Because nobody's software supports itOriginally Posted by buffo
Senior Member
Because nobody's software supports it
Senior Member
Hehe. As far as I know not... For our patent application and to make a valid comparison, I measured the force out of a Bluray (and other disc player) actuators. I powered them with a 9 volt battery and measured the force output with our force gauge (in Newtons). With the 9 volt battery, there was so much current flowing through the wires, that it smoked -- so this is really far more current than would typically be seen. Nevertheless, at 9 volts I took this overestimate as gospel (which is of course conservative when comparing ones self with the competition). So I am pretty sure I know the maximum force capable from one of these devices. We also measured the moving mass as well.
What we measured with the disk player heads was a peak force output of 0.2 Newtons and with a moving mass of 0.3 grams.
By comparison, the peak force attainable from our actuator is 77 Newtons (good memory Adam) and the moving mass is only 4 grams. This gives a peak linear acceleration of 19,250 meters per second squared!
So it seems that our device has nearly 300 times the linear acceleration capability of a typical disk player actuator.
Hehe. LD for Windows, released in 1992 supported Beam Brush. LD2000 does as well. Anyone can go do the "View/Beam diameter" menu to find it.
We considered ourselved to be software developers, and if we only implemented the software to do it, someone would eventually make hardware to do it. Well, it turns out we were wrong... So it seems we must do it ourselves.
In fact we currently have three candidate devices on the drawing board. This project has turned out to be more difficult than even I expected. The reason why these things don't exist is because it's so difficult!
We have already accomplished an amazing feat in terms of the peak and RMS force from this actuator, and the moving mass. The suspension is the trickiest part, and there are yet other tricky parts too. Nevertheless we are making progress on this...
Bill
Last edited by Pangolin; 12-29-2010 at 00:04.
Pangolin supports it. In fact, I think it's been supported for over a decade. (And how much market share do they have again?) It is most certainly a product with a viable market.
This is not a new idea. People have been talking about it for a *long* time. But this is a new implementation of the idea, and one that is much, much faster than anything that has been done before. The "cool" factor here is the speed and small size rather than just the overall concept.
Adam
Needs moar photons
one thing that I don't quite understand about the whole beam brush thing is where does it go?
after the scanners? before the scanners? if before how do you fit the expanded beam? if after how close can it be to the second scanner, how does it deal with wide scanning etc
From my understanding, the beam brush module would go in right before the scanners. I'd imagine the beam hitting the scanner mirrors would actually converge rather than expand to avoid having to use larger mirrors.
Needs moar photons
hrmm, I suppose that would make sense... so this thing is not a beam expander really... it changes divergence on the fly?
el gringo loco
...and-how!This should 'clear things up' - Bill, if I should not post these for some reason, lemme know, I'll take 'em down..
...images courtesy-of and © 2009 Pangolin, Inc. All rights to spank you for stealing, reserved...
...Beam Brush is some seriously cool 'cookie dough'... Will look forward to when its' 'done baking'..
cya
j
....and armed only with his trusty 21 Zorgawatt KTiOPO4...
Jr. Woodchuckington Janitor III, Esq.
is the current version of the beam brush still based around bill's old patent?
http://www.wikipatents.com/US-Patent...sm-for-rapidly
suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
I don't think so. It's based on a moving lens/voicecoil arrangement like the "eye" on a disk player. The moving lens is probably holographic to conserve on the moving mass... just a guess.
Jr. Woodchuckington Janitor III, Esq.
you don't need to wiggle a small lens very much if it's placed in the beam waist.
i'm kind of goofing around with a prototype of something right now, but when i get a few, i may slap some hardware together and see what happens.
suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
buffo
