CAD model of a BD camalot number 1

no its not a huge issue, or at least not for me, but it would be a great innovation. it probably wouldn't be as revolutionary as aliens or a double axel but it would still be an innovation. it's thoughts and discussions like these that got us from rigid friends to amazing complex cams like totems

eli poss wrote:no its not a huge issue, or at least not for me, but it would be a great innovation. it probably wouldn't be as revolutionary as aliens or a double axel but it would still be an innovation. it's thoughts and discussions like these that got us from rigid friends to amazing complex cams like totems

true

yes, the intent is to have a constant pressure on the cam to prevent/reduce walking. I don't see anyone racking up with a full set of them, more like a specialty cam such as the link cams or offset cams, keep one on your rack, maybe it will cover your ass in a hard spot.
Had to do a telescoping piston to maintain some of the range of the cam, I wish i could have maintained it better, maybe a ratchet or some kind of gear tooth approach would work better, thats why I posted that weird ratchet cam shape picture a couple posts ago.
I also think this concept may work better for, and be a more applicable to the smaller cam sizes where a small shift or walk of the cam is a bigger deal than with a number one. Personally I have had little to no problems with stuff walking, but I use slings or quick draws. It is kinda always in the back of my mind though. Walking is a known failure mode of any cam should you not extend, outside interference of some sort or IDK shit happens, I am simply putting out some ideas that could alleviate this concern altogether take it with a grain of salt I am just a guy with a computer :)

Just a suggestion.... If you folks really want to discuss cam design start a new thread. This one's shot, and useless if someone does a search. No offense intended for the coffee mug people, but long story short Enginerds don't have long attention spans when it comes to sifting through crap.

Also, Kyle- if your intent is to reduce walking, I'd suggest you look at the root causes of cams walking rather than jumping right to crazy hydraulic solutions.

Funny enough, Ray Jardine had the answer back in the 70's, but didn't know it. Which is to say everyone since has been focused on the log spiral and expansion ratio, when the real key to making it work is the trigger mechanism.

There's some really fun patents to read on the USPTO's website, if you're serious about this sort of thing. IMO no one has done it correctly yet, although some have come close.

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.

Tom S: You are either completely bored and are trolling the masses with jargon and BS, or you are so full of BS that it runs through your fingers like hair. I honestly am not sure. Were you picked on a lot as a middle schooler? Maybe get cut from the academic team? As my daddy used to say: "Son, you have gotten too big for your britches."

Cody Ison wrote: Tom S: You are either completely bored and are trolling the masses with jargon and bullshit, or you are so full of bullshit that it runs through your fingers like hair. I honestly am not sure. Were you picked on a lot as a middle schooler? Maybe get cut from the academic team? As my daddy used to say: "Son, you have gotten too big for your britches."

Were you really that offended by my trying to think something through?

What you said but more succinctly, why don't you go fuck a goat.

Now, I don't understand a thing y'all are talking about and I've got no issue with someone "thinking something through". But even I can tell when someone is doing it while being smug and snarky.

Tom Sherman wrote: Do you actually understand this? or are you just repeating it.

Tom Sherman wrote:I can put an elephant in there. still doesn't change the fact that we're rotating around one axis.

Tom Sherman wrote:You CANNOT take a singular solid object and rotate it around two planar but separate axis of rotation - Physics

Tom Sherman wrote:You don't actually understand this do you? Steps to prove yourself wrong:

Tom Sherman wrote:I'll now offer $5...

You had to imagine after being proven wrong that somebody would give you shit about it?! To be fair, you did admit it.

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.

C'mon csproul

csproul wrote:To be fair

Tom Sherman wrote:No offense & not to be facetious, but all you guys declaring "X4 has stacked axle" Do you actually understand this?

yeah I apologize that I sounded like an asshat, but in my experience it's quite often that people repeat, perpetuate, and state things that they don't understand, which I don't know why. my problem was that my oversight was so strong that I read, but misinterpreted both

kennoyce wrote:I'm really starting to think that you're just trolling now. Nobody ever said that a singular solid object is rotating around two planer but seperate axis of rotation. I'm saying that four individual and seperate objects (the cam lobes) are rotating about two separate axis of rotation. The two inner lobes rotate about the center of the wider portion of the axle and the two outer lobes rotate about the center of the thinner portions of the axle.

and

rocknice2 wrote: You're not rotating the axle, you're rotating the lobes. The axle just provides two points of rotation, one for each set of lobes. The axle is actually fixed to the stem so it can't rotate.

....

they had said it right there

....
(my head still in sand)

http://imgur.com/gallery/e9ZAA
interesting cam shaped gears at this link I wonder if that can be applied...
anyone else do CAD models and have something to show? even if you modify mine... I am interested in what others have to say about cam improvement of any sort.

i think you are on the right track with trying to design such a mechanism to eliminate walking. i think the answer is with the spring rather than a mechanism to keep constant weight on it. would it be possible to design a spring to have adjustable tension so you could crank it up after you place the cam? i really don't know shit about engineering, however, so that may not be plausible.

The best mechanism to eliminate walking is a shoulder length sling. Combine that with a flexible stem and you have yourself a cam that will resist walking. It will be light too.

You are trying to invent problems to fit a poor solution.

