Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

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

Expand Messages
  • Trevor Smouter
    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
    • 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
      already trying to answer the unknown question. By programming
      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 ;)
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Header Codes
      > 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
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Header Codes
      > 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
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > 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
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Trevor Smouter
      -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
      • 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.
        > ....
        >
        >
        >
        > Header Codes
        > 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
        >
        >
        >
        > ________________________________
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > 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
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      • Trevor Smouter
        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
        • 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.
          > > ....
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Header Codes
          > > 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
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ________________________________
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > > 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
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >
        • Dell Coleman
          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
          • 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
            >
          • Dell Coleman
            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
            • 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.
              > >  ....
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Header Codes
              > > 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
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ________________________________
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > > 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
              > >
              > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              >


              Header Codes
              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



            • Trevor Smouter
              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
              • 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
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Header Codes
                > 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
                >
                >
                >
                > ________________________________
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                > 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
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              • Dell Coleman
                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
                • 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
                • kittab_al_bungle
                  ... 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
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, Dell Coleman <decoleman@p...> 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.
                    >

                    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 oscillation.

                    Kittab
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.