sawduster
Moderator
The Motley Crew
Posts: 1,831
|
Post by sawduster on Jan 2, 2010 15:23:42 GMT -6
So as not to hijack Cody's post, thought I'd make a new one reference to something that was mentioned in that thread. Dave Carter said, "By all means. I've been fascinated by the rocker geometry and mechanics since making some replacement rockers a while back. But that is like focusing on one tree in the forrest, I'd be real interested in seeing the whole forrest. " It is really quite an intriguing subject. Hal Taylor has done some significant amount of work in it and posted this very good article on his site.
|
|
|
Post by dcarter636 on Jan 2, 2010 15:53:52 GMT -6
Thanks Jerry, that is interesting. One of the things I learned early on was to pay close attention to empirical formulae, they are usually near technically correct and often work as well as (and sometimes better than) all that math and physics stuff that I used to get paid to apply.
I still think the center of gravity is important to define the arc length and rocker stops that prevent the over active rockee from going over backward.
|
|
|
Post by TDHofstetter on Jan 2, 2010 18:04:14 GMT -6
I'll second ya on both counts, Dave. A rocker with a 48" radius would be uncontrollable if you sat in it with a hundred-pound weight on your shoulders... and a French curve tail on each rocker serves as a nice gentle stop.
|
|
sawduster
Moderator
The Motley Crew
Posts: 1,831
|
Post by sawduster on Jan 3, 2010 12:55:00 GMT -6
Yep. Within normal limits, those shortened equations work well. While rocking chairs ain't rocket science, you can make it so if you want. ;D
|
|