Roll on the 20th June

[Evg]

Is Archer in the running for the US$ 5000.00 overunity prize from this site, if he delivers this week?

[Mark69]

Hey Batman is doin in BATSTYLE   

[sm0ky2]

@ Exx,  im in the process of building 2 prototype linear-bearings, and will post a test video

given some thought to splitting the rods, while this doesnt change the principle functioning of the device, it does get around a least 4 obstacles, that others - self included - have run into..

this would mean one bearing per rod, and im not sure if it could hold up to that stress.
My original design has a bearing on each end of the rod, about 2/3s out from the center,
i'm leaning towards just stacking them like originally planned, my only concern is the stress on that outermost bearing mounts. may need reinforcement brackets or something, we'll see..


@ Graham - If you remember, i showed how your Tri-force is just an amplified version of Johnson's linear motor - one that did NOT require re-shapen magnets.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=o6F9I5OiSTE

the reshaping was to get passed the "wall" in a rotational version of the motor.
The EXACT same problem myself, clanzer, and several others encounters when we tried to loop the Tri-Force Gates.

Don't be so quick to dismiss Howard Johnson's work.

[purepower]

Sure enough! Archer, the suspense is killing some of us! I hope the nay sayers aren't pissing in their pants ....

My pants are still dry, guess I dont believe in magic...

JOHN you need to chill with the coolaid   pure power this isn't about you     I don't know if any of you have been in a place where you had to hire a man on a big prodject     to do some thing important to that prodject    I have    on the biggest prodjects in the world    and ARCHER rings true   Chet

Funny, I work for the biggest company that handles the biggest projects in the world and I dont recognize your name... Then again, we have over 40,000 employees worldwide. What location do you work at and in what department? Ill look you up. Oh, and what projects might these be?

(in case you were wondering, Im calling your bluff. I highly doubt your claim, given your illogical reasoning, poor spelling, and utter lack of punctuation. How can you hire someone for the biggest projects in the world if you cant spell "someone" or "project?")


@ Exx

[(pressure)/(specific weight) + height + (velocity)/(2*gravity)]₁ = [(pressure)/(specific weight) + height + (velocity)/(2*gravity)]₂ + Losses

pressure - in kPa
specific weight - 9810 N/m³
velocity - in m/s
height - in m
gravity - 9.81 m/s²

If the fluid in position 1 and 2 are both subject to atmospheric pressure (which they probably are), the pressure/spec weight term drops out because it is the same on both sides.

For position 1, use the top surface of the water in your container. Here the velocity is 0, so that term drops out also.

If you also choose to use this as the point for measuring the height, then height1 is 0 also.

For those three instances, the entire left side is 0, leaving you with (ignore losses):

0 = [height + (velocity)/(2*gravity)]₂

As you can see, if position 2 (exit of the tube) is below (negative height) the top surface of the water in the container (position 1), we will have a positive velocity (water comes out the tube).

If position 2 (exit) is above (positive height) the top surface of the water (position 1), we have negative velocity (water travels back through the tube).

Try it out and see. It should be pretty easy. Get a container of water and a hose. Take the end not in the water below the free surface and suck the water through to get it started. Once it is flowing, slowly raise it up next to the container (should be clear) and see when the water stops flowing. It should be just below the water line (due to losses). Then as you move up past this point, the water will start to flow back to the container.

I love fluid dynamics...

-PurePower

[Rusty_Springs]

@ Exx,  im in the process of building 2 prototype linear-bearings, and will post a test video

given some thought to splitting the rods, while this doesnt change the principle functioning of the device, it does get around a least 4 obstacles, that others - self included - have run into..

this would mean one bearing per rod, and im not sure if it could hold up to that stress.
My original design has a bearing on each end of the rod, about 2/3s out from the center,
i'm leaning towards just stacking them like originally planned, my only concern is the stress on that outermost bearing mounts. may need reinforcement brackets or something, we'll see..


@ Graham - If you remember, i showed how your Tri-force is just an amplified version of Johnson's linear motor - one that did NOT require re-shapen magnets.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=o6F9I5OiSTE

the reshaping was to get passed the "wall" in a rotational version of the motor.
The EXACT same problem myself, clanzer, and several others encounters when we tried to loop the Tri-Force Gates.

Don't be so quick to dismiss Howard Johnson's work.

Hi Sm0ky2
First I didn't dismiss his work, I showed that only two people have did it and I did it with two designs and not shaping the magnet or using shields but by knowing how magnet flux works, the corner gate works on rotation like Johnsons but with out shaping the magnets, I also have a 3nd one that makes it possible to have a system of permanent magnet work the same as an electromagnetic motor in that it attracts in changes poles repels out to attract in the opposite side, all this test shows that works but until I have a prototype I can't say a motor will work so I want put it out till I have proof.
Take Care Sm0ky2
Graham