• ## Re: [hameltech] Re: 3D Permanent Magnets Field Computer Simulation and Animation

(15)
• NextPrevious
• Modelling this system to the point where we have even loose functions that we can interpolate data from is significantly more difficult then writing code to
Message 1 of 15 , Jun 8, 2005
View Source
• 0 Attachment
Modelling this system to the point where we have even loose functions
that we can interpolate data from is significantly more difficult then
writing code to consider many of the forces and allow them to
interact. Getting at least one configuration to achieve stability is
not too difficult since many of us have done so with real models
-simulations require changing variables not machineing for a couple
weeks. From that model, an automated process that determines
stability regions is easy to develop a general model.

The simulation requires calculating magnetic interaction between one
keeper ring and one cone. Staying object-oriented, that method can be
called three times every calculation cycle for each ring/cone. Top
and bottom magnetic, gravity, torque, and inertial forces be
calculated from the position and location of the systems elements.

Those forces can then be passed to other methods which determine new
position, orientation, velocity, momentum and angular moments derived
from the previous calculation cycle and the force variables that were
passed, over a given slice of time (as small as you wish) taking into
account centers of mass and turning moments. With this approach it is
possible to eliminate cause & effect modelling or tracking what looks
like wave motion (or feedback) back and forth through the system.
That type of modelling can lead the system since you are in-effect
objective methods that interact simultaneously over extremly small
slices of time by applying physical calculations you do not need to
falsely assign an order to the systems actions.

The cycle can continue over and over (incorparating adjustable
accuracies) until a repition occurs or a given motion limit has been
exceeded.

It is immpossible for man to encompass a system this complex in his
head and determine where the limiting factors are without modelling of
some sort. The amazing thing to this appraoch is that we can break
the problem down and solve each one piece by piece and never be able
to predict the final outcome or solution. Missing pieces will occur
but in the end it is possible to solve the problem.

A plan is good, but often whats needed isn't clear until the solution
has been found or break throughs achieved, at which point revising the
structure may be advantageous. I don't usually

On 6/8/05, Dell Coleman <decoleman@...> wrote:
> Hi
> It might be nice to have an analysis of the force problem for the system in
> general - a 3 stage dynamic dis-equilibrium.
> The analysis would find the "zone of stability" and isolate it from the zone
> of instability. The next step would be to design a set of forces (magnetic
> in our case) to keep the center of gravity of the system in the stable zone.
> Because non-linear dynamics involve positive and negative feedback, some
> sort of systems dynamics modeling is probably also needed.
> You can see this in the mathematics of chaotic systems -- like chaotic
> attractors for example.
>
> We are dealing with something like:
> o
> |X|
> |X|
> |X|
> ooo
>
> where the top o is the rejection magnet, the | are the rings, ooo is the
> pinions and the X represent the cones.
> (so maybe 5 stage?). The X represents the center line of the cone when
> fallen into the ring - ie the maximum play
> You can see that at each stage the point is pushing the lower cone into the
> opposite rings. Where the cone point sits can be seen as a critcal variable
> in pushing the c of g around.
>
> It should be possible to calculate where the mass of the system is inside
> the zone of stability -- that then leads to the required forces. The
> feedbacks occur up and down the chain and have an influence on the solution.
> One approach would be to find a chaotic attractor solution that leads to
> stability .
>
> I'm not a math guy or an engineer, so I hope that this info will be helpful
> to folks in the group.
> I am a computer systems analyst, so my last 2 cents is that it is not wise
> to do much programming without analysis and design being done. ;-)
>
> Cheers
>
> DC
>
>
>
> gus_styles wrote:
> Hey xander_saith,
> Write the code yourself. The math is not too difficult. You just
> need to know how to integrate. However, for this project you'll need
> to generate data using repetative summation anyways since you can't
> take advantage of symmetry, computers can do that very well. Just
> find the formulas to determine force due to a magnetic dipole and
> calculate (using vector algebra) the force between every magnet(one by
> one) on one ring and one magnet on the other ring (outer ring lets
> say). Repeat process for every magnet on the outer ring. Keep a sum
> of the forces (divided X,Y,Z) on the non-stationary ring. Volia.
> You'll find that in the end, most of the forces cancel each other out,
> the result is the force pushing, pulling, torquing, rotating etc. the
> ring(cone, disk whatever).
>
> Gus
>
> --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, "xander_saith" <xander_saith@y...>
> wrote:
> > Do someone know where I can find a software to simulate the effect of
> > a permanent magnet field in 3D, would be great, so will test the
> > device before build it and will save money and time.
> >
> > I'm still searching the web for some software like this, but only
> > found the Vizmag and isn't to good for this...
> >
> > it has been a week when I start the searshing but nothing till now,
> > I'll keep you post...
> >
> > PD: sorry for my english, hope you understain ;)
>
>
>
>
> 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
> 11112: Building and balancing, progress
> 11113: David Hamel reports
> 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
> OT: "Off Topic"
>
> Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
> 11112: Building and balancing, progress
> 11113: David Hamel reports
> 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
> OT: "Off Topic"
>
> Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
• -An attractor in our case is the locus or path of the isotope line as viewed from above - ie if the center line of the cone moved in a circular motion 1 off
Message 2 of 15 , Jun 8, 2005
View Source
• 0 Attachment
-An attractor in our case is the locus or path of the "isotope" line
as viewed from above - ie if the center line of the cone moved in a
circular motion 1" off center, the attractor is the circle described
by the motion. Other motions could be elliptical or some other
polynomial form. The pattern described by the continuous motion of
the "point" of the isotope line is what we would track.-

