# Building my own Honey Extractor



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

Hello All,

I need to have a radial honey extractor!

I don't want to spend USD2000 for a motorized extractor.

What I have: 9 3/8" frames, experienced Alu & SS welder.

I bought a 300 rpm 110 VAC gear motor.

We bought this pot, pot has 22.625" ID, 23.25" height:









We will build it for eight frames. 







*How do I make this sketch (pdf) visible?* I know now! Hope I can remember. 

Frame support
















My plan is to extend this text has I move on. We are just waiting for the pot and the motor.

I am preparing some components, all will be from stainless steel, expect the pot. We will have a 1 1/4" nipple welded in for draining the honey. we will also build a stand to have the extractor high enough to drain through filters.

Please give me your comments!

Bee happy, Joerg


----------



## m1ke05 (Jul 16, 2014)

2k is a lot. I spent 1k on a 20 frame electric extractor. Good luck with your build.


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

My calculation with pot, ss steel & motor is $400.

I will give a list once done.

Joerg


----------



## kilocharlie (Dec 27, 2010)

I'd drain straight into a flash heater, then pump to the filter / strainers and into the settling tanks. Best of luck!


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

>> How do I make this sketch (pdf) visible?

As far as I know you have to convert the PDF to an image file to display it 'inline', as in ...








(click image to see larger)


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I believe you are wasting your money. What is the centrifugal force on the bottom of the frame next to the shaft?

Crazy Roland


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

By the time you get a basket in there and a bit of working clearance between it and the outer shell, the frames will be tight to the shaft. You will have to fight to get them shoehorned in when loading, and as Roland notes the g force goes to zero as you approach the center of rotation. Variable speed sure is nice to start up a load of heavy unbalanced deep frames and 300 rpm may not be enough for clean extraction of honey being that small a circle. It would be very little more work to make it up larger and know it will not be handicapped.


----------



## Terry C (Sep 6, 2013)

I've seen several (well , at least a couple) of extractors built into a large Rubbermaid container . The same size as the trash cans , but intended for food storage . Mine will be built into either one of these or a galvanized can . It will be powered , probably with a motor out of a battery drill controlled by a PWM controller . I have a machine shop with welding capabilities so mine will probably be mostly SS and aluminum construction .


----------



## rookie2531 (Jul 28, 2014)

It may not be a total loss, maybe if you see it doesn't work, you can change it to a tangential style. Good luck to you. I hope to make my own as well.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

Yes, as Roland and crofter pointed out, the radial distance matters. The two key parameters in the physics of honey extraction are the radial distance away from the axis of rotation and the angular velocity (rotation rate). The actual force the honey experiences is related to the product of the radius times the angular velocity squared. So obviously to increase the force on the honey, and hence the likelihood it will fly out, you can increase the radius of the extractor, making sure the frames are mounted as far as possible from the center, and/or increase the speed of rotation. Of course you get more effect when increasing rotation rate due to the squared nature of the effect, but if the radius is zero, the force will still be zero regardless how fast it is rotated.


----------



## aunt betty (May 4, 2015)

AstroBee said:


> Yes, as Roland and crofter pointed out, the radial distance matters. The two key parameters in the physics of honey extraction are the radial distance away from the axis of rotation and the angular velocity (rotation rate). The actual force the honey experiences is related to the product of the radius times the angular velocity squared. So obviously to increase the force on the honey, and hence the likelihood it will fly out, you can increase the radius of the extractor, making sure the frames are mounted as far as possible from the center, and/or increase the speed of rotation. Of course you get more effect when increasing rotation rate due to the squared nature of the effect, but if the radius is zero, the force will still be zero regardless how fast it is rotated.


Wouldn't it work better if the extractor was turned onto it's side?
Then you could add "g" to your physics lesson and there would be zero force only sometimes. 
Pulsed extraction, interesting concept. 
Maybe it would be a perpetual motion honey extracting phenom. lol
j/k


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

aunt betty said:


> Wouldn't it work better if the extractor was turned onto it's side?
> Then you could add "g" to your physics lesson and there would be zero force only sometimes.
> Pulsed extraction, interesting concept.
> Maybe it would be a perpetual motion honey extracting phenom. lol
> j/k


Many of the larger extractor do exactly that. See Cowan and Lyson extractors. However, I think its more about throughput than "pulsed extraction".


