Roll on the 20th June

[sm0ky2]

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.

ok....
i know ive said this a few times before, but i'll try to review as best i can... It seems htis point is overlooked a lot.

the bottom of the array, were-in lies the "wall", should be further away from the ends of the rods than the center of the array where you need actual lift.
"angled outwards" from the curvature of the wheel, just enough o lessen the wall, so the rods both - enter into the field, and lift

This gives you the ability to soften the wall, without weakening the field.



--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, about the two-bearing EB


Touche'


i didnt think that could be done.......

excelent job sir, Now we just need some grooved bearings, or pulleys that spin as nicely as 'hobby bearings' do

if the bearing shafts are long enough to fit 3 pulleys side by side, that gives you 3 positions to mount them in, so all the rods have clearance.

i like it

[ramset]

SmOky Quote:


Now, about the two-bearing EB
---------------------

Please ....whats an "EB"?
[i just gotta know?]

Thanks
Chet
PS
Oh, and when you guys  come up with a final design

I will build also [100 %]

And if its simple enough for me to do ,I will build a few more  at the same time and send them to members here with magnet /gravity motor experience.

No Charge

[sm0ky2]

@ramset

the term "EB" is an abbreviation for ExxoBearing. This is the bearing component originally conceived by Exxocommon, to facilitate a low-friction sliding motion of the rods.

It replaces the 'tubes' in Archer's original design.

[exxcomm0n]

ok....
i know ive said this a few times before, but i'll try to review as best i can... It seems this point is overlooked a lot.
the bottom of the array, were-in lies the "wall", should be further away from the ends of the rods than the center of the array where you need actual lift.
"angled outwards" from the curvature of the wheel, just enough o lessen the wall, so the rods both - enter into the field, and lift
This gives you the ability to soften the wall, without weakening the field.

I've never seen that effect work. I'm not saying it's not possible @ ALL, just that my feeble skills are not enough to realize that.
If you could point me to a working example, it would be appreciated, but please do not do if it will delay of your complete build.
I'm just not conversant with that concept.....yet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, about the two-bearing EB
Touche'
i didnt think that could be done.......

excelent job sir, Now we just need some grooved bearings, or pulleys that spin as nicely as 'hobby bearings' do
if the bearing shafts are long enough to fit 3 pulleys side by side, that gives you 3 positions to mount them in, so all the rods have clearance.
i like it

Oh Pshaw!

This ain't a competition, even though I may have framed it that way in the EB post for effect, and if it was you'd win hands, feet, and appendix down.
You build, I get stoned and day dream.
Not exactly a fair division of labor and/or build skull sweat.

I thank you for your kind words and ability to see into my lackluster attempts of example and graphical representations!

I've had these thoughts for a while, but didn't do anything about them as I thought not many would be interested at this late date. YOU are the only reason that they have "seen the light of post".
Your builds teaches me things about how other view the concept.
I just sit back and get stoned and say, "Whoa! That's cool! I wonder what would happen if you changed 'that' too. "

I'll admit I gots a few more burbling around as I let my mind range free and already accept (CONCEPTUALLY) that the wheel will turn,
Now after this post and the next which will finish the previously touched on concepts, I'd like to ask you a few questions about rods.

Soon 'nuff, and thank you again for your kind words!


P.S. About the pulley wheels - I was thinking that these would be a LOT like the ones they use for LARGE sliding exterior doors. These usually have a tube running along the top that the pulley wheels attached to the door ride on to keep the door suspended off the ground.
Another thought was to use skateboard wheels and mill them to have a groove in the center. This is OTOH so give it a little while to percolate.

<snip>
Oh, and when you guys  come up with a final design
I will build also [100 %]
And if its simple enough for me to do ,I will build a few more  at the same time and send them to members here with magnet /gravity motor experience.
No Charge

Ummmm....Mr. Chet.  As far as this is seen as a collaborative design, it really ain't.
Smoky builds and tests and curses, and the builds and tests again.
I haven't really built on the concept in YEARS so I would award Smoky with the honorific of designer until I would get off my lazy dead ass and do something that would even remotely challenge that.

He's the dude. He's kept the thread alive with CONTENT!

Me, I just muddy the waters like a kid dancing in a mud puddle.

[ramset]

EXX
Seems like you have input in this [to the untrained eye]?

You're a builder albeit a "mellow" builder,a builder none the less ,and speaking of "less" ,I recall you being quite skilled at utilizing available "stuff"

A skill for doing more with less [most impressive].

Anyhow, speaking of weird and Newtonian [or Non}.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zoTKXXNQIU&NR=1&feature=fv

Chet