you've got it here - it is a triangle from the top that rotates in a circle

On 6/8/05, Dell Coleman <decoleman@...> wrote:
> In thinking about this a bit more, what we need is a solution which is still
> in dis-equilibrium, but not so much that it iterates outward to the rings.
> It is also not a solution that is too stable - ie pinning the cones with
> too much force.
>
> An attractor in our case is the locus or path of the "isotope" line as
> viewed from above - ie if the center line of the cone moved in a circular
> motion 1" off center, the attractor is the circle described by the motion.
> Other motions could be elliptical or some other polynomial form. The
> pattern described by the continuous motion of the "point" of the isotope
> line is what we would track.
>
> Here is a link for a bunch of attractors, I kind of like number 3 myself.
> http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~reiterc/apl97/index.html
>
> This raises the possibility that the "rotary" vibratory motion of the cones
> is also a sacred number controlled motion.
>
> All this leads to the conclusion that it must be _way_ easier to built this
> upside down in a configuration more like the ship.
>
> The bottom would be an inner stand with a vertical spike on which the first
> cone would sit. On the spike shaft would be a magnet used for rejection and
> raised by a lever or gear. Each of the cones would sit point up on top of
> each other.
> The outer stand would hold the rings and the magnets for rejection as now
> configured. The force of the magnets on the edge could be much less because
> they dont have fight gravity as now.
>
> You can test the basic notion by buying 4 plastic oil change funnels 6"
> dia., 3 wine corks and 3 picture hanger nails.
> All the funnels go point up - put 3 corks in the funnels, pushed into the
> inner opening, stick a pin in each cork (provides stability so the funnel
> "point" wont move. Stack the funnels, the one with no cork goes on the
> bottom. The bottom funnel takes the place of the inner stand above Three
> mobile funnels sit above. I'm using the continuous plastic radio shack
> magnet for the cones -- havent done rings yet ....
>
> It it heresy? - yes; will it lead to progress --- don't know yet ...
>
> Cheers
>
> DC
>
> Dell Coleman wrote:
> Hi
> It might be nice to have an analysis of the force problem for the system in
> general - a 3 stage dynamic dis-equilibrium.
> ....
>
>
>
> 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
> 11112: Building and balancing, progress
> 11113: David Hamel reports
> 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
> OT: "Off Topic"
>
> Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
• This raises the possibility that the rotary vibratory motion of the cones is also a sacred number controlled motion. no question about it - the spiral,
Message 3 of 15 , Jun 8, 2005
View Source
• 0 Attachment
This raises the possibility that the "rotary" vibratory motion of the
cones is also a sacred number controlled motion.

no question about it - the spiral, fibinacci
not to mention e and pi
but the simulator will allow experimenting easily

