Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

Exx
So we can have a group Hug now??

Ummmm...no.
Don't you know anything about communicable diseases?

{Cept Wilby, He does that "reach around" thing [something about his Religion?}!=}

I rest my case.

Did You look at the Magnetman thread ?

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10840.msg296849#new

I believe its another means to the same end?
Gravity Spinning and "repulsion" !!
Chet

Actually I did a while ago but within the 1st page I found:

Hi, Its me Tom,

I removed all device videos because things were rapidly changing for  the better. 
<snip>
My model has great speed and torque and can be classified as a motor rather than a toy.  I plan to show all "AFTER A PATENT IS GRANTED"
In event any corporation is interested please contact me with an open wallet. Cash first (in a police station) then you get to see it and play with it.  Keeps everyone honest.
Tom

....which I've seen too many times before to give it much time or concern.

If it's real we'll know when he gets his patent. Until then it has the same status as Crooker's SOG for better or worst.

[sm0ky2]

@ exx

credit for the invention/concept is not mine to take.
After what i felt to be an adequate research attempt, the only thing close to this device i found in history was something in Da Vincci's notebooks, using springs instead of magnets.

Unlike the hair-dryer contraption, the wheel appears to be an Archer original, and unless otherwise demonstrated, the credit should go to him.

As far as the mechanics / physics, proof of concept, and the whole new area of technology this will open the door to, this has been a collaborative effort on the part of many people. I dont claim any credit there either.

If i can take credit for anything, it would be in pointing out that the importance of what this means,  goes far beyond the toy that represents it...

[exxcomm0n]

@ exx

credit for the invention/concept is not mine to take.
After what i felt to be an adequate research attempt, the only thing close to this device i found in history was something in Da Vincci's notebooks, using springs instead of magnets.
If i can take credit for anything, it would be in pointing out that the importance of what this means,  goes far beyond the toy that represents it...

Sounds a bit like the protestations I made when the EB nomenclature started to be bandied about, and look what those got me.

Truth be told I'm gonna be referring to the wheel as the "SR" (Smok[y] Ring) instead of the "SOG" (solistically originated gimmick) from now on.

Say, I gots some posts (actually a bunch) that's gonna be proposing some ideas for/about the SR and I'd like to ask your comment of/on them. I'll be doing some experimentation of them when I figure how to ghetto-fab them into a decent representation.

Lemme know man

[exxcomm0n]

As was threatened earlier, here is the post w/ actual wheel content, which I will no longer refer to as the "SOG", but instead as the "SR" (acronym for
Smoke(y) Ring).
I started this post much earlier as it would seem from my previous posts, but a browser crash ate my previous content to post and I haven't felt like redoing it until now.

I have decided if I'm going to be the rabid poster I and others have proved to be of late, I'd post some actual wheel content/questions/observations.

So, instead of the arm chair theorizing I usually do, I'm thinking about actually doing a build (toy scale) to see if any of my thoughts/suggestions having to do with the wheel have any basis.

(A) To do this, I'll be stealing concepts from a number of OU posters namely:

1.) The mondrasek flipper switch dealy - Remember this one? It started on this thread and then moved to a new thread which enjoyed popularity for a good bit.

2.) The UCC/DEK coil (woopy) - For those not familiar, this was a thread about using a "U" shaped coil for drive of an electrical motor ultralight. I'm wondering if the advantages and gains found over a "normal" coil for motor operation will also show up when used for electrical generation.


(B) The ideas I'd like to try, or have bandied about before are:

1.) The solid axle pivoting on it's ends - this removes (most) of the rod offset issues having to do with the "spindle on a post" axle design, or maybe just embedding a bearing in the wheel faces (more below) and using the bearing assembly to hold the wheel faces together.

2.) Changing the shape/type of the array and perhaps introducing mechanics - Most have accepted the arc shape of the array and tried to influence the magnetic attract/repel by effecting the output of the array, but have not considered leaving the array alone and using a variety of shapes and/or mechanics
to achieve the 7 to 1 rod lift action.
Replacing PM (permanent magnet) 1:00 and/or 7:00 o'clock array(s) with EM (electromagnetic) and using them to try to negate the "wall"?
Leave the array alone and replacing the rod end magnets with electromagnets?
Use a lever to "swing" the array and remove the wall while retaining the array effect?
Replace the arrays with wheel mounted rod effecting solenoid assemblies?
The issue with these are having the SR generate enough electricity to energize these approaches and still produce surplus electricity so it's a OU machine and not just an interesting kinetic sculpture.

3.) The "2 faced wheel" - While this may be seen as another dig @ Crooker, my actual meaning is to build 2 wheel faces with the rods, and mechanics for them  sandwiched between the twin wheel faces. Twice the support, twice the rotating mass, and much more of a PITA to tune or repair/change (maybe...this will be addressed later).

4.) Refining the "EB" design - I'll defer to Smoky as being the one to take this from pipe dream to product, all I did was day dream about roller coasters. But as I've kept revisiting that dream on and off over time and might have something that will take it from 4 bearings per assembly to 2 bearings per assembly while still retaining its rod torsion ability.

5.) Use the wheel as the electrical generator instead of transferring its output to an external generator using a belt (I think this is how Crooker said his was built way back when)-
In a perfect world the concept has rod magnets being used as leveraged weights to keep the wheel imbalanced, and in doing so has magnets that are moving all the time on at least one plane. Why not use those moving magnets as that's what a PM generator does? I know that Lenz will have an effect and it has to be less than the leveraged weight action, but why transfer that extra energy (if available) using a lossy transfer method and having to account for that too?
I've always thought that the closer generation is to the action that causes it, the less action is lost from transfer.

So many ideas, so little chance of anyone reading any of them due to a huge monster post. I'll break them down into a post per stolen/original idea above to facilitate easier reading and debate of them.

[exxcomm0n]

A -1.) The mondrasek flipper switch dealy - Remember this one? It started on this thread and then moved to a new thread which enjoyed popularity for a good bit.

This was an interesting diversion and brought the introduction of new mechanics into the attract/repel lift effect.

A download of the idea from the original author is here:

Gravity_Motor.zip
[ http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=97 ]

...and the thread is here:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5141.0

When you look at those docs you'll see that the author removed the rods and was using magnets captive with a certain range of motion to produce the imbalance effect. It's a novel idea and does have redeeming qualities, but I still like the inclusion of the rod as its that much more weight imbalance when the repel/attract effect occurs at 1:00 or 7:00, and it uses gravity to turn the switch "off".
If you use the rod/switch, you can get away with using just the 7:00 or the 1:00 array to get the lifting effect.
I mean like using an electromagnet exactly at 6:30 and 12:30 to lift the rod and keeping it there with the switch and not using a solid array stretching from 6:45 to 7:45 repel and one 12:45 to 2:00 attract to do so.

Another feature that I'm thinking about but not looked that far into is perhaps the 7:00 to 1:00 action could use the flipper as the stop of the rod lift effect by launching the rod past the point of switch lock and letting gravity set the switch so there is no direct impact during the upward movement with an EB or other stop limiting that upward movement. Instead there is a small impact after the rod reaches maximum lift and then uses gravity to set the switch as the rod falls from maximum lift.

This would be cool since the rod travels past the stop point to set the switch, you get that much more leverage at the lifting for a moment before setting the switch and after 3:00 the rod is pulled to it's maximum allowable travel by gravity opening the switch.
There will still be stops to keep the rod from falling out, but they won't have to endure the violent lift action that may have torn Smoky's runner apart.

About as clear as mud, eh?

Anyway, check out the pic to see if the idea translates better visually than textually.
You'll see that it is not a direct theft of the mondrasek mass switch, but the base is there and although I haven't done any other research into it, I wouldn't be surprised that it could be addressed as "prior art" from some previously granted patent if that were done.

Right now it's the "flipper dealy".