top

Now that's just silly

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next   Page 7 of 8

Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:46 am PostPost subject:
Yadaraf
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

Reply with quote

RE: Rotor Magnet Length CSI Yadaraf (EDIT)

(Harvey, if you could double check this I'd appreciate it. Cool )

Image analysis is interesting, but tricky, because resolutions (pixels/inch) change throughout a given scene. For example, a picture that includes a man in the foreground and mountain in the background has at least two resolutions -- one for the man and a second for the mountain. When analyzing the man, 100 pixels might equal one foot (100 px/ft), whereas when measuring the mountain, 100 pixels might equal one hundred feet (1 px/ft).

The same is true when measuring features in Whipmag photos. In the photo below, the Delrin insert and the 834DIA magnet are both 0.500" (12.7 mm) in diameter. However, their resolutions are very different because they are at different depths -- the Delrin insert being close [like the man], and the 834DIA being farther away [like the mountain].

Resolutions wrt fixed camera:
.. Delrin insert: 65.2 px/12.7 mm = 5.3 px/mm
.. Rotor Diameter: 565.9 px/144 mm = 3.9 px/mm
.. Rotor Wing: 24.8 px/6.35 mm = 3.9 px/mm
.. Rotor Magnet: 50.6 px/12.7 mm = 4.0 px/mm **Question
.. 834DIA: 48.0 px/12.7 mm = 3.8 px/mm

** Question Note: The rotor magnet resolution should be less than 3.9 px/mm, because the magnet is further away from the camera than is the rotor surface, which has a resolution of 3.9 px/mm. The diameter of the rotor magnet is purported to be 12.7 mm -- like the Delrin insert and the 834DIAs, but finding an appropriate resolution is tricky, because the rotor magnet depth is somewhere in between the Delrin, the rotor surface, and the 834DIA, although much much closer to the 834DIA.

At the end of the day, taking into consideration the different depths of field, I still don't measure the rotor magnet lengths as 12.7 mm (0.500").

Rotor magnet length appears to be closer to 14 mm.

If anyone else wants to analyze the above photo, please jump in. The more the merrier. Laughing Cool



EDIT: added second wing dimension

Cheers Smile
Yada ..
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)


Last edited by Yadaraf on Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:36 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:37 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

OK, like I said I don't have very good measuring tools at the cavern, and I don't like using my good micrometers on magnets anyway, so I generally use a plastic dial indicator caliper made by General. I just checked again using this caliper. The rotor magnets all measure between 0.53 and 0.54, or very close to 14 mm, using this caliper.
This is "nominally" 1/2 inch.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:00 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

It would appear then that they are ~17/32 long. Perhaps magnets swell with time Wink

Yadaraf, nice analysis. Smile I would have also included the gap right at the magnet.

In addtion to your points above, there is also enlargement of distant objects due to focal magnification. Depending the lens configuration this can be very pronounced. Ever see those shots where the people standing behind the president look like their heads are twice as big? (no I'm not talking about Ted Mad )

The magnet diameter is the greater factor in strength in this case. The only danger I foresee of the longer magnets is a shortening of the operational window and thus the interaction time. Hopefully closure of 1/4" won't impact it that greatly, but in the world of unknowns all that can be done is to chart the results and compare them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:09 pm PostPost subject:
Yadaraf
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

Reply with quote

alsetalokin wrote:
OK, like I said I don't have very good measuring tools at the cavern, and I don't like using my good micrometers on magnets anyway, so I generally use a plastic dial indicator caliper made by General. I just checked again using this caliper. The rotor magnets all measure between 0.53 and 0.54, or very close to 14 mm, using this caliper.
This is "nominally" 1/2 inch.

Al,

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I realize you have other things on your plate. I'm busy myself -- too busy to make the videos like I'd hoped to. Sad Needless to say, I've gotten behind on this project.

The long and short of it: your rotor magnets are 6% to 8% longer than previously expected. One can only wonder what this does to the flux and magnetic gearing.

FYI: K&J Magnetics tolerances are 0.500" +/- 0.002," and all of my rotor magnets are amazingly similar and appear to be within that tolerance.