On 6/8/05, Trevor Smouter <gusstyles@...> wrote:
> -An attractor in our case is the locus or path of the "isotope" line
> as viewed from above - ie if the center line of the cone moved in a
> circular motion 1" off center, the attractor is the circle described
> by the motion. Other motions could be elliptical or some other
> polynomial form. The pattern described by the continuous motion of
> the "point" of the isotope line is what we would track.-
>
> you've got it here - it is a triangle from the top that rotates in a circle
>
> On 6/8/05, Dell Coleman <decoleman@...> wrote:
> > In thinking about this a bit more, what we need is a solution which is still
> > in dis-equilibrium, but not so much that it iterates outward to the rings.
> > It is also not a solution that is too stable - ie pinning the cones with
> > too much force.
> >
> > An attractor in our case is the locus or path of the "isotope" line as
> > viewed from above - ie if the center line of the cone moved in a circular
> > motion 1" off center, the attractor is the circle described by the motion.
> > Other motions could be elliptical or some other polynomial form. The
> > pattern described by the continuous motion of the "point" of the isotope
> > line is what we would track.
> >
> > Here is a link for a bunch of attractors, I kind of like number 3 myself.
> > http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~reiterc/apl97/index.html
> >
> > This raises the possibility that the "rotary" vibratory motion of the cones
> > is also a sacred number controlled motion.
> >
> > All this leads to the conclusion that it must be _way_ easier to built this
> > upside down in a configuration more like the ship.
> >
> > The bottom would be an inner stand with a vertical spike on which the first
> > cone would sit. On the spike shaft would be a magnet used for rejection and
> > raised by a lever or gear. Each of the cones would sit point up on top of
> > each other.
> > The outer stand would hold the rings and the magnets for rejection as now
> > configured. The force of the magnets on the edge could be much less because
> > they dont have fight gravity as now.
> >
> > You can test the basic notion by buying 4 plastic oil change funnels 6"
> > dia., 3 wine corks and 3 picture hanger nails.
> > All the funnels go point up - put 3 corks in the funnels, pushed into the
> > inner opening, stick a pin in each cork (provides stability so the funnel
> > "point" wont move. Stack the funnels, the one with no cork goes on the
> > bottom. The bottom funnel takes the place of the inner stand above Three
> > mobile funnels sit above. I'm using the continuous plastic radio shack
> > magnet for the cones -- havent done rings yet ....
> >
> > It it heresy? - yes; will it lead to progress --- don't know yet ...
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > DC
> >
> > Dell Coleman wrote:
> > Hi
> > It might be nice to have an analysis of the force problem for the system in
> > general - a 3 stage dynamic dis-equilibrium.
> > ....
> >
> >
> >
> > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
> > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
> > 11113: David Hamel reports
> > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
> > OT: "Off Topic"
> >
> > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
> > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
>
• Hi I think the isotope line is more like the stack of X that I drew earlier (three stacked isotopes) - they actually form a caduceus, and so are funnel shaped
Message 4 of 15 , Jun 8, 2005
View Source
• 0 Attachment
Hi

I think the isotope line is more like the stack of X that I drew earlier
(three stacked isotopes) - they actually form a caduceus, and so are
funnel shaped in 3d at the top and bottom - There is a nice animated
gif on JL Naudin that shows this exactly.

So when you say triangle if you mean an upper or lower half I agree.

You need to do a bit of analysis to determine the system, which is non
linear and involves positive feedback
Decomposition is ok in some cases, but probably not in this one -- We
know that when you break a elephant into parts, what you get a mess. So
decomposition is not necessarily the right approach - systems analysis
is often more appropriate. In your object approach, the objects should
be dynamic functional system bits. That is very applicable to the object
model.

If you dont do the analysis then you do it over, as so many companies
do ;-)

DC

Trevor Smouter wrote:

>
>
> you've got it here - it is a triangle from the top that rotates in a
> circle
>
• Hi The isotope line for the upside down cone is exactly the same because of the X form I pointed out earlier. When I stack the funnels and poke the second
Message 5 of 15 , Jun 8, 2005
View Source
• 0 Attachment
Hi

The isotope line for the upside down cone is exactly the same because of the X form I pointed
out earlier.   When I stack the funnels and poke the second one up, the tip displaces and jostles the other funnels
(we are only talking about the top three, the bottom is just a base).

Secondly if what you said was true, the cones in Mr Hamel's ship would never move.

I  suggest if you want to do the simulator, to start a project at sourceforge and people can join the project to contribute whatever they like.

