Roll on the 20th June

[sm0ky2]

ok. i made a simple diagram to show the field of the lower array.
sticky spot "A" is very weak. it is not strong enough to stop the wheel, unless the rod doesnt move freely. This is what is shown in the video. the arm that doesnt want to go "up", gets hung at the entry. the other two arms have no problem entering into the array.

the rod acts as if the lower array is two independent fields. one field is the first 3/4's of the array when the rod is in its lowest position, and transitioning upwards.  the second field is when the rod is completely extended (furthest away from the array)

The sticky spot "B" and ejection point "C" appear to be equal, and cancel each other out. This "second field" is when the upper array assists to bring the rod through the gravitational field. If you watch in the video when a rod gets to just before point "B", the gravitational vector is down the rod, thus pushes the rod back down.

The bottom array should be able to lift the rod by itself. However, it should not be so strong that it holds the arm/wheel at point "B" without the assistance of the upper array. Conversley, the upper array should be positioned such that it holds the rod "up" at point "B", but not so strong that it prevents the rod form ejecting at point "C". This defines the range of the flux to mass ratio, controlled by distance of the arrays. 
-------------------------------------------------------------
[about picture 2]
the strength of the wall at entry point "A"  (with a freely moving rod) is defined by the angle of entry. this second drawing gives a visual representation of the entry angle adjustment. the required angle of entry is defined partly by the flux to mass ratio, but also by the shape and size of the magnets producing the field. Since the rods are in a constant location around the wheel with most designs, this adjustment takes place via the lower array.
keep in mind the gravitational vector can affect how the magnets respond to one another at any given angle. You can adjust this entry angle by either tilting the bottom portion of the lower array, or by changing its position around the wheel. What you are looking for here is, again, a ramp-like movement of the rod.
you dont want the rod to slam into the "wall". if this happens the lower array is either too close to the wheel, or the entry angle is too steep. (or the rod is not moving properly, like the 3rd rod in my previous video). 

It is important that all 3 rods have a similar force-required to lift them, which is the problem, caused by friction, that im currently working on resolving.

[markdansie]

@smokey 2
thanks for the explanation its been most helpful. I have re visited the video and it makes sense now
Mark

[markdansie]

Hi Smokey 2,just wondering how progress is going
Mark

[sm0ky2]

Hi Smokey 2,just wondering how progress is going
Mark

i'm pretty much where i left off last weekend. i took a vice and compressed the 3rd rod where i had added those "torque proofing" tabs. This helped the friction a little.

i will have to redo the center mount again, apparently a spacer i used is grinding on the HD-spinner im using as my main bearing.
spacer was there to tighten things up and keep it from tilting under its own weight. i may have something else i can use around here somewhere.... still giving it some thought.

serious lack of free-time lately.....

[The Eskimo Quinn]

seems like a cross between the wheel and the mayernik array, good to see you are still at it,try using the mayernick loop to a greater extent it may help.