A difference of 0.030" or 0.040" suggests that your rotor magnets might even be metric -- something like 6.5 mm x 14 mm. However, variance and dull appearance does seem to suggest aging or possibly different lots. I suppose it's also possible that you magnets were 9/16" (0.5625") and shunk 0.030."

... I wonder if your magnets have shrunk or grown as the result of the Whipmag effect?

I understand the methodology you used to determine rotor/stator geometry, and I agree that we probably should anticipate a different radial alignment -- not precisely 5 mm. I would add that I think your vertical alignment -- top of stator mag to center of rotor mag -- should remain a target during setup. I think Whipmag II will need to accommodate variations in radial position, and thus, we should probably slightly elongate the holes for the stator holders. I really wanted to stay true your base design, but the grade and dimensions of you rotor magnets are variables that we have to accommodate.

I'm optimistic, and believe that we'll figure this thing out eventually. For better or worse, I have a lot of stick-to-it-ness. We have several new investigators testing the new rigs, and this improves our odds greatly.

Again, thanks for the making the measurement. Cool

Cheers Smile
Yada ..
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:22 pm PostPost subject:
Yadaraf
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

Reply with quote

Quote:
Yadaraf, nice analysis. Smile I would have also included the gap right at the magnet.

I included the gap -- it's the wing feature @24.8 pixels. It's close to 0.248" when referenced to the rotor diameter of 144 mm. Laughing

Quote:
In addtion to your points above, there is also enlargement of distant objects due to focal magnification. Depending the lens configuration this can be very pronounced. Ever see those shots where the people standing behind the president look like their heads are twice as big? (no I'm not talking about Ted Mad )

Yea .. barrel distortion and other abberations are there as well. That's what makes it so tricky. I'm used to digital pathology where the depth of field is is only a few microns, so resolution/magnification is fairly consistent throughout the FOV. However, spherical abberation and barrel distortion can be nasty, and by the end of the day we crop out at least 5% of the border.

Glad you like the analysis. Cool It took a while, and although the conclusion stood out immediately, I had a difficult time accepting it. I'm glad Al was able to measure the mags for us, or I might have gone quietly insane.

Cheers Smile
Yada ..
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:35 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

I guess I should apologize for my "approximate" accuracy in measurement. I really had no idea that certain of these dimensions would be seen as being so very critical. I still don't believe that they are, but I applaud the attempts at accuracy.
These magnets were sold as "1/2 inch bar" and when I measured them the first time, half-an-inch seemed close enough for "gov't work" as we used to say.
It is more likely that a camel could fit thru the eye of a needle, than the magnets could change size due to the "whiPMag effect", whatever that is.
I hope...
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:48 pm PostPost subject:
Yadaraf
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

Reply with quote

alsetalokin wrote:
I guess I should apologize for my "approximate" accuracy in measurement. I really had no idea that certain of these dimensions would be seen as being so very critical. I still don't believe that they are, but I applaud the attempts at accuracy.
These magnets were sold as "1/2 inch bar" and when I measured them the first time, half-an-inch seemed close enough for "gov't work" as we used to say.
It is more likely that a camel could fit thru the eye of a needle, than the magnets could change size due to the "whiPMag effect", whatever that is.
I hope...

Al,

No need to apologize. We' all been there .. working on a novel device from a lot of different angles -- juggling a lot of balls at one time. You documented a lot more than I would have. Congrats on that.

... I'm now looking for a very small camel or a very large needle ... Laughing

Cheers Smile
Yada ...
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:13 pm PostPost subject:
MADPROF
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 545

Reply with quote

I think for what it's worth, the diameter of the rotor mags are .250". Wink Based on the fact Al used a 1/4" slot drill to cut the channels, and the strength of HDPE, you just couldn't get a bigger diameter in. Mr. Green
_________________
"simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:27 pm PostPost subject:
Yadaraf
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

Reply with quote

MADPROF wrote:
I think for what it's worth, the diameter of the rotor mags are .250". Wink Based on the fact Al used a 1/4" slot drill to cut the channels, and the strength of HDPE, you just couldn't get a bigger diameter in. Mr. Green

OC,

I'd agree the diameter is likely to be 0.250," but 6.5 mm is only larger by 0.005" and Al's rotor might be more pliable than HDPE -- for example, polypropylene is more adaptable.