DC

Trevor Smouter wrote:
This raises the possibility that the "rotary" vibratory motion of the
cones is also a sacred number controlled motion.

no question about it - the spiral, fibinacci
not to mention e and pi
but the simulator will allow experimenting easily

On 6/8/05, Trevor Smouter <gusstyles@...> wrote:
> -An attractor in our case is the locus or path of the "isotope" line
> as viewed from above - ie if the center line of the cone moved in a
> circular motion 1" off center, the attractor is the circle described
> by the motion. Other motions could be elliptical or some other
> polynomial form.  The pattern described by the continuous motion of
> the "point" of the isotope line is what we would track.-
>
> you've got it here - it is a triangle from the top that rotates in a circle
>
> On 6/8/05, Dell Coleman <decoleman@...> wrote:
> > In thinking about this a bit more, what we need is a solution which is still
> > in dis-equilibrium, but not so much that it iterates outward to the rings.
> > It is also not a solution that is too stable  - ie pinning the cones with
> > too much force.
> >
> > An attractor in our case is the locus or path of the "isotope" line as
> > viewed from above - ie if the center line of the cone moved in a circular
> > motion 1" off center, the attractor is the circle described by the motion.
> > Other motions could be elliptical or some other polynomial form.  The
> > pattern described by the continuous motion of the "point" of the isotope
> > line is what we would track.
> >
> > Here is a link for a bunch of attractors, I kind of like number 3 myself.
> > http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~reiterc/apl97/index.html
> >
> > This raises the possibility that the "rotary" vibratory motion of the cones
> > is also a sacred number controlled motion.
> >
> > All this leads to the conclusion that it must be _way_ easier to built this
> > upside down in a configuration more like the ship.
> >
> > The bottom would be an inner stand with a vertical spike on which the first
> > cone would sit. On the spike shaft would be a magnet used for rejection and
> > raised by a lever or gear. Each of the cones would sit point up on top of
> > each other.
> > The outer stand would hold the rings and the magnets for rejection as now
> > configured.  The force of the magnets on the edge could be much less because
> > they dont have fight gravity as now.
> >
> > You can test the basic notion by buying 4 plastic oil change funnels 6"
> > dia., 3 wine corks and 3 picture hanger nails.
> > All the funnels go point up - put 3 corks in the funnels, pushed into the
> > inner opening, stick a pin in each cork (provides stability so the funnel
> > "point" wont move. Stack the funnels, the one with no cork goes on the
> > bottom. The bottom funnel  takes the place of the inner stand above  Three
> > mobile funnels sit above.  I'm using the continuous plastic radio shack
> > magnet for the cones -- havent done rings yet ....
> >
> > It it heresy? - yes; will it lead to progress --- don't know yet ...
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > DC
> >
> > Dell Coleman wrote:
> > Hi
> > It might be nice to have an analysis of the force problem for the system in
> > general - a 3 stage dynamic dis-equilibrium.
> >  ....
> >
> >
> >
> > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
> > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
> > 11113: David Hamel reports
> > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
> > OT: "Off Topic"
> >
> > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
> > Subscribe:  hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Unsubscribe:  hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > List owner:  hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
>

11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
11112: Building and balancing, progress
11113: David Hamel reports
11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
OT: "Off Topic"

Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe:  hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:  hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner:  hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com

• I have included a diagram of the isotropic line. If you limit the space for the cones using magnetic rings and the system is built with a lower platform on
Message 6 of 15 , Jun 8, 2005
View Source
• 0 Attachment
I have included a diagram of the isotropic line. If you limit the
space for the cones using magnetic rings and the system is built with
a lower platform on pinions then this must be the shape of the
isotropic line. If you compress the cones using magnetic force then
they, by their magnetic nature, achieve a even distribution within the
keeper rings. Doing so is impossible while only in 2D.

David was instructed that this was the key, through a hallucinaion in
his kitchen of a huge bee hovering with the triple jointed probiscus
rotating as the cones do - or even his present engine. The image was
further emphasised by a snake behind the flower in the triangle
shape(isotropic line from above) while a continuos sine wave travelled
through its body as snakes usually move. Examining Davids present
engine you will notice that the line develops through the conical
granite pinions stacked on top of each other. This is simply an
extension of the line which travels down the center of the system, had
it not beet vacant like it is. The cones on top which are a mere
extension of each outer rings form the exact same line by connecting
the centerpoints of each stacked cone.