Walking cams are not really a big issue. Like others have said if you are worried about that chuck on a longer sling.

and what if it is the first piece and that sling extends groundfall potential? i'm all for extending placements when there are limited consequences for a longer fall because it reduces drag and effective fall factor. what i don't understand is all the resistance from the climbing community towards further innovation. just because things work well doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make them work even better. this is the motivation that convinced ray jardine (if that's a typo i'm sorry i suck at spelling) to invent friends and to go further beyond forged friends to create even better SLCDs. aren't you glad companies such as totem or CCH have come up with innovations to improve on the basic SLCD? people need to be more open to new ideas that could potentially improve existing products and techniques.

eli poss wrote:and what if it is the first piece and that sling extends groundfall potential?

Then don't extend. Like I said walking cams really isn't a big concern. Certainly no a big enough concern to buy more expensive and heavier cams. Carrying a whole rack of heavier cams up a cliff!? No way! But regardless the hydraulic idea is fantasy that does not work and shows a lack of understanding how cams work.

eli poss wrote: what i don't understand is all the resistance from the climbing community towards further innovation. just because things work well doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make them work even better.

Who said there was resistance? But what you have suggested isn't innovation, it isn't workable.

Though speaking about innovation I followed the development of TOTEM cams for years. Totem cams are REAL innovation and I bought them shortly after release. They haven't disappointed.

eli poss wrote:people need to be more open to new ideas that could potentially improve existing products and techniques.

There is no evidence to suggest that people are not open to new ideas. However people do rightly dismiss impractical or unworkable ideas.

Lighten up on the kid, this thread was never that serious. I personally would jump all over a cam that walked less. I don't think a hydraulic ram is the answer but it is out of the box.

rocknice2 wrote:Lighten up on the kid,

Fair call.

Though the 'kid' needs to read and recognise good advice when it is suggested. Feedback was more polite early on. Instead of listening the response was one of attacking those trying to help.

eli poss wrote: this is the motivation that convinced ray jardine (if that's a typo i'm sorry i suck at spelling) to invent friends and to go further beyond forged friends to create even better SLCDs.

Jardine's invention was a trigger mechanism to retract the lobes. Credit for camming devices goes to Greg Lowe.

[/pedant]

:)

;-)

The wiki article credits the Abalakov Cam as the first logarithmic spiral cam used for climbing. Of course there were quite a expanding devices prior to this too.

Here is a trip back in time on how things progressed after Lowe....

needlesports.com/NeedleSpor…

patto wrote:;-) The wiki article credits the Abalakov Cam as the first logarithmic spiral cam used for climbing. Of course there were quite a expanding devices prior to this too. Here is a trip back in time on how things progressed after Lowe.... needlesports.com/NeedleSpor…

Quite likely Wiki's wrong on that, as IIRC the Abalakov cams were not log spirals, but rather sections quite literally cut out of a round pulley. Plus they were essentially tricams, hence crediting Lowe for the development of SLCDs with the introduction of the Crack Jumar and later Cam Nut and Split Cam (which are mentioned in your Needle Sports link).

Good pics of Abalokov cams here: supertopo.com/climbing/thre…;tn=80

One more thought regarding Jardine inventing Friends.... here's Jeff Lowe's take on it: supertopo.com/climbing/thre…;tn=85:

"Oli's statement of the development of spring-loade cams is true, although Greg applied for the patent in 1972, and it was granted in '73, not '75.

But to the point of Ray's character:
I was there in '71 or '72 at my brother Mike's house in Gunnison, CO. Mike, Ray and I were Outward Bound instructors and therefore had something in common. Greg was over from Utah to work with Mike on the camming concept, which he'd been developing since 1967. Jardine had been invited to a spaghetti dinner, and Greg offerred to show him the current state of development of his new protection device for climbing, but first Ray had to sign a non-disclosure/non-compete agreement.

Ray was a quick engineering study and soon grasped the essentials of the constant-angle cam and spring-load concept. It was all-in-all a very convivial and exciting sharing among friends. This is why, several years later, when word began to leak out about Ray's secret devices, Greg sent the first of a string of registered letters to Jardine, seeking to come to some sort of agreement over his breach of faith. All the letters were refused, so it was that, finally, after Friends came out on the market and Mark Vallance began producing them under license from Ray, that Greg finally filed suit. To make a long story a little shorter, Mark, who is a stand-up guy, but had not been told the whole story by Ray, finally agreed to pay Greg a settlement for the use of the camming concept. Who needs an enema when you've got a friend like Ray? "

And: supertopo.com/climbing/thre…;msg=387813#msg387813

"As far as my post regarding Ray goes, I just wanted to set the record straight. He did in fact steal the camming concept for use in Friends, after agreeing not to do so. A more honest man, Mark Vallance, did what he could to re-dress the balance, even though Ray had misled him, as well. I would never argue that Ray didn't do an excellent job of taking the idea and running with it. Seems to me the more honorable thing for him to have done would have been to develop the concept in conjunction with Lowe Alpine Systems, and we could have all been happy. As it is, I'm left with negative feelings about Ray, and I wish I didn't have those. "

Lots of interesting history out there if you go digging for it, especially hidden in the depths of ST.

Erm, that "you" was a general "you" directed at folks interested in the history of climbing gear and not you in partiular, Patto.

:)