PSN-L Email List Message
Subject: Re: 3 wire "X" suspension ?
From: "meredith lamb" paleoartifact@.........
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:07:35 -0600
Hi Chris,
Your suggestion is perplexing; perhaps you really mean rotational movement?
Being short of a actual working model, it would appear likely that the wires
will touch at the "x" junctions. One thought I have is that on
the bottom plate (or on put on the top plate), one might have 2 of the 3
wires slightly vertically elevated via a spacer to get away hopefully
from such contact. Of the two spacers, they may each need to be different
heights.
Take care, Meredith
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:54 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 2008/10/15, paleoartifact@......... writes:
>
> Its seemingly more likely to instead have the mass underneath the bottom
> "plate" for perhaps better period adjustment range. See:
> http://seismometer.googlepages.com/3wirexsuspension
> New and "strange" yes, but interesting.
>
>
>
> Hi Meredith,
>
> I would advise making the twin wires have a wider separation at the
> top than the attachement to the bottom plate. This will tend to inhibit
> sideways motions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> **************
>
Hi Chris,
Your suggestion is perplexing; perhaps you really mean rotational movement?
Being short of a actual working model, it would appear likely that the wires will touch at the "x" junctions. One thought I have is that on
the bottom plate (or on put on the top plate), one might have 2 of the 3 wires slightly vertically elevated via a spacer to get away hopefully
from such contact. Of the two spacers, they may each need to be different heights.
Take care, Meredith
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:54 PM,
<ChrisAtUpw@.......> wrote:
Hi Meredith,
I would advise making the twin wires have a wider separation at the top than the attachement to the bottom plate. This will tend to inhibit sideways motions.
Regards,
Chris
**************
[ Top ]
[ Back ]
[ Home Page ]