- 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. - --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, Dell Coleman <decoleman@p...> wrote:
> In thinking about this a bit more, what we need is a solution which is

Could you suspend the upside down cones with a spring? They then would

> 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.

>

be free to oscillate in many directions.

Please explain sacred number based oscillation.

Kittab