So my engineer buddy just designed and fabricated a fully functional "#7" cam and it's awesome

Eric and Lucie wrote: I think it's great to make your own gear if you know a bit about engineering.  
That said, is it just me or does it look like the lobes do not have the proper logarithmic spiral shape?  The picture is small, and I notice that he is using a much larger separation between axles, so it's hard to tell?

If it gets wider when the trigger is pulled, I'm canceling my order.

I would love to see some more up close, detail shots of it. 

Three words:

Product.
Liability.
Insurance.

... and in this case, it won't be cheap. 

Only if he sells them would patents/liability come into play. You can pretty much make anything for yourself unless you've signed something otherwise.

As for relevance in regards to patents:

https://patents.google.com/?q=climbing&q=cam&oq=climbing+cam

Term of patent is 20 years no, that search above has a filing cadence graph below results (interesting in itself) but, plenty of patents being filed and if maintained, are still relevant.

Also, kudos to the engineer, I hope this gets you a job at Metoulis, DMM, or BD!

Hey Devin and Taylor? Are you guys out of Utah Valley? I'd love to see this cam in person if that were ever an option. If you ever need a gear tester let me know!:) 

Danny Parker wrote: Hey Devin and Taylor? Are you guys out of Utah Valley? I'd love to see this cam in person if that were ever an option. If you ever need a gear tester let me know!:)

Does that thing have a flexible stem or is it solid steel like the Merlin?

Christopher Smith wrote: Does that thing have a flexible stem or is it solid steel like the Merlin?

Steel cable stem for structure slid inside of a stainless steel tube to give rigidity.

Are you using 7075-T6?

James Cho wrote: Are you using 7075-T6?

For most parts, yes. 

Dibs :)

Danny Parker wrote: Hey Devin and Taylor? Are you guys out of Utah Valley? I'd love to see this cam in person if that were ever an option. If you ever need a gear tester let me know!:) 

Sent you a message.

KrisG wrote:

Anyone want to test this out?

(too bad, it's gone)

10/10 would stress eat

I’m sorry but the picture quality is really poor but did you design the lobes so that the beyond ~85% closure there is nothing to contact the rock? It looks like there isn’t any lobe.

14 degree camming angle on the lobes seems a bit large. I thought the standard was 13.5 degrees (don’t quote me exactly on this) Did you find that the 14 degree angle exerted more normal force against surface wrong?

Additionally, at the far end of the spectrum, maxim expansion, it would appear that this cam wouldn’t work as the surface contact of the lobes is less when compared to 50% closure.

I think you should also maybe play around with the cutouts in the lobes, it seems to me that the huge cross sectional cuts might be too large, or the trusses are spaced a bit widely possibly causing higher stress concentrations than desired. Just food for thought. 

One thing I've wondered about is whether the "spokes" of the lobes could be made as I-beam profiles. It might be tricky beveling the interior edges, but it might shave off some grams as somewhat aggressive optimization. Nice work though, you've clearly thought this through and I can see the signs of an experienced mechanical designer.