Roll on the 20th June

[sm0ky2]

ok so,.. after reading the recent activity here.. i pondered the situation, got stoned out of my gorde, and pondered some more...

Finally, i decided to come up with some sort of standard, replicatable design. So that people building this have a common ground to meet on, regardless of what magnets and arrays ect, they decide to use.

so... heres my first attempt at a public design, intented for easy construction/ replication / testing/ what have you..

[ramset]

Sir,
What does EB Stand for?
You are most definitely going about this the right way!
Excellent !!

Thanks
Chet

[exxcomm0n]

B - 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 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.

Whew! Kinda long winded on this one so it'll be fun to expand upon, but lets take it point by point because it helps keep me from getting lost.

Now when talking about SR issues the most major has proven to be that 7:00 wall, as the same magnetic repelling action that is supposed to lift the rod from 7:00 to 1:00, is the same magnetic field that makes an extended rod bounce at 7:00 and stops the wheel.

Crooker was toying with the inclusion of using ferrite to extend the magnetic field from a point distant enough to not make a wall at 7:00, but still provide lifting force after that rod was well past or into 7:00, and testing did prove that ferrite could extend the magnetic field BUT in doing so weakened the field and it could not lift the rod. Seems about right after this Crooker wanted to be magnetic array god and left the SR concept in the dirt.

When you play with the SR concept, you pretty much come to the conclusion that if you have an array strong enough to lift the rod (even _just_ enough working with the 1:00 attraction) it will be too strong for the rod to enter.

Replacing PM (permanent magnet) 1:00 and/or 7:00 o'clock array(s) with EM (electromagnetic) and using them to negate the "wall"? -

This approach makes a bit more sense to me as using electromagnets there is no wall unless energized and they can be triggered at exact times so when used as the 7:00 array they can help push the wheel in clockwise rotation while lifting the rod.
The electromagnet can be shaped to do both when using a pulse just after TDC of the 7:00 array.
This all depends on the wheel generating enough energy to supply this pulse 6 times per revolution and not stall the wheel rotation.
You can get away with the pulse providing lift momentarily if you couple this idea w/ the flipper dealy.

Leave the array alone and replacing the rod end magnets with electromagnets? -

This would have the same advantage as the EM array above, but the cost might be much less.
Triggering of the EM would seem to be the hardest part of this approach and it still has the prerequisites of generation to cope with.

Use a lever to "swing" the array and remove the wall while retaining the array effect? -

What if you left the array at that nice hefty lifting strength and used a lever to move that array away from the wheel at 6:30 and let the array's own weight bring it back into a normal position at 7:15-7:30 using both the magnetic field and kinetic force to lift the rod?
I know, with the introduction of any extra moving part there is cost, but maybe that cost is not enough to keep it from working?
If we touch back on the whole E-gypt-ing Fulcrum episode, if we learned anything it was that a smaller weight moving over a large range of motion could move a much larger weight over a much smaller range of motion.
Weights and ranges all depended on the length of the lever on either side of the fulcrum.

Way back in the thread I proposed this idea and it still seems like it might help.

You'll see in the attached pic that pegs on the wheel face trigger the lever to move the array out of the way and when the peg slips off the end of the lever it goes back to its original placement from the reset weight finding its lowest point.
Yes, there are costs and tuning issues with this type of idea using Permanent Magnets, but maybe it would allow the wheel to turn.
This one does not need a flipper dealy as it's closest to the PM builds tried so far.

I dunno.

Replace the arrays with wheel mounted rod effecting solenoid assemblies? -

This again is a blast from the past that goes quite a bit with the data mscoffman brought to the thread recently.
Since I'm suggesting electromagnets, I figured that this would come soon after.
If you mount a solenoid on the center of the shaft you can mount your (singular) rad magnet in the rod center and have the solenoid lift it @ 7:00 without any external arrays whatsoever.
Again, it comes down to the cost of the effect as to whether that would work or not.
Again, a combo w/ the flipper dealy.

Anyway, take a minute, see what's in it.

[exxcomm0n]

B - 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).

Dang, rest for a second and somebody comes along and snakes the idea out from under ya!
He drew pics and everythang!

[J/K Smoky ]

Anyway, he seems to have adopted a couple of the flimsy concepts I was able to chase around my 3 remaining brain cells.

I REALLY like the "Star of David" EB design! That's some innovative thinking!

I'm on board w/ most of what he proposes, but the post after this will have a couple of different views on the 2 faced wheel and how it can help a few other mechanisms.

On to the next!

[exxcomm0n]

B - 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.

Well, to start this off,  I again want to congratulate Smoky's "Star of David" 3 bearing EB design as it proves he's been a percolating on this one for a while and doing it well!

Being the slimey "one-upsmanship" type that I am, even though I REALLY like Smoky's design, some time a while ago I ate some moldy rye bread and "ergot" a new-ish idea to rip off.

But as I promised, the 2 bearing EB.

By using 2 pulley wheels with concave wheel surfaces you can attatch the wheel faces together with the pully axle that goes through the wheel faces, as long as you don't bind the rod with the pulley wheels, it should do O.K. with the rod torsion effect previously mentioned in the thread and still allow the rod to travel freely with little drag.

The attatched pic should display the idea fairly well even without labels.

Does it seem like it would "fly"?