when I had a thought, what if you combine the 2 tracks smot/tri-gate don't know if this has already been tried but I just give it a quick play with ( very quick and nothing concerate yet ) and it looks good. tried a few configs but no joy until hit upon a leadin using a archiSMOT of about the same length as a 3 tri-gate array with the first tri-gate in the array shorted with a mag from point to point and whamo ( is that a word  ). There would appear to be no wall entering the track at all and It still appeared I got the kick out. I will need to some better testing as I done this in very quick fashion. But if this is the case then kinhell surly that will become a true one way gate. I hope Rusty will put some thought into this. If this is old news then please forgive me as I am new to all this. 

edit: I should also have made it clear that the the roller mag got pulled onto the track then spit out the other side. 

hey gwhy - have you done any more testing/configurations of this idea? 
Any more pics? (other than this one: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg112599.html#msg112599)
Results?  Modifications? etc..

[shakman]

"Blah blah blah... I'm smarter than you... Blah blah blah... You're just a dumb kid that can't spell... Blah blah blah"

When are you going to stop trying to prove yourself to an audience that just doesn't give a shit and get over this?

Only people that try this desperatly to prove their worth to a bunch of relative strangers really have nothing going for them in the real world.

Fine, have your petty victory. I'm wrong. I suck at spelling, I dont know your work hours or drinking limits, and ramps and pulleys double as batteries. You can't seem to handle the idea that since I've been right on pretty much everything else, I just might be right about AQs soon failure (again). Therefore, you must cling to every little flaw you can find in hopes that I may be wrong again.

Now please, shut the fuck up.

-PurePower

@PP

Do you even read anyone's posts before replying? Forget spelling. Try reading mate. I didn't even refer to your spelling in my last post.

I'm not here for the audience. I am making this public because we privately called a truce long ago and you admitted you were wrong about something, then you came out and publicly attacked me not even 24 hours later. Now over a week later and you're still reading what you want and how you want. Are you dyslexic?

So no, I won't let you have the last word. This has nothing to do with Archer Quinn. It has to do with you being a moron. You will (hopefully) grow out of it one day, I'm just trying to help that day move closer.

I see you have figured out that it's impossible to be wrong when you don't actually answer anyone's questions. Bravo, you might make it to manager level at McDonald's one day. We have university interns at work (just like you) wanting to become traders - they do grab my coffees and pick up my dinner. I'm sure I can free a seat up for you if you like. Don't get so full of yourself because you were elected to work at a Fortune 500 company, you are still at bitch level. Get over yourself.

I had my "victory" over a week ago, but unfortunately I've been unable to reach my ultimate goal of knocking down your smug level. Alas, I usually have much more success with this in person.

Anyway, I will leave it there. Anyone who actually bothers to read (i.e. not you) and sees our posts chronologically will be able to see clearly what a bafoon you really are. I'm sure your employer is already saying this behind your back.

shakman

[capthook]

Next, what you said about the switch. If what Archer is writing is indicative of his latest wheel, he doesn't even have to have the steel touching, just within 10mm. This is huge.

Thanks for that info.  So depending on the strength of the field needed transfered, a "contact-less" switch could work.  I agree - huge...
The design/shape/strength/airgap etc. of the components would still be important.

And about this (archers) statement:

"So if there is no issue of a sticking point at the contact, no matter how small it was anyway, as you can imagine there is no field drag or wall from that small point of the field."

There should still be some field drag/wall applied in this setup - just smaller?  And even with an airgap - you will still have a (smaller) "sticking point" - just not at the (no longer there) contact point - but somewhere in space. (and a smaller "charge" transfer)
- - -
P.S. On further thinking - the airgap vs. contact design seems relative.
Airgap = smaller sticking point/wall/drag  =  smaller charge transfer
Contact= larger sticking point/wall/drag = larger charge transfer

(...with both solutions being far less than without the 'switch'.)
The airgap solution would seem practical only if you need a very small charge transfer?

PPS:  having tapered contact points makes breaking it easier.  And even add in a 'sideways' sliding motion into the mix rather than straight up and away....(like you have to do to get 2 strong magnets apart)

[ramset]

SOOO... what time is it in Australia? Chet

[Evg]

Wednesday 11:10am