Richard Mumford-yoyoman
Been here a while
- Location
- Atlanta GA
Open source innovation and public domain
- Thread starter Richard Mumford-yoyoman
- Start date
Richard Mumford-yoyoman
Been here a while
- Location
- Atlanta GA
[ QUOTE ]
Looks pretty cool.
Would it be mid-line attachable?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I'm thinking the line can be captured by the concave sliding wedge and also held in place by the curly wire at the top and bottom. The bottom would have an optional foot type ascender like CMI that captures the line, the curly wire or a pulley to capture and tend the line for one handed operation.
Looks pretty cool.
Would it be mid-line attachable?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I'm thinking the line can be captured by the concave sliding wedge and also held in place by the curly wire at the top and bottom. The bottom would have an optional foot type ascender like CMI that captures the line, the curly wire or a pulley to capture and tend the line for one handed operation.
- Location
- Tonimbuk, Victoria, Australia
I love innovation, I think you have some real potential in that design yoyoman. All the best
Richard Mumford-yoyoman
Been here a while
- Location
- Atlanta GA
[ QUOTE ]
I love innovation, I think you have some real potential in that design yoyoman. All the best
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, here is what I was thinking. Just like the web browser I am using to write this message, it is open source, meaning, started by somebody but crated by the community.
I think that posting this design here creates a record of it's beginning making it "prior art" and will document it's development. I think that under current patent law, that will prevent a corporation or other individual from now claiming this to be their own. It becomes whatever someone wants to make of it. (open source) I may be all wrong but that is what I'm thinking. Why not have a core concept that everyone can improve on and then manufacture, at the most competitive price. I know this is a very simplistic view of a complicated market but it removes the "proprietary" out of the equation.
I love innovation, I think you have some real potential in that design yoyoman. All the best
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, here is what I was thinking. Just like the web browser I am using to write this message, it is open source, meaning, started by somebody but crated by the community.
I think that posting this design here creates a record of it's beginning making it "prior art" and will document it's development. I think that under current patent law, that will prevent a corporation or other individual from now claiming this to be their own. It becomes whatever someone wants to make of it. (open source) I may be all wrong but that is what I'm thinking. Why not have a core concept that everyone can improve on and then manufacture, at the most competitive price. I know this is a very simplistic view of a complicated market but it removes the "proprietary" out of the equation.
I like the idea, not sure how it would work, as Im sure nobody does. To figure out how/if it works somebody has to build a prototype and see. Invariably the first one wont work so you will have to re-evaluate what needs to be changed. Repeat process many times till you have a firm understanding of all the variables at play and perfect the design. At this point you will probably have $20-30K into machine time and materials.
The problem is now because its not propriety to anybody who will invest the loot so somebody else can make it and cash in???
Sorry to be negative as I like the idea of it being communal but just dont understand how it will pan out...
The problem is now because its not propriety to anybody who will invest the loot so somebody else can make it and cash in???
Sorry to be negative as I like the idea of it being communal but just dont understand how it will pan out...
Richard Mumford-yoyoman
Been here a while
- Location
- Atlanta GA
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to be negative as I like the idea of it being communal but just dont understand how it will pan out...
[/ QUOTE ]
Your points are well taken and I understand and agree with what you are saying. This is probably as much a marketing experiment as anything else. I am interested to see if the concept itself and most importantly, the experience and knowledge of a larger group of experts will overcome all of those negatives. Seems like every time something new comes out and hits the general group there are all kinds of great modification and alterations that would be wanted but not possible. Then you have product liability but just like the friction hitch, you are assembling materials in a given way and accept your own liability. Why not the device itself? I know, once again, over simplification.
You and others have been down this road much further than I so I am just putting my idea out there, backed by my ignorance to see where it goes.
At this time I am on the http://www.emachineshop.com website trying to draft a prototype and I find myself learning new things and enjoying it. Once I have the general housing, which I think looks fairly simple to machine, I can then experiment with various wedges, angles, materials and lengths.
I will update the drawing as I think two set screws on the right side to move the sliding wedges over to adjust for variable rope sizes would be very useful and keep the friction wedge in constant contact with the climbing line.
P.S. I do have the concern that someone could hurt themselves trying this (as in any new design) so I do hope anyone working on this will be careful. Same could be said for any new or creative method of tying a hitch.