In any event ... we obviously have another conundrum on our hands, and IMHO the new rigs will have to have adjustable stator slots for tweaking the radial alignment.

.. Q: Are you using N35's in MADPROF's rig?

Cheers Smile
Yada ..
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:06 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Yadaraf wrote:

.. Q: Are you using N35's in MADPROF's rig?


The primary rotor magnets I have been using are rectangular 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/2" N42s:
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=B448

But I have also tried short ones with 1/4" cubes:
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=B444

and combinations of the two.

I have also tried with 5mm x 1/2" N35 cylinders and 5mm x 1" N35 cylinders and combinations of the two. I tried them fixed with BluTac and allowed them to float by placing them inside soda straws which were BluTacked into the slots.

I have also tried the N35 5mm cylinders with one of these N42 discs stuck to each end:
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=D42

I don't currently have any 1/4" x 1/2" cylinders.

Don't bother asking what kinds of stator magnets I have tried.
("There was long ones, tall ones, short ones,
Brown ones, black ones, round ones, big ones, crazy ones ..." -- Eric Burdon)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:07 pm PostPost subject:
Yadaraf
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

Reply with quote

overconfident wrote:
Yadaraf wrote:

.. Q: Are you using N35's in MADPROF's rig?


The primary rotor magnets I have been using are rectangular 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/2" N42s:
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=B448

But I have also tried short ones with 1/4" cubes:
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=B444

and combinations of the two.

I have also tried with 5mm x 1/2" N35 cylinders and 5mm x 1" N35 cylinders and combinations of the two. I tried them fixed with BluTac and allowed them to float by placing them inside soda straws which were BluTacked into the slots.

I have also tried the N35 5mm cylinders with one of these N42 discs stuck to each end:
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=D42

I don't currently have any 1/4" x 1/2" cylinders.

Don't bother asking what kinds of stator magnets I have tried.
("There was long ones, tall ones, short ones,
Brown ones, black ones, round ones, big ones, crazy ones ..." -- Eric Burdon)

OC,

You've been a busy boy Laughing

Cheers Smile
Yada ..
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:56 pm PostPost subject:
Yadaraf
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

Reply with quote

alsetalokin wrote:

It is more likely that a camel could fit thru the eye of a needle, than the magnets could change size due to the "whiPMag effect", whatever that is.
I hope...

I guess I would describe the "Whipmag Effect" as "self-acelleration followed by self-sustained rotor speeds between 400 and 1200 RPM." I would not consider AGW synch to be an effect, but rather a mechanisitc pathway to the effect.

Having said that, consider the following wrt fitting a camel through the eye of a needle.

Small Camel Hypothesis:
Consider that the nickel casing of the rotor magnet is thin and maleable and that the NeFdB contained within is brittle and prone to cracking and deformation. Consider that the rotor magnet is subject to a number of forces when subjected to the Whipmag effect. These forces are illustrated in the below picture, and have the potential to deform the rotor magnet. (Note the centrifugal force can be likened to centrifuge action.) It's been observed that the rotor magnets are now longer than 0.500" and it's possible that Whipmag forces have deformed the rotor magnets. (How likely is it that the rotor magnet manufacturing tolerance was 0.500" +/- 0.040"?)




Large Needle Corollary:
Consider that the rotor is eccentric, and that forces are unbalanced. We could expect that the magnets located at the apex of the eccentricity might experience greater "centrifugal" force and thus might deform more. This begs the question: are those magnets that appear to be the longest (0.540") located at the apex of the eccentricity?

Cheers Smile
Yada ..
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:08 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Yadaraf wrote:

I included the gap -- it's the wing feature @24.8 pixels. It's close to 0.248" when referenced to the rotor diameter of 144 mm.


Shocked .248 diagonal?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:45 am PostPost subject:
Yadaraf
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
Yadaraf wrote:

I included the gap -- it's the wing feature @24.8 pixels. It's close to 0.248" when referenced to the rotor diameter of 144 mm.


Shocked .248 diagonal?

The first line that I drew was not quite perpendicular, so I drew a second one that is more square to the wing (see revised image, red line). The first line (24.8 pixels) resolves to approximately 0.248," and the second line (26.4 pixels) resolves to approximately 0.265." The wing is fuzzy, but both measurements are close to 0.250" -- the width of the channel.

The channel calculation is: 144 * (26.4/565.9) = 6.723 mm = 0.265"

Cheers Smile
Yada ..
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:29 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

The channel edges are de-burred with a commercial (Noga) deburring tool; it leaves a "chamfer" on the deburred edge that might cause your photogrammetry to be a little off. I cut the channels in a single pass (axially) with a 2-fluted 1/4 inch end mill, IIRC, so the width should be very close to or even a tiny bit under 0.250.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:31 pm PostPost subject:
Yadaraf
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

Reply with quote

alsetalokin wrote:
The channel edges are de-burred with a commercial (Noga) deburring tool; it leaves a "chamfer" on the deburred edge that might cause your photogrammetry to be a little off. I cut the channels in a single pass (axially) with a 2-fluted 1/4 inch end mill, IIRC, so the width should be very close to or even a tiny bit under 0.250.

Al,

Thanks. The channel width hasn't been an issue. I wanted to demonstrate that because the channel "feature" and the rotor diameter "feature" were in the same depth of field, they shared the same resolution, and that the length of one (e.g. the channel) could be measured using the known length of the other (e.g. the rotor diameter).

The corollary is that one can't use the resolution of the channel feature to measure the length of the magnet, because the resolutions are very different.

(That is easier to say than to put into words. Conveying one's thoughts in a forum is challenging, but a good exercise nonetheless -- another reason why I like this project. Cool )

Cheers Smile
Yada ..
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:07 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Yadaraf wrote:

(That is easier to say than to put into words. Conveying one's thoughts in a forum is challenging, but a good exercise nonetheless --


No sh!t.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:24 pm PostPost subject:
billgates
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 41

Reply with quote

Yadaraf wrote:
... I'm now looking for a very small camel or a very large needle ... Laughing

Just a note: "camel" is an error of translation.
In the original text the word was not "gamla" (camel) but "gamta" (sturdy rope)... (http://www.calacirian.org/?p=760)

Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:35 pm PostPost subject:
Yadaraf
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

Reply with quote

billgates wrote:
Yadaraf wrote:
... I'm now looking for a very small camel or a very large needle ... Laughing

Just a note: "camel" is an error of translation.
In the original text the word was not "gamla" (camel) but "gamta" (sturdy rope)... (http://www.calacirian.org/?p=760)

Wink

billgates,

How astute. "Sturdy rope" does make more sense. Laughing

Cheers Smile
Yada ..
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:37 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

Thanks, Bill, I had forgotten that bit of biblical trivia. And another mistranslation, but one that, sadly, has real-world consequences, is the mistranslation of the word "raisins" as "virgins"--the famous 72 of them that are awaiting Muslim martyrs in paradise.
Raisins were a sought-after delicacy in 7th century Arabia.
http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/02/03/1bkk/04b.html
This would be hilarious if it wasn't so terrifying.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:44 pm PostPost subject:
JoinTheFun
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 38
Location: Netherlands

Reply with quote

Sun maidens, LOL.
_________________
Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:54 pm PostPost subject:
toiz
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Posts: 20

Reply with quote

alsetalokin wrote:
Thanks, Bill, I had forgotten that bit of biblical trivia. And another mistranslation, but one that, sadly, has real-world consequences, is the mistranslation of the word "raisins" as "virgins"--the famous 72 of them that are awaiting Muslim martyrs in paradise.
Raisins were a sought-after delicacy in 7th century Arabia.
http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/02/03/1bkk/04b.html
This would be hilarious if it wasn't so terrifying.


OMG!!!


Last edited by toiz on Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:23 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

billgates wrote:
Yadaraf wrote:
... I'm now looking for a very small camel or a very large needle ... Laughing

Just a note: "camel" is an error of translation.
In the original text the word was not "gamla" (camel) but "gamta" (sturdy rope)... (http://www.calacirian.org/?p=760)

Wink


That's an interesting similiarity, however quite untrue. At the time that quote was recorded the common lanquage was greek (hence the new testament is also referred to as the Greek Scriptures). The Greek word here for camel is κάμηλου and can be found at Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25. Those are 3 different accounts of the same situation all of which agree that Jesus used the word camel, not rope(s) σχοιυία. Interestingly the singular form of 'rope' does not exist in the Greek Scriptures and the plural 'ropes' only occurs twice. John 2:15 & Acts 27:32.

Your post certainly appeared to have merit however Wink Have you seen those two words written in Aramaic? Do they look similar?

ETA:
For those that are interested in the transliteration it reads like this:
"; again but I-am-saying to YOU, easier it-is camel through hole of-needle to-enter than rich-one into the kingdom of the God" YOU is plural.

Cheers
Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:34 am PostPost subject:
lostcauses
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 871
Location: NM

Reply with quote

"through hole of-needle to-enter "
Also refers to the narrow entry way (passage for individual folks) into a fortified village or center, not as a needle we use today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:52 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

lostcauses wrote:
"through hole of-needle to-enter "
Also refers to the narrow entry way (passage for individual folks) into a fortified village or center, not as a needle we use today.


Yes it can.

Note however that the verb used in Matt and Mark mean to sew. And the word used in Luke specifically refers to a surgical needle. (This doesn't suprise me since Luke was a doctor)

The Babylonian Talmud says: “They draw an elephant through the eye of a needle.” This use of a typical hyperbole is used to emphasize the impossibilty. Notice that Jesus himself qualifies this very matter in Matt 19:26, just two verses after making the statement. His apostles certainly did not see this as a camel in a gate or a rope in a needle. In verse 25 they say "Who really can be saved?". It was in answer to this that Jesus qualified his meaning in verse 26 "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible"

Clearly, he was giving an example of something that is impossible without God's assistance. This would not be the case with a gate or a rope. A gate can be disassembled, or widened without Gods help. A rope can be disassembled and pulled through a needle one thread at a time. But an elephant or a camel would have to be liquified to perform such an exercise and it would take Gods help to restore it back to life afterward.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:27 pm PostPost subject:
munchausen
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Posts: 54

Reply with quote

The real question is:

Is it easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for anynoe to replicate the whipmag?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:00 pm PostPost subject:
Pageygeeza
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 12

Reply with quote

I've noticed the same thing, there are far too many variables for there to be two exact whipmag models.

I know there are different designs, but if one person makes one, someone else won't be able to make it the same and get the same results.

To my eye it seems to rely too much on chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:11 pm PostPost subject:
Yadaraf
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

Reply with quote

Pageygeeza wrote:
I've noticed the same thing, there are far too many variables for there to be two exact whipmag models.

I know there are different designs, but if one person makes one, someone else won't be able to make it the same and get the same results.

To my eye it seems to rely too much on chaos.

IMHO Whipmag replication is possible if one focuses more on Al's methodology than on the parts.

For example, has anyone other than Al started with a 5x4 system to really study the underlying principles -- the fundamentals of the 13x8 system? I don't think so. I believe Al learned a lot from investigating the 5x4 rig.

Cheers Smile
Yada ..
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:30 pm PostPost subject:
Pageygeeza
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 12

Reply with quote

I was just watching the video, (pretty impressive.)

But I have one pretty serious question: Say someone produces a model that works properly everytime and is actually usable, who's to say it isn't someone elses design, (especially for patenting.) I have some pretty wacky ideas for my magnetic motor, would it be better to patent first then start posting findings here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:38 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

Yes, that's pretty much a requirement for patentablility--your innovation must not have been published openly before the patent.
But there have already been a lot of variations on magnet motors patented. The first thing, IMHO, is to review thoroughly the "prior art" to see if your innovations are really new.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum