CAD model of a BD camalot number 1
|
Tom Sherman wrote:You don't actually understand this do you? Steps to prove yourself wrong: 1. Take two things. (2 pens, or 1 pen and one marker, or 1 pen and one watermelon, or a watermelon and a grapefruit) 2. Tape them together, or insert them into each other, weld them, glue them, fart on em... 3. Rotate them. 4. With them solidly connected to each other, tell me that they are rotating about two different axis.THE AXLE DOESN'T ROTATE! There isn't a cam in existance that requires the axle to rotate and the X4 is no different. The axle is held stationary by the stem and the lobes rotate around the axle JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER CAM IN EXISTANCE. |
|
Tom Sherman wrote:I'll now offer $5, to either one of you, who can explain this concept, clearly. Be it through drawings, video, a medium other than words. But the offer has an expiration of 2 hrs. from now. I am also going to draw you a diagram, of the only way this could possibly work. (negating the idea that the inner of the cam lobe accounts for some sort of off-origin rotational shift) So I will draw you a non solid axle.I was hoping to be able to throw a quick modle together but unfortunately our NX licensing server is currently down so i can't access the software. |
|
FUCK! Lol, ok I am retarded. Sorry for wasting your time, but thank you for your explanation. I'll go stand in the corner now. |
|
You owe everyone on this topic $5... |
|
Do you think I'll have trouble marketing the elephant cams? |
|
Here is my question to the group: |
|
Yeah, you would just have to manually resist that during placement. So cams are a balance between placeability and pull strength of lobes. Guess you could make a trigger that you release, effectively locking the cam afterwards, think, those new fancy camming derailers that lock in place on top of regular derailer spring. |
|
OP - very nice job on the model. |
|
Tom Sherman wrote:FUCK! Lol, ok I am retarded. Sorry for wasting your time, but thank you for your explanation. I'll go stand in the corner now.No worries, i'm just glad you finally got it! |
|
Kyle Cobbler wrote:Here is my question to the group: If you were able to place a cam and then load it internally(the rope is not pulling on the cam it has some sort of internal mechanism stronger than the current springs) do you think it would eliminate or greatly reduce walking?Just off the top of my head, I'd say it depends. If the crack has undulations. Then yes it would be harder to compress the lobes to fit into a tighter space. If the crack is perfectly parallel and I mean perfect. Then still yes because it would be harder to slide the lobes along the rock. |
|
Tom, are you talking about stacking the stacked axles?? if so, it would be a really great way to get a lot more range, but there would be a lot more moving parts. You'd have to have a 'third' axle for the double axle to pivot around, and there would have to be another set of springs (stiffer than the lobes) that you would then pull through. You'd also have to incorporate the rotating axles into the lobe design or you would have interference preventing the lobes from staying oriented correctly. |
|
"How shall we inscribe his tombstone?" - |
|
Also, this guy seemed to be onto something... |
|
Eric, sorry words are so hard to describe this. |
|
Tom Sherman wrote:Eric, sorry words are so hard to describe this. The cam is about maintaining a tangential constant point of friction while variably increasing overall width. So this is completed by a logarithmic spiral, which I am assuming to be some basic exponential equation. Call it x^2. Could we redesign based on x^4 and maintain a constant tangential point of friction. Both outer lobe and inner recipient would be logarithmic spirals, except that designed in consideration to equate to an equation of x^4. For smooth expansion, etc. So everything the same, except, the inner would be rotating around, essentially, a cam lobe, as opposed to a circular axle. Does that make sense, comprehensible, thoughts?Good thought, but unfortunately it wouldn't work due to the fact that lobe and the "logarithmic" axle wouldn't be able to rotate around each other since there would only be one point on each of their logarithmic curves that would properly mate. Once you move away from this position the radius of curvature changes and they will bind. |
|
Tom, I see what you're saying now, but I'm going to agree with ^^^ in that it would bind. I can't see it working, but pictures seem to help :) I personally like them to include elephants |
|
In case anyone is still confused by the stacked axle thing, here's how it works.... Dual axles won't work in small sizes due to the need for the axles to overlap, which would prevent the lobes from rotating. However, since the diameter of the axles has no effect on the rotation you can enlarge the one axle to the point of it completely enveloping the other one, thereby obtaining two centers of rotation on a single axle. |
|
eccentric bearings essentially do the same thing right? they are just bearings with different centers of rotation..right? |
|
Yup. The eccentrics offset the center of lobe rotation from the center of the axle. Interesting patent, and leads to some fun stuff involving the center of rotation of the log spiral not actually having to be within the physical confines of cam lobe. Easy to get expansion ratios of 2.5:1 on a single axle cam this way, but the springs are a bitch. |
|
would it be possible to make a spring whose tension could be adjusted? like you could put it on low tension to place then increase the tension to reduce walking? if that was possible, it would sell like wildfire |