Sorry to be negative as I like the idea of it being communal but just dont understand how it will pan out...
[/ QUOTE ]
Your points are well taken and I understand and agree with what you are saying. This is probably as much a marketing experiment as anything else. I am interested to see if the concept itself and most importantly, the experience and knowledge of a larger group of experts will overcome all of those negatives. Seems like every time something new comes out and hits the general group there are all kinds of great modification and alterations that would be wanted but not possible. Then you have product liability but just like the friction hitch, you are assembling materials in a given way and accept your own liability. Why not the device itself? I know, once again, over simplification.
You and others have been down this road much further than I so I am just putting my idea out there, backed by my ignorance to see where it goes.
At this time I am on the http://www.emachineshop.com website trying to draft a prototype and I find myself learning new things and enjoying it. Once I have the general housing, which I think looks fairly simple to machine, I can then experiment with various wedges, angles, materials and lengths.
I will update the drawing as I think two set screws on the right side to move the sliding wedges over to adjust for variable rope sizes would be very useful and keep the friction wedge in constant contact with the climbing line.
P.S. I do have the concern that someone could hurt themselves trying this (as in any new design) so I do hope anyone working on this will be careful. Same could be said for any new or creative method of tying a hitch.
The only way to move forward is to make a viable example and experiment. Perhaps you could make the frame rounded also where the rope goes through, just like the wedge is in your drawing. I think you will find that the wedge will grip if encouraged, but would be hard to release while it is weighted.
I dont believe releasing would be too dificult , just need to apply leverage to the release lever. IMO a spring would be needed on the bottom of the gripping wedge so as to engage it, dont know how strong as to strong would reduce advancing smoothness. I would imagine the final version would only have 1 wedge and a tapered housing but until you figure out the angles better to stay with 2.
Richard Mumford-yoyoman
Been here a while
- Location
- Atlanta GA
[ QUOTE ]
I dont believe releasing would be too dificult , just need to apply leverage to the release lever. IMO a spring would be needed on the bottom of the gripping wedge so as to engage it, dont know how strong as to strong would reduce advancing smoothness. I would imagine the final version would only have 1 wedge and a tapered housing but until you figure out the angles better to stay with 2.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm thinking that perhaps the set screws on the side pushing the wedges to just the right point of slight pressure may engage the friction wedge every time but also will not be enough pressure to slow the ascent. The release may be a function of how steep the angle is on those wedges and the material used. Perhaps once you have the frame, the wedges can be made to match the intended rope, climber weight, DdRT SRT ect. Everything that needs to be tailored to the climb and climber could be a function of just the wedges.
[ QUOTE ]
The only way to move forward is to make a viable example and experiment. Perhaps you could make the frame rounded also where the rope goes through, just like the wedge is in your drawing. I think you will find that the wedge will grip if encouraged, but would be hard to release while it is weighted.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like the rounded frame idea. Perhaps part of the frame or as a replaceable wear item matched with the wedges.
I might try my table saw and make something clunky that would at least allow me to play with the wedges and such. I may just shave down a couple of my tree felling wedges and put those next to each other and see how it goes.
Some great ideas.
This may not be it but eventually a concept will emerge that moves even closer to a perfectly smooth, all mechanical, mid-line attachable climbing system.
I dont believe releasing would be too dificult , just need to apply leverage to the release lever. IMO a spring would be needed on the bottom of the gripping wedge so as to engage it, dont know how strong as to strong would reduce advancing smoothness. I would imagine the final version would only have 1 wedge and a tapered housing but until you figure out the angles better to stay with 2.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm thinking that perhaps the set screws on the side pushing the wedges to just the right point of slight pressure may engage the friction wedge every time but also will not be enough pressure to slow the ascent. The release may be a function of how steep the angle is on those wedges and the material used. Perhaps once you have the frame, the wedges can be made to match the intended rope, climber weight, DdRT SRT ect. Everything that needs to be tailored to the climb and climber could be a function of just the wedges.
[ QUOTE ]
The only way to move forward is to make a viable example and experiment. Perhaps you could make the frame rounded also where the rope goes through, just like the wedge is in your drawing. I think you will find that the wedge will grip if encouraged, but would be hard to release while it is weighted.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like the rounded frame idea. Perhaps part of the frame or as a replaceable wear item matched with the wedges.
I might try my table saw and make something clunky that would at least allow me to play with the wedges and such. I may just shave down a couple of my tree felling wedges and put those next to each other and see how it goes.
Some great ideas.
This may not be it but eventually a concept will emerge that moves even closer to a perfectly smooth, all mechanical, mid-line attachable climbing system.
Richard Mumford-yoyoman
Been here a while
- Location
- Atlanta GA
Richard Mumford-yoyoman
Been here a while
- Location
- Atlanta GA
RopeShield
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to derail the SliderWedge, 100% mechanical concept with this thought and this is 100% non mechanical and not mid-line attachable AND at the risk of being labeled insane, has anyone ever tried this? The concept, not the toy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I saw a nice working prototype in Germany a few years ago that was at Europes largest Tree care show in Augsburg. Still waiting to see it in the market place.
I don't want to derail the SliderWedge, 100% mechanical concept with this thought and this is 100% non mechanical and not mid-line attachable AND at the risk of being labeled insane, has anyone ever tried this? The concept, not the toy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I saw a nice working prototype in Germany a few years ago that was at Europes largest Tree care show in Augsburg. Still waiting to see it in the market place.
Richard Mumford-yoyoman
Been here a while
- Location
- Atlanta GA
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I saw a nice working prototype in Germany a few years ago that was at Europes largest Tree care show in Augsburg. Still waiting to see it in the market place.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting, maybe there is something to it. I tried a little idea with some 1/2 Tenex, fixe plate pulley and neck lanyard. Did not work so well SRT, the splice was too long and the section of Tenex too long. I was able to slow and stop a descent but it took constant squeeze of the Tenex to hold it there.
Yes, I saw a nice working prototype in Germany a few years ago that was at Europes largest Tree care show in Augsburg. Still waiting to see it in the market place.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting, maybe there is something to it. I tried a little idea with some 1/2 Tenex, fixe plate pulley and neck lanyard. Did not work so well SRT, the splice was too long and the section of Tenex too long. I was able to slow and stop a descent but it took constant squeeze of the Tenex to hold it there.
Attachments
Richard Mumford-yoyoman
Been here a while
- Location
- Atlanta GA
[ QUOTE ]
I tried a little idea....
[/ QUOTE ]
I have been working on a concept I will call the Zignex.
The system cost 195 (cents) to build (excluding the carabiner and pulley), it is SRT and DdRT functional, one hand tending, smooth descent.
It is not mid-attachable.
Zignex
I tried a little idea....
[/ QUOTE ]
I have been working on a concept I will call the Zignex.
The system cost 195 (cents) to build (excluding the carabiner and pulley), it is SRT and DdRT functional, one hand tending, smooth descent.
It is not mid-attachable.
Zignex
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
Interesting concept.
Personally I don't think that I'd use Tenex. Years ago I glazed too many Tenex split tails during normal work, not fast-drops either, to trust it anymore in this application.
Personally I don't think that I'd use Tenex. Years ago I glazed too many Tenex split tails during normal work, not fast-drops either, to trust it anymore in this application.
- Location
- Tonimbuk, Victoria, Australia
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting concept.
Personally I don't think that I'd use Tenex. Years ago I glazed too many Tenex split tails during normal work, not fast-drops either, to trust it anymore in this application.
[/ QUOTE ]
A rope such as Yale Vectrus could be the go, critical temp point of 320 C, tensile strength 3275kg
Nice job YYman.
Interesting concept.
Personally I don't think that I'd use Tenex. Years ago I glazed too many Tenex split tails during normal work, not fast-drops either, to trust it anymore in this application.
[/ QUOTE ]
A rope such as Yale Vectrus could be the go, critical temp point of 320 C, tensile strength 3275kg
Nice job YYman.
TreeCo
Carpal tunnel level member
Innovative!
Richard Mumford-yoyoman
Been here a while
- Location
- Atlanta GA
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting concept.
Personally I don't think that I'd use Tenex. Years ago I glazed too many Tenex split tails during normal work, not fast-drops either, to trust it anymore in this application.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tom, your thoughts (and others here) come from years and years of experience that far exceeds mine, thanks for the input.
Interesting concept.
Personally I don't think that I'd use Tenex. Years ago I glazed too many Tenex split tails during normal work, not fast-drops either, to trust it anymore in this application.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tom, your thoughts (and others here) come from years and years of experience that far exceeds mine, thanks for the input.