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Some larger commercial extractors indeed do operate 'turned on its side'. For instance ... 

http://www.cowenmfg.com/120-frame


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

Hello,

Thus extractors should not work by Roland's and crofter:












.

My bottom frame distance to the center is 1.75".

Stubborn as I am, I will try it anyway. We can make water flow uphill if it needs to.

Cheers, Joerg


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

Roland said:


> I believe you are wasting your money. What is the centrifugal force on the bottom of the frame next to the shaft?
> 
> Crazy Roland


How much force does he need for honey to flow from the cell at the bottom of the frame?


----------



## Bob Anderson (Jun 13, 2014)

BeeAttitudes said:


> How much force does he need for honey to flow from the cell at the bottom of the frame?


Depends on the temperature too...


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Off the top of my head, 30g is needed to do a good job. Do we know the pictured examples do a good job?

Crazy Roland


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

Hi Roland,

Would this not be given as N (kg-m/s2) using f = m * v2 / r, m= 1gram of honey

Cheers, Joerg


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

Do you mind if I ask where you found the 300 rpm, 110V gear motor?


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

Hello BA,

I have the motor in my inventory, I have a second, with the same shaft size, but 450 RPM and may use this for this application.

Cheers, Joerg


----------



## aunt betty (May 4, 2015)

AstroBee said:


> Many of the larger extractor do exactly that. See Cowan and Lyson extractors. However, I think its more about throughput than "pulsed extraction".


Aw man,

I hate when one of my smarty pants comments has a practical application.


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

Seems that gravity would assist pulling the honey from the cells during the bottom 180 deg of rotation......but it would work just as hard to retract the honey back into the cell during the top 180 deg of rotation. So it seems the net affect would be zero.


----------



## Saltairbees (Oct 7, 2012)

I use a old tread mill motor and speed controller to drive my extractor. Works great with good speed control and no heating up of motor. I set off my smoke detector using portable drill to drive extractor the first time.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

Biermann said:


> Hi Roland,
> 
> Would this not be given as N (kg-m/s2) using f = m * v2 / r, m= 1gram of honey
> 
> Cheers, Joerg




Roland is giving you the acceleration in units of "g's". F=M*A or A=F/M (force per unit mass). One "g" is 9.81 m/s^2

BTW, in your equation, the "v2" is linear velocity squared at a point. It is probably easier to work in angular velocity, so the force would be: F=M*r*(omega^2), where omega is given in radians/sec. So to follow Roland's guidance, 30*g=r*(omega^2) is the equation defining the specs for your extractor. If you fix "r" then solve for omega needed to give 30g.


----------



## TurnTex (Mar 6, 2015)

AstroBee said:


> Roland is giving you the acceleration in units of "g's". F=M*A or A=F/M (force per unit mass). One "g" is 9.81 m/s^2
> 
> BTW, in your equation, the "v2" is linear velocity squared at a point. It is probably easier to work in angular velocity, so the force would be: F=M*r*(omega^2), where omega is given in radians/sec. So to follow Roland's guidance, 30*g=r*(omega^2) is the equation defining the specs for your extractor. If you fix "r" then solve for omega needed to give 30g.


What he said (whatever the heck it was!)


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

"It is probably easier to work in angular velocity, so the force would be: F=M*r*(omega^2), where omega is given in radians/sec. So to follow Roland's guidance, 30*g=r*(omega^2) is the equation defining the specs for your extractor. If you fix "r" then solve for omega needed to give 30g."

Duh.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Thank you to all of you who spoke in my absence, I concur with your suggestions.

I would like to point out that with the endbar so close to the shaft, the calculated RPM to achieve 30 G may result in 100 G at the top bar. This may be quite detrimental to the comb near the top bar.

Crazy Roland


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

So does anyone have a radial extractor that is roughly 22" diameter and if so, do you have problems getting honey extracted from the lower portion of the frame nearest to the center of rotation? I'm guessing comb won't survive much over 30g acceleration without coming apart and in a radial configuration the radius at the bottom of the frame will always be less than at the top of the frame so it will always have less force slinging the honey out of the frame. So how well does it work? I ask as I'm designing a homemade extractor myself. A larger diameter at slower RPM would work better.......but where does one find a larger diameter container? I haven't found anything with an inside diameter significantly greater than a barrel (roughly 22.5" ID).