Unfortunatly, David is not very good at expressing the true dimensions
or attributes of his system, he does not even need to know them
himself since he is being guided through the process. It wasn't luck
of the draw that David was chosen, he is the type of person who does
without thinking, if he did think about it logically, he would have
probably been led astray like all of us have- many times! (speaking
to everyone on this board) On a side note, what is with the many
references to 'Hamel Technology', which although may be descriptive,
is not nearly correct. I'm sure David dosen't wish to be credited for
the technology since it isn't his. It was regiven to us through
David, as it is our birthright which was stolen from us. I'm just not
sure if David would like everyone to perpetuate this rumour, he's too
honourable of a person to enjoy this reputation. I don't like to play
whatif's but David has successfully disseminated much knowledge,
excitment and faith in the technology, that I wouldn't be the least
bit surprised, if one of you guys were truly meant to let it unfold,
through his initial influence. I'm just saying that there is a reason
we're all here, encouraging and motivating each other. Theres a
productive community going on here and its good to surround yourself
with people who pursue somthing better then simply exsisting.

Anyway the cones leaning in the tree of life is not important. What
is important is that each part of the system with weight is in a
continual state of free fall (like a sattelite) due to the isotropic
line. I realised all of these points though thought experiments in an
attempt to eliminate the lower platform - It can't be done.

You cannot use a central pivot point regardless of how you attempt it.
Doing so not only destroys the isotropic line but also changes the
oscillator from what is typically know as free oscillations to single
end fixed point wave oscillations. The isotropic line allows the
system a very unique structure that when perfectly balenced has no
fixed point of reference.

I think the isotope line is more like the stack of X that I drew earlier
> (three stacked isotopes) - they actually form a caduceus, and so are
> funnel shaped in 3d at the top and bottom.

I'm not sure where you see two crossed isotropic lines in the system
unless you figure that since it is oscillating, a difference in time
would display an over lay of the previous line ontop of the present
one. Really there are only three segments to the line. From the top
the isotropic line shows a persitant downward spiral while in motion.
The beautiful sight from the side shows each cone leaning to one side,
then the next, with a horizontal translation occuring in between the
leaning (this of course is only an illusion since the cones are
actually wobbling). The true motion does not allow the cones to lean
back and forth as they do when not on a wobbling base and no top load.
Those oscillations only occur down the center and are accompanied by
overall vertical translation - there is no comparison to the beauty of
the correct motion.

I haven't taken any courses on system analysis, I however have basic
experience with object oriented programming and we may be trying to
express the same things in regards to programming the code. Analysis
of the system is in the form of pages of hand written problem solving
to create the mathematical relationships between the parts of the
system. Presently I have created a relationship between the position
of the spherical pinions, base and upper platforms using trigonometric
functions. All the peices are related by the angle theta from the z
axis. All vectors being passed are objects containing the XYZ format.
The platform will be encapsulated in a platform object containing
appropriate methods unique to the platform such as effects of pinions
with regards to its inherent recentering attributes. Presently the
three pinions will be calculated as one and its effects multiplied.
Later, magnetic ring calculations will make use of polar coordinents
as they are more suited to any ring style integration.

I will be starting the programming soon (in C#.Net) as it is what i'm
familiar with(i know, i know). Of course this dosen't really preclude
others from programming pieces in other languages. Although I never
seriously intended working with others on the project since it is
nieche (which is why determining an agreed upon an interface before
hand was not important) programming using proper form makes the task
more enjoyable for myself as well as exploiting all the benfits from
using proper structure. Any input you wish to provide is well
recieved especially regarding the coding as I am new to creating
interfaces that permit multiple programmers.

On 6/8/05, Dell Coleman <decoleman@...> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think the isotope line is more like the stack of X that I drew earlier
> (three stacked isotopes) - they actually form a caduceus, and so are
> funnel shaped in 3d at the top and bottom - There is a nice animated
> gif on JL Naudin that shows this exactly.
>
> So when you say triangle if you mean an upper or lower half I agree.
>
> You need to do a bit of analysis to determine the system, which is non
> linear and involves positive feedback
> Decomposition is ok in some cases, but probably not in this one -- We
> know that when you break a elephant into parts, what you get a mess. So
> decomposition is not necessarily the right approach - systems analysis
> is often more appropriate. In your object approach, the objects should
> be dynamic functional system bits. That is very applicable to the object
> model.
>
> If you dont do the analysis then you do it over, as so many companies
> do ;-)
>
> DC
>
> Trevor Smouter wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > you've got it here - it is a triangle from the top that rotates in a
> > circle
> >
>
>
>
>
> 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
> 11112: Building and balancing, progress
> 11113: David Hamel reports
> 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
> OT: "Off Topic"
>
> Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
• Hi Yes we are saying the same thing, so I should explain more carefully -- the X is a map showing the maximum extent of the fall of the isotope line of a
Message 7 of 15 , Jun 8, 2005
View Source
• 0 Attachment
Hi

