Randall, and all interested,

In comparison to your present model and what I've ~ tried
in the past (2007), the following web page reference model is
crudely similar.  Obviously the size/s of everything is roughly
twice what you show.  As well as I remember, it was much more
stable than a earlier model similar to yours; and offered easy
over dampening via aluminum foil extending over dual end
magnets, simply because the increased PG size could sustain
the load.  Real adjustable dampening remains elusive.

https://sites.google.com/site/diamagnetics/

The web page itself doesn't show the specific aluminum foil
thereon, but it is actually; K&S precision metals, 36 gauge
(.005" thick) foil.  This is general hobby shop sold material.  It's
sold in either rolls or in a set of 3 sheets.  I've no reference to
it's purity, but it certainly worked very effectively for that model,
and much better than everyday scrap aluminum or household
aluminum foil with it's suspect magnetic impurities.  It's very
easy to cut, shape or flatten.

www.ksmetals.com/craftproducts.html

The two "end magnets" size is 3/4 X 1/2 X 1/4" and are
magnetized through the 1/4" thickness.  I'm not now sure of
their rating, but it was likely between N40 and N45.  Although
it's contacts were magnetically conflicting, they actually
mechanically held very well.

The iron used remains ~ nondescript, it was just iron/steel
that was flat and thick enough to secure the magnets down
very well.

One of the most interesting aspects of this model is that by
simply separating the PG by varying distances, the natural
period changed from a low of ~ 4s up to ~ 7 seconds easily.
Longer periods were "hinted" to be attainable, but the
mechanism for doing so remains elusive.  However, this
was only using the one model; it maybe specific to variations
in the individual setup and it's underlying magnets fields
variations.  This has been noted by other individuals in
their setup models.

I used 1/2" thick (height) magnets.  The difference between
1/4" thick and 1/2" thick magnets seems to be one of more
enhanced vertical fields acting on the PG with thicker magnets.

Actually, the most maddening aspect of anyone initially creating any
diamagnetic model is always that of just getting, and making the
dimensions of the PG size it needs.  I did make a excess of that
specific web pages PG size, for anyone who has a interest in
pursuing such...within numerical limits of course  They are
reasonable well made table sawed units.

One of the main attraction draws I have for diamagnetic levitation
experimentation is that the; "usual pendulum/s" numerous
mechanical physical parts are not required.

Meredith










On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Randall Peters  wrote=
:

> For those of you who have had an interest in levitating graphite, you may
> find interesting a prototype instrument that I recently built.  I first
> witnessed the intriguing possibilities of diamagnetic levitation through =
a
> demonstration by Chris Chapman about half a decade ago, when I visited wi=
th
> him in England.  Only recently did I come to know about pyrolytic graphit=
e
> (PG) plates, as opposed to the earlier experiments with rods.  Because th=
e
> plates are amenable to use with my fully differential capacitive sensors,=
 I
> decided to try my (typically frustrating) hand at building such a
> tiltmeter/seismometer=97that I have called in the following online paper =
an
> =91earth motion=92 detector.****
>
> http://physics.mercer.edu/hpage/diamagnetic/diamag.html****
>
>    The outstanding performance of this prototype really surprised me.  My
> thanks to Meredith Lamb and John Lahr (deceased, whom I admired greatly)
> for their pioneering work that steered me this direction,****
>
>     Randall****
>
Randall, and all interested,

In comparison to your prese=
nt model and what I've ~ tried
in the past (2007), the follow=
ing web page reference model is
crudely similar. =A0Obviously the=
 size/s of everything is roughly

twice what you show. =A0As well as I remember, it was much more
<=
div>stable than a earlier model similar to yours; and offered easyover dampening via=A0aluminum foil=A0extending over dual end
ma=
gnets, simply because the increased PG size could sustain

the load. =A0Real adjustable dampening remains elusive. =A0 =A0 =A0







https://sites.google.com/site/diamagnetics/
The web page itself doesn't show the specific aluminum foil=









thereon, but it is actually; K&S precision metals, 36 gauge
(.005" thick) foil. =A0This is general hobby shop sold material. =
=A0It's
sold in either rolls or in a set of 3 sheets. =A0I=
9;ve no=A0reference to
it's purity, but it certainly=A0worked=
 very effectively for that model,









and much better than everyday scrap aluminum or household
al=
uminum foil with it's suspect=A0magnetic impurities. =A0It's very
easy to cut, shape or flatten.

www.ksmetals=
..com/craftproducts.html





The two "end magnets" size is 3/4 X 1/2 X 1/4=
" and are
magnetized through the 1/4" thickness. =A0I&#=
39;m not now sure of
their rating, but it was likely between N40 =
and N45. =A0Although

it's contacts were magnetically conflicting, they actually
mechanically held=A0very well. =A0 =A0

The iron=
 used remains ~ nondescript, it was just iron/steel
that was flat=
 and thick enough to secure the magnets down

very well.

One of the most interesting aspect=
s of this model is that by
simply separating the PG by varying di=
stances, the natural
period changed from a low of ~ 4s up to ~ 7 =
seconds easily.

Longer periods were "hinted" to be attainable, but the
=
mechanism for doing so remains elusive. =A0However, this
was=
 only using the one model; it maybe specific to variations
in the=
 individual setup and it's underlying magnets fields

variations. =A0This has been noted by other individuals in
t=
heir setup models. =A0=A0

I used 1/2" thick (=
height) magnets. =A0The difference between
1/4" thick and 1/=
2" thick magnets seems to be one of more

enhanced vertical fields acting on the PG with thicker magnets.
<=
div>
Actually, the most maddening aspect of anyone initially =
creating any=A0
diamagnetic=A0model is always that of just gettin=
g, and making the








dimensions of the PG size it=A0needs. =A0I did make a excess of that
specific web=A0pages PG size, for anyone who has a interest in
pursuing=A0such...within numerical limits of course =A0They are

reasonable well=A0made table sawed units.

One of t=
he main attraction draws I have for diamagnetic levitation=A0
exp=
erimentation is that=A0the; "usual pendulum/s" numerous
mechanical physical=A0parts are not required.


Meredith=A0






=A0=A0

On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at=
 7:40 AM, Randall Peters <PETERS_RD@..........> wrote:









For those of you who have had an interes=
t in levitating graphite, you may find interesting a prototype instrument t=
hat I recently built. =A0I first witnessed the intriguing possibilities of =
diamagnetic levitation through a demonstration by Chris Chapman about half =
a decade ago, when I visited with him in England.=A0 Only recently did I co=
me to know about pyrolytic graphite (PG) plates, as opposed to the earlier =
experiments with rods.=A0 Because the plates are amenable to use with my fu=
lly differential capacitive sensors, I decided to try my (typically frustra=
ting) hand at building such a tiltmeter/seismometer=97that I have called in=
 the following online paper an =91earth motion=92 detector.









http://physics.mercer.edu/hpage/diamagnet=
ic/diamag.html
=A0=A0 The outst=
anding performance of this prototype really surprised me.=A0 My thanks to M=
eredith Lamb and John Lahr (deceased, whom I admired greatly) for their pio=
neering work that steered me this direction,









=A0=A0=A0 Randall