It's crossed my mind to build a 30" diameter frame and wrap it with an 8ft sheet of plastic for a larger diameter housing (container) and support the rotating shaft at the top and bottom.

Another thought is to use a 22.5" barrel which will hold and extract 8 medium frames fine placed tangentially and have the basket designed where it will hold 4 large frames radially. I don't/won't be doing a lot of large frames so 4 large frames extracted tangentially wouldn't be a problem. Only issue is the extractor must be designed to rotate slowly as comb full of honey will blow out easily in the tangential configuration.


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

Frank, I don't think the issue is the work......it' finding a container/housing with a larger diameter. Any suggestion?



crofter said:


> By the time you get a basket in there and a bit of working clearance between it and the outer shell, the frames will be tight to the shaft. You will have to fight to get them shoehorned in when loading, and as Roland notes the g force goes to zero as you approach the center of rotation. Variable speed sure is nice to start up a load of heavy unbalanced deep frames and 300 rpm may not be enough for clean extraction of honey being that small a circle. It would be very little more work to make it up larger and know it will not be handicapped.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

No, aside from going with one of the wooden construction plans. Ready made stainless containers that size are not too common. My son crunched the figures on fabricating something and decided a new 9/18 Mann Lake was a better use of his time and better resale value.

What the original poster proposes may work if conditions are very warm. The bottom bit of the comb may be a bit wet but you will likely be feeding it back or putting it in the hive for refill. I use a 3 frame hand crank job at home and sometimes the frames are still a bit hefty when they go back to the bees if the day is a bit cool.


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

I've been stuck on how to configure a honey extractor that will accommodate mediums and large frames yet fit within the dimensions of a plastic, food grade barrel. I don't have many large frames to extract but I won't the option to extract them if/when needed. I think the solution I proposed above where I can either extract 8 medium frames placed radially or 4 deep frames placed tangentially is a good compromise for me. It will work great I think as long as I design the extractor where it can be start/run slowly (low RPM) when deeps are placed in the tangential configuration.

The final key is to provide support for the spinning cage/frames in addition to the plastic walls of the food grade barrel.


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

Here is a design question for the experienced here. If a design is used that places 2 frames close together at the 4 quadrants, how much space needs to be between the two frames? Below is the best picture I could find quickly that shows how 2 frames could be placed together at each of the quadrants. If two frames are side-by-side as shown, what is the minimal spacing between frames to extract the honey located between the frames?


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

Nice design BA, but by all the experts you are to close to the shaft!

Now my inexperienced view:

If the honey is to stiff to flow out of the frame by gravity, it will not flow out of the container and I will have bigger problems than just rotating the honey out of the frame, or I am wrong. All the centrifugal force does is give it some speed and help on the way.

Having a NASA guy on staff to build a honey extrudeler seems overkill, but I stand corrected once my unit does not work and I have go to plan B, bigger pot more steel.

Cheers, with tears, Joerg


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

BeeAttitudes said:


> Do you mind if I ask where you found the 300 rpm, 110V gear motor?


Hello BA, I was thinking about your question today when I went through my shop and saw my electric mixer in the shelf.

Maybe this will work for you (and others)









Two speeds, with a speed adjust. Cheap, $60-80!

All the best, Joerg


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

BeeAttitude, - In the late 60's we(I) cut all of the notches out of our 80 frame extractors to make them "smooth reel" and fit more frames. The frames where stacked touching each other, and the honey found a way out.

Crazy Roland


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

That's interesting Roland. With this configuration did you have to fill the extractor with frames till they were touching to prevent a frame from accidentaly turning sideways?


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

FYI, below I stated the configuration backwards. It should have said the extractor could hold 8 medium frames radially or 4 large frames tangentially. Sorry about any confusion.



BeeAttitudes said:


> Another thought is to use a 22.5" barrel which will hold and extract 8 medium frames fine placed tangentially and have the basket designed where it will hold 4 large frames radially. I don't/won't be doing a lot of large frames so 4 large frames extracted tangentially wouldn't be a problem. Only issue is the extractor must be designed to rotate slowly as comb full of honey will blow out easily in the tangential configuration.


----------



## rdneck (Aug 3, 2014)

Yes, I built one using two cutting boards cut into disks with notches for the end of the top bar to sit in. The axle is 1/2 inch diameter all thread rod and the disks are spaced secured with nuts,(doubled so as not to move while spinning) and washers. The end of the shaft has an acorn nut that rests on a bearing that is held in place with a square piece of the disk material. I spin it with a 1/2 inch right angle drill. Believe it or not, this old ******* design works perfectly even though the top bars are right up against the axle. I will post a picture when I can, it slings the comb dry all the way across the frame. I got a little less than 5 gallons from two medium supers. I did not extract two frames that I put in the freezer for future feed


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

>> this old ******* design works perfectly even though the [HIGHLIGHT]top bars [/HIGHLIGHT]are right up against the axle.


Hopefully you meant to say "*bottom *bars are right up against the axle.' 

Comb is built by the bees with about a 15 degree 'up' tilt when the frame is located normally in the hive. In a radial extractor, the frame top bars should be near the outer edge of the drum, and the bottom bars close to the axle, otherwise the motion of the extractor is fighting against that 15 degree tilt.


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

Thanks Radar.......I wondered what the tilt angle of the cell on the frame is.


----------



## rdneck (Aug 3, 2014)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> >> this old ******* design works perfectly even though the [HIGHLIGHT]top bars [/HIGHLIGHT]are right up against the axle.
> 
> 
> Hopefully you meant to say "*bottom *bars are right up against the axle.'
> ...


yes, you are correct, thanks. the ends of the top bars sit in the slots in the disk near the outer edge


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

All right, it is done, please see below, and, it worked!

Stand:








Motor 








Kettle from inside








Spinner








Trying Spinner with a brood frame








There he is, my own honey extractor








and the honey flows








Just harvested about 40 lbs of clear beautiful honey with 16.5% moisture. (Left some crystallized honey behind and my bees need to convert this now again, hope they don't mind)

My cost: about CAD850, my hours not counted (I never do with my hobbies)
Cheers, Joerg


----------



## aunt betty (May 4, 2015)

How fast in mph would I have to drive my truck to extract honey? (at 30g) 
I have an old tractor belt that fits the tire perfectly. There's an old blue barrel out in the shed and I think I can make my Dodge into an extractor. I've got a smaller barrel to fit inside the bigger one, an old axle off a model T, drive chains, sprockets, gears and that belt. Think it'll work or should I just buy an extractor so nobody gets hurt? 


The truck has 20 inch tires and a hemi engine ...that will be required for the calculations I think.


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

aunt betty said:


> How fast in mph would I have to drive my truck to extract honey? (at 30g)
> I have an old tractor belt that fits the tire perfectly. There's an old blue barrel out in the shed and I think I can make my Dodge into an extractor. I've got a smaller barrel to fit inside the bigger one, an old axle off a model T, drive chains, sprockets, gears and that belt. Think it'll work or should I just buy an extractor so nobody gets hurt?
> 
> 
> The truck has 20 inch tires and a hemi engine ...that will be required for the calculations I think.



Waiting for the video...opcorn:


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

aunt betty said:


> How fast in mph would I have to drive my truck to extract honey? (at 30g)
> I have an old tractor belt that fits the tire perfectly. There's an old blue barrel out in the shed and I think I can make my Dodge into an extractor. I've got a smaller barrel to fit inside the bigger one, an old axle off a model T, drive chains, sprockets, gears and that belt. Think it'll work or should I just buy an extractor so nobody gets hurt?
> 
> 
> The truck has 20 inch tires and a hemi engine ...that will be required for the calculations I think.


Nah, no calculations required. Get a 12-pack but as Astro indicated, set up a video recorder.


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

Hello, sorry I can not calculated this for you because of legal ramifications! You should lay your truck on its side, passenger side preferred, use some pillows for cushions. Block the wheel that is not being used, duct tape will work fine. Then you have to turn the motor and carburator upright, unless you have a full injected motor.

Make a video of it all.

Have fun, Joerg


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

Very nice!

What is the inside width of the bracket that holds your frames? Curious how much extra room you left for the frames to slide in/out.


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

Hello BA,

The pot is 25" ID, the cage is 23" and I had the lid cut 2" off center, should have done 1". The deep frames go in okay if the wax/propolis on the bottom is not to thick, I trim it off before I put the frames in.

Cheers, Joerg


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

Thanks. I'm afraid I wasn't very clear. The part that holds an individual frame (rectangular shaped), how wide did you make it inside for a frame full of honey to slide in easily?


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

Sorry BA, 1.5" x 9.5". The uncapped frame fit good.

Cheers, Joerg


----------



## dp2k (Apr 22, 2012)

Glad it worked, even if the design isn't perfect. Reading through the math/physics of extraction, can the thread participants check my understanding? 1) If the diameter of the extractor is too small, the force on the cells nearest to the axle isn't enough to fully (or efficiently) extract the honey from the cells near the bottom bar. 2) As the diameter of the extractor (and the distance from the axle) increases, the difference in force on the cells at the bottom bar and the top bar evens out. 3) as the diameter of the extractor increases, the force on the cells in the frame increases, given a constant speed of rotation. 4) there is some amount of maximum centrifugal force that can be applied to the frame before it causes a blowout (if using wax) or causes damage to the cells (if using plastic foundation) - thus as the diameter becomes larger, the speed must decrease. If all this is true, what is the "sweet spot" between extractor diameter, rotational speed, and time to extract frames of honey?


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

The sweet spot is determined by your uncapping and loading/unloading time. If the cycle time on the extractor is 20 minutes, how many frames can you uncap in 20 minutes? If you can unload/uncap/load 90 frames in 20 minutes, then build 2-90 frame extractors which will spin at the speed required to generate 30 G.

Crazy Roland


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

dp2k said:


> Glad it worked, even if the design isn't perfect. Reading through the math/physics of extraction, can the thread participants check my understanding?
> .......
> If all this is true, what is the "sweet spot" between extractor diameter, rotational speed, and time to extract frames of honey?


1) If the diameter of the extractor is too small, the force on the cells nearest to the axle isn't enough to fully (or efficiently) extract the honey from the cells near the bottom bar. The centrifugal force on the inside of the frame (nearest the center) will always be less than the centrifugal force on the outside of the frame (nearest the outside wall of the extractor). If you can get even a little distance from the center to the inside of the frame, it seems the honey will get extracted it just may take longer for the honey to be removed from the bottom of the frame than from the outside of the frame. So start slowly, and as honey flows from the outside of the frame where the frame looses weight, start speeding up the extractor. Near the end of extraction, the outside of the frame should be empty and you will only be removing honey from the inside of the frame. So with most of the weight gone, you can spin fast where more centrifugal force is acting on the honey still in cells located near the inside of the frame (the bottom of the frame). 

2) As the diameter of the extractor (and the distance from the axle) increases, the difference in force on the cells at the bottom bar and the top bar evens out. Not true. The force on the inside and outside of the frame will always be different. The further the inside of the frame is from the center of rotation, the greater the centrifugal force applied so the honey flows out at a lower RPM. 

3) as the diameter of the extractor increases, the force on the cells in the frame increases, given a constant speed of rotation. True. 

4) there is some amount of maximum centrifugal force that can be applied to the frame before it causes a blowout (if using wax) or causes damage to the cells (if using plastic foundation) - thus as the diameter becomes larger, the speed must decrease. True. However, the weight of the honey in the cells creates a lot of the force so if you speed up rotation as you loose weight from the frame, then the forces don't go up linearly. In other words, if the outside of the frame is empty, you can speed rotation of the frame so the force on the inside of the frame is similar to what was applied to the outside of the frame at lower RPM.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

>> 2) As the diameter of the extractor (and the distance from the axle) increases, the difference in force on the cells at the bottom bar and the top bar evens out.



BeeAttitudes said:


> Not true. The force on the inside and outside of the frame will always be different. The further the inside of the frame is from the center of rotation, the greater the centrifugal force applied so the honey flows out at a lower RPM.


Actually, the original statement _IS _true. Note that _dp2k _referenced the _*difference *_in force. To see this more clearly, visualize an extractor 200 feet in diameter (radius is 100 ft). The top bar of the frame (as mounted in the extractor) would be about 99 ft 10 inches from the center of the axle. The bottom bar of a medium frame would be about 99 ft 3 inches from the axle. The _difference _in force is negligible. While a normal sized extractor would have a greater variance/difference in force, the principle is the same - the _difference _in force lessens as the diameter increases.


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

Hello,

I thought I supply the revised sketch for the spinner.

Shaft is 1/2" SS, bottom roller bearing, removable, top 1/2" bushing to connect to the motor.

Spin speed is 300 rpm at the moment, will be changed to a frequency drive for next year.









I feel I do not need to go further in to any theoretical discussion since my extractor works, what more does one need? :thumbsup::shhhh:

Oh, I am over my budget, because I had my welder of choice make me a pot, because the stock pot with 180 quarts, ordered in July was a no show. So $500 rather then $240

Cheers, Joerg


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> >> 2) As the diameter of the extractor (and the distance from the axle) increases, the difference in force on the cells at the bottom bar and the top bar evens out.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the original statement _IS _true. Note that _dp2k _referenced the _*difference *_in force. To see this more clearly, visualize an extractor 200 feet in diameter (radius is 100 ft). The top bar of the frame (as mounted in the extractor) would be about 99 ft 10 inches from the center of the axle. The bottom bar of a medium frame would be about 99 ft 3 inches from the axle. The _difference _in force is negligible. While a normal sized extractor would have a greater variance/difference in force, the principle is the same - the _difference _in force lessens as the diameter increases.


Ok, I'll bite......as long as it's in good fun!

320 RPM with a 5lb frame:
Diameter/Force (units are Gs which is the force of Gravity)

Normal Extractor:
10.5" - 30.54g
3.5" - 10.18g
Difference: 20.36g

RS's Theoretical Extractor:
1,198" - 3,484.39g
1,191" - 3,464.03g
Difference: 20.36g

Looks like the "difference in force" is pretty close......and they don't appear to "even out". The difference is "negligible" though on the giant, theoretical extractor.......I'll give you that one; however, at any common extractor diameter, the "difference in force" (between forces on top of frame vs forces on bottom of the frame) likely won't be "negligible".


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Assuming your numbers without challenge ...



BeeAttitudes said:


> Normal Extractor:
> 10.5" - 30.54g
> 3.5" - 10.18g
> Difference: 20.36g


The difference with a 'normal' extractor (above) between 3.5" and 10.5" bars is a ratio of 30.54/10.18 = *3:1*




> RS's Theoretical Extractor:
> 1,198" - 3,484.39g
> 1,191" - 3,464.03g
> Difference: 20.36g


The difference with the 200 ft diameter 'RS Theoretical' extractor (above) between a bar at 1198" and a bar at 1,191" is a ratio of 3,484.39 / 3,464.03 = *1.006:1*

From my perspective, _dp2k_'s original statement of ...
"2) As the diameter of the extractor (and the distance from the axle) increases, the difference in force on the cells at the bottom bar and the top bar evens out."

... is correct. 



Is _your _glass half empty or it it half full?


----------



## BeeAttitudes (Dec 6, 2014)

I'm just giving you a hard time RS. You are a fun guy......super smart too. Sure enjoy your posts.


----------



## dp2k (Apr 22, 2012)

Thanks to all for helping me understand the mechanical force involved in extracting. Now, I just need to figure out how to uncap the _second_ 1500 frames (that will fit into my 200 foot diameter extractor) in the time it takes to run the first load........


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

A big laser?

Crazy Roland


----------



## marshmasterpat (Jun 26, 2013)

Biermann - that is one nice extractor. Hats off to you.


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

dp2k, just look at what is on the market. They vary from 1.5" to ~12" center to frame bottom and pick one in between. Then you adjust your speed accordingly. Should not be too difficult.

Probably to late for this season anyway.

Cheers, Joerg


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

Hello All,

Just came across my post from 2015. Interesting how something that is quote by some 'experts' is not to work and it still does. My extractor has now three years behind since the first use and it works fine. I extract now for a few others too. The aluminum construction for the body does not seem to create a problem, the spinner is SS. I clean it with hot water after use and it looks like the day I build it. 

So no complains from my end.

Cheers, Jörg


----------