Yes we are saying the same thing, so I should explain more carefully --
the X is a map showing the maximum extent of the fall of the isotope
line of a cone in 2-d from a side view. In two-d the other extreme
position the top rod can have is at 90 degrees to itself (it becomes a
back slash instead of a slash, in simple terms) -- limited by the cone rings
Stacked into 3 high and put in motion, the isotope line will trace a
caduceus since the upper cone tip forces the inner cone contact point
below to move. I dont have any comment on your top view since I have
not considered it much - certainly no reason why not.

...snip

>
>
> I'm not sure where you see two crossed isotropic lines in the system
> unless you figure that since it is oscillating, a difference in time
> would display an over lay of the previous line ontop of the present
> one. Really there are only three segments to the line. From the top
> the isotropic line shows a persitant downward spiral while in motion.
> The beautiful sight from the side shows each cone leaning to one side,
> then the next, with a horizontal translation occuring in between the
> leaning (this of course is only an illusion since the cones are
> actually wobbling). The true motion does not allow the cones to lean
> back and forth as they do when not on a wobbling base and no top load.
> Those oscillations only occur down the center and are accompanied by
> overall vertical translation - there is no comparison to the beauty of
> the correct motion.
>
> I haven't taken any courses on system analysis, I however have basic
> experience with object oriented programming and we may be trying to
> express the same things in regards to programming the code. Analysis
> of the system is in the form of pages of hand written problem solving
> to create the mathematical relationships between the parts of the
> system. Presently I have created a relationship between the position
> of the spherical pinions, base and upper platforms using trigonometric
> functions. All the peices are related by the angle theta from the z
> axis. All vectors being passed are objects containing the XYZ format.
> The platform will be encapsulated in a platform object containing
> appropriate methods unique to the platform such as effects of pinions
> with regards to its inherent recentering attributes. Presently the
> three pinions will be calculated as one and its effects multiplied.
> Later, magnetic ring calculations will make use of polar coordinents
> as they are more suited to any ring style integration.
>
The pages of stuff is what I was hoping you had -- mechanically we are
dealing with the rejection, the cones, and the table oscillator. You
would need interaction calculations for rejection on top cone, cone
magnet ring interaction leading to a resultant that gives the position
or difference and direction in motion of the cone tip and top (same
thing if seen as an X)
- that goes as an input to the next cone motion, iterate for more cones
and feed the last cone outputs to the table osc.
Then cycle back up, but the routines are not different - maybe called
differently. I'd suggest different instances of the cone objects --
although maybe lumping will be Ok. If you are doing the positive
feedback properly you should get the runaway action- since this is just
like exponential growth. I'm pretty convinced that the solution is to
back off the strength of the rejection until the harmonic starts to die,
then increase it a touch -- just kept above the point of dying.
Thats the place for a negative feedback component - like the governor on
a steam engine

> I will be starting the programming soon (in C#.Net) as it is what i'm
> familiar with(i know, i know). Of course this dosen't really preclude
> others from programming pieces in other languages. Although I never
> seriously intended working with others on the project since it is
> nieche (which is why determining an agreed upon an interface before
> hand was not important) programming using proper form makes the task
> more enjoyable for myself as well as exploiting all the benfits from
> using proper structure. Any input you wish to provide is well
> recieved especially regarding the coding as I am new to creating
> interfaces that permit multiple programmers.
>
I can't pick many more holes in this, so I guess my devil's advocate job
is done for today -- good luck with the programming - If you want any
reviews, just send me it off the list

Cheers

DC
• ... Could you suspend the upside down cones with a spring? They then would be free to oscillate in many directions. Please explain sacred number based
Message 8 of 15 , Jun 15, 2005
View Source
• 0 Attachment
--- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, Dell Coleman <decoleman@p...> wrote: