Excess Torque Hypothesis : Mechanical Sustainable Imbalance Possibilities ( <>> ) ?

[WaltzCee]

Your flywheel idea is a neat way to avoid the counter torques. I've never seen that idea before.

[Fletcher]

Thanks Walt .. neither have I.

It seems the discussion of my Hypothesis for Excess Torque from my forced to rotate backwards Dual Axle Carrier Wheels (torque symmetry from mirroring) plus positive torque contribution from a Chain Drive Prime Mover hasn't captured the imagination or buy-in I thought it would. Perhaps I included too much information, and the math was problematic tho fortunately only nice to know, not essential to know.

So be it. Not to worry.

New paradigms and ideas take time to replace the old ones.

When I come back I'm probably going to upgrade my Hypothesis to a full fledged Theory for a True Mechanical Perpetual Motion Principle and Machine. Fletcher's, not Bessler's, so as not to be presumptive, since obviously most didn't see many similarities to B's. clues or perceived principles.

BTW I predict putting it on a single axle is a bit of a doddle, in case you were wondering.

See you then.

[ME]

only read the Masonic connection if you want to. It just happened to be one of the first images I found on google tho it might have some relevance to the story

I think the next website is more relevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel

The vertically only displaced system CoM of the dual secondary wheels does need replenishing, plus a small amount for impact losses of rlws.
Can we quantify how much these energy requirements are to break even ?

Theoretically simple, an annoyance in practice.
This theoretical part is the tool I tried to explain with "the importance of raising weights", which is a bit more than just a bare statement "height for width".

The simple version is that when you raise a mass a total amount (H) per cycle (to bring it in and take it out of different orbits), then it (ideally) takes that amount of GPE.
Thus to break-even when things are lowered you also need that amount of GPE.

Because the mechanism is usually not simple and shows complex and shaky behavior, actually determining this height is not always easy.
We can try to look at how the Center of Mass (CoM) behaves, because that is related to the way weights move around the wheel.
The vertical variation of the CoM is of no consequence for the amount of torque.
You need the horizontal part for catching gravity/create torque.

The neat thing is that the CoM somewhat averages this shaky behavior and gives us a single position to apply the torque for all the weights in one go.
I usually take the average of the horizontal displacement per whole cycle, as that smooths the intermediate wobbles even more and also shows how much the design differs from a rigid object.
Then it is fairly simple to estimate the average torque per cycle: &#964;= (m·g) x (CoM.X)
Now the amount of GPE for 16 weights each with mass m to push the CoM away from the axle for a full cycle can be estimated with Ep = m · g · 100.5 · Com.X

When looking at the average Com position, we can see the difference between these two:

• When you let a flywheel free-wheel in the simulator then a flywheel (even an uneven distributed one, with a pendulum as an extreme) will keep rotating after one cycle because for a full cycle the CoM will be located exactly below the CoR. Without an 'x'-vector (for a full circle) there'll be no torque thats helping or obstructing.
• When you let an MT009-like wheel freewheel in the simulator then the CoM will be on the ascending side because the levers will drop at the top to move away from the axle, and they drop at the bottom to get closer again to the axle (maybe tricky to see); Things drop. The average CoM per cycle will be on the wrong side. The mechanism also causes the CoM to be on the wrong side when you counter rotate. Thus no matter how it rotates and connects, on average it always produces counter torque. It slows down until a stop.
  ...unless this MT009-like wheel is swung so fast that the Centrifugal force overcomes gravity. When gravity can't rearrange the levers then the CoM will be below the CoR and thus not slow down. This will theoretically not lose rotational speed. Until friction does.

It seems the discussion of my Hypothesis for Excess Torque from my forced to rotate backwards Dual Axle Carrier Wheels (torque symmetry from mirroring) plus positive torque contribution from a Chain Drive Prime Mover hasn't captured the imagination or buy-in I thought it would. Perhaps I included too much information, and the math was problematic tho fortunately only nice to know, not essential to know.

Something that works, or something that should work, should not only work by the imagination or the mental capacity of the audience. That would be like magic.

While math is handy for making a prediction on the validity of the principle before you build, it's essential for validating the outcome of the experiment when you build it anyway.
You need it for improvement when it does work. You need it for finding the culprit when it doesn't. Perhaps the math was all wrong: also nice to know.
Unless, I don't think you will, you settle with an: Oh well, I tried. Which is fine too, but a missed opportunity.

Not to worry

Ok, I won't.

[Fletcher]

Thanks for your response again ME.

Something that works, or something that should work, should not only work by the imagination or the mental capacity of the audience. That would be like magic.

I'm not a great fan of magic or pixie dust as the mechanical Prime Mover for a PMM, mental or otherwise. I try to quantify who, what, and where, when I can. Contributions like yours ME help me get a grip on what likely objections to some mechanics or analysis technique might be, therefore are helpful. These conversations also sometimes open doors to workaround opportunities where things are complex or problematic, therefore also of value.

In this case I have laid out a Hypothesis without any major math. And for the reasons you've given I don't intend to attempt to reconcile the energy budget. I got nowhere fast on my own over the last 14 months I've been gnawing that bone.

To be fair, all presented PMM ideas or concepts require a certain amount of imagination and dexterity to 'interpret'. Mine was no different.

While math is handy for making a prediction on the validity of the principle before you build, it's essential for validating the outcome of the experiment when you build it anyway.

You need it for improvement when it does work. You need it for finding the culprit when it doesn't. Perhaps the math was all wrong: also nice to know.

While the spreadsheet math is difficult for prediction purposes (where each mass will be at any given time, with what KE and MOI, and Cp's etc) it is fortunate that my simulator doesn't find the task that hard.

So with a little workaround magic (all completely legit and solid as far as I can tell .. yet to be confirmed by contemporaries) the sims "Work" and are stable. They have frictions set to high, from a standing start steadily accelerate to a threshold RPM where frictional forces equal turning forces. System Kinetic Energy also steadily climbs until it too tops out at max speed. This KE is far in excess of the GPE lost from the settling of the Drive Chain etc.

I have high confidence that these sims will withstand a reasonable burden of proof and scrutiny. Famous last words eh ! We'll see ! Particularly when you get a look into them ME.

This week I'm going to try and learn how to animate them (as you kindly advised me how to do in another thread) so everybody can see them 'working' as I see them. Then mental acuity and gymnastics isn't required to see how they 'work' at a glance.

I can confirm (in my sims) that roller-weights can be increased to any mass your rig can structurally support and increase System KE and Angular Momentum. Also that it seems the more 'hung together arms' there are also increases power output opportunity. And lastly that the ganged gaffle rlws Jack system can quickly lift outwards the rlw and Chain at 3 o'cl for the RHS Carrier Wheel as proposed by me. The Chain Drive will be displaced and lifted a little, and 'work' at quite a wide range of link masses. All that happens is that the deployment of the rlw at very heavy masses in relation to the combined rlws is retarded a little but still works. Obviously there is a relationship as proposed where it becomes problematic to exceed a ratio, but the tolerances are quite high. All areas for optimizing should the theory prove rock solid.

Unless, I don't think you will, you settle with an: Oh well, I tried. Which is fine too, but a missed opportunity.

Not to worry.

Ok, I won't.

You guessed right. In for a penny, in for a pound eh !

Laying concrete this week, and want to attempt one more sim variation before supporting my theory with my sims. You should enjoy them.

*Hopefully, after release of my sims, I won't have too much egg on my face or the need for a padded white room. I certainly accept that I am fallible and that could be the outcome determined by others analysis, science and skill. But where would be the fun in not trying to change the paradigm and create free-energy for all ?! A little potential blood on the nose I can easily stand ! ( <>> )

[FunWithGravity2]

And one wheel is not a flywheel, because repositioning those LW's still costs potential energy that need to be replenished.

Background :

We all have a mental picture of a flywheel. e.g. the circumpunct symbol.

http://suffolkmasons.com/circumpunct-or ... -a-circle/

N.B. only read the Masonic connection if you want to. It just happened to be one of the first images I found on google tho it might have some relevance to the story.

A flywheel stores Potential Energy as Kinetic Energy and Momentum for Work. After it is depleted of KE and Momentum it must have work done on it to replenish its Potential (rpm). It’s mass is generally uniformly spread thru the disk but not always so, like in a bike rim. The CoM / CoG is at the axle / CoR and it doesn’t move about.

In these cases the MOI (inertia) is invariant. As there are no moving parts that have to transition radially somewhere and back again for the reset (wrt Stevin’s Problem). It had no GPE at its fixed axle because the CoM is neither raised nor lowered wrt the axle / CoR.

Sometimes flywheels have eccentric mass distribution. The mass spread is not homogeneous (it’s MOI is constant however because of no displacing parts). This causes the flywheel to ‘hunt’ in rotation as gravity affects it. In this instance it’s CoM is not located at the CoR. This makes it in effect a pendulum like device that we know well. Give it GPE by doing Work on it and watch it swing downwards and turn that into RKE and then give it back again as GPE, oscillating ad infinitum without friction losses.

In these latter situations the CoM is not located at the CoR. So when Work is done on it to give it ‘height’ or rpm the CoM rotates at a set radius from the axle. We could lift it until the CoM was a few degrees off vertical and let it swing of its own accord until it was a few degree off vertical again the other side (the pendulum). The CoM rotates with the circle at constant radius as mentioned. To get the circle pendulum to continue rotation we have to top it up with a nudge of energy each revolution, so that it overcomes its GPE shortfall and accelerates and gain RKE and Angular Momentum. This is a small amount of energy top up when frictions are low.

Guts :

When we have internal parts in our wheel that move about radially, or advance and retard at the same radius for example, either by Work done on them, or under gravity's influence, they have to be accelerated and decelerated. That means a force is applied to them and another force stops them. Usually the KE of that transitioning object is wasted in contact with something and is very hard to capture and use to nudge the wheel forward by giving it momentum (Newton’s Laws). This robs the system of Potential Energy which must be replenished in some manner.

When you counter-rotate the wheels (by adding an intermediate gear) then it counters some of the forces, but will not counter the effect of missing potential.

So I still suspect counter-rotation is still better than just a single wheel (<-- to be determined).

Now your chain has to overcome the missing potential of both wheels first before it can produce something extra.

Now consider my concept of two eccentric CoM dual wheels with ganged levers falling outwards. The rlws move relatively slowly and therefore impact force of deceleration is reduced (still we would want to use that energy if we could). In this case the MOI of each wheel does change, and back again at reset to next sector. The net result is no change to the RKE of each wheel from MOI change, IINM.

But in this instance the system CoM moves vertically downwards and vertically upwards again, giving near full restoration of GPE. Much like a pendulum except the system CoM is not at a fixed radius from the CoR (for both wheels) and only travels downwards and upwards vertically. It will still need a nudge of energy to get it over the top as per the previous pendulum examples. This potentially can come from the Chain Drive CoM torque, as per my hypothesis. This is a different type of flywheel CoM action in my estimation !

Things to note :

The two wheels have an inside rotating torque tendency due to the turning moments the rlws create. If they were not geared together and the RHS had no Chain Drive then left to their own devices the LHS would rotate CW and the RHS CCW (to the inside). Add the gear connection and their torques are nulled.

To have the rlws ‘fall’ at the appropriate time they in fact have to rotate LHS CCW and RHS CW (rotate to the outside - i.e. backwards). Then the RHS system rlws theoretically can displace (right-shift) and lift a minimal vertical distance the Chain Driver CoM. Thereafter Chain Driver can then provide the CW torque to allow the RHS system to rotate CW and LHS CCW, against their natural tendencies of CCW and CW respectively.

............................

So to address ME’s concerns. There will be energy wastage of transitioning rlws. We’d hope to minimize that. Because each rlw falls incrementally, and only a short distance, it doesn’t have enough time or acceleration to build up much speed etc). We might amplify the positives of this (if any) by having many more lever sets and shorter incremental fall distances ? I have no idea at the minute how to mathematically isolate this to confirm or deny an advantage ?! This is a big point of difference to normally transitioning single levers and weights falling over a far greater distance.

The vertically only displaced system CoM of the dual secondary wheels does need replenishing, plus a small amount for impact losses of rlws.

Can we quantify how much these energy requirements are to break even ? And can we then reconcile that to the Chain Drives CoM average displacement and torque contribution to the balanced flywheel sub-system ?

N.B. I will say in defense of this hypothesis that B’s. wheel were heard to have what were thought to be impact sounds on the descending side. Wolff saw short rim boards, and from other circumstantial evidence thought there were falling rods and weights. The point being that even B’s. wheels lost energy from transitioning of weights and deceleration, and MOI changes etc, but still somehow had an excess or torque to accumulate wheel Momentum and RKE. Somehow he found the perfect workaround that negated the normal accounting arguments for an alleged true mechanical PM wheel. N.B. if losing system PE from transitioning weights of all kinds ruled-out all these arrangements then a true flywheel would have least losses, but would have no torque ! I'm suggesting a happy middle ground.

The pics below shows two eccentric circles (CoM shown) joined by a Gear. They are shown with their natural rotation tendencies to the inside. The RHS circle is given a force to push it around akin to how the Chain Drive might contribute. The system CoM is shown. Run the sim and see the system CoM run up and down the vertical line restoring GPE each rotation (special flywheel like). It is a mechanical metaphor for the hypothesis, except there is no transitioning of ganged rlws and Chain etc. But it gives a clearer idea.

This post is way past just thought experiment, Bravo. I've been popping in and just have not had the time to comment. This is clearly a hypothesis that you have put great thought into and that i wholly agree with. I can see you are trying to back into the torque imbalance created by first half explaining what you believe JB meant with this lever design. I am very excited to watch where this avenue of thought continues to. I cannot contribute much more than encouragement and to let you know there are more than those posting lurking around.

Keep at it Fletcher, enjoy the journey.

Crazy Dave

[Fletcher]

Thanks a bunch Dave .. I know you don't have Working Model 2D so you'll just have to follow the pics and explanations of the cute workaround I did which finally allowed me to run a comprehensive dynamic sim.

You won't know the program but you will understand and enjoy the Physics of that workaround and the sim in action. Especially if I can create an animation of one of the sims for you. Moving pictures are inherently more understandable than paper napkins and beer coasters ;7)

Best -f

[WaltzCee]

Moving pictures are inherently more understandable than paper napkins and beer coasters ;7)

Hey now! :-)

It did take me awhile to get my mind around your idea. I still think the prime mover is the
jacks, they're the reactionless cause of the chain becoming unbalanced, that chain causing
the wheel to rotate.

What's a driver what's the driven? Chicken or the egg?

A lot of people are lurking and watching your thread though.

[Fletcher]

LOL .. long hot day of concreting. Finished at 2.30 pm and then another 3 hrs of ice cold beers and plenty laughs at the top of the drive while we kept the local kids from scratching their names and planting their Reboks. Very unpleasant ;7)

No time for sims today. Will re-read ME's posts and re-look at the workaround for faults. Don't think I made a mistake but then the cool light of day is often sobering ;7)

Will revert.

[Wubbly]

When you let an MT009-like wheel freewheel in the simulator then the CoM will be on the ascending side ...

I noticed that with my MT009 simulations. When the motor was turned off and it stopped rotating in one direction, it really wanted to rotate in the other.

It's a lot of work developing one's own theory about a possible solution, let alone wrapping your head around someone else's.

Most of us are staring at the screen with befuddled looks on our faces.

[Fletcher]

I can understand that Wubbly .. I think that is because each device has both positive and negative torque positions determined in my case by Turning Moments. If the system CoM can fall (lose GPE) it will, and cause rotation to position of least GPE directly below the Center of Rotation.

Ateotd B's solution to true mechanical PM (as defined by him) was simple. He said so and Karl said so. He also said it'd be a hard nut for a mechanic to crack. That means to me the it might not be that intuitive, else surely someone else would have also found a workable solution by now. So I tend to think he took something reasonably familiar to us and 'finessed' it (i.e. coaxed it, tuned it) until it had continuous net positive torque and accelerated and accumulated momentum up to a working speed. Tho not a lot of power so in my estimation the advantage he found was minimal. But once identified could be scaled by understanding the relationships that caused it and increasing proportions to maximise the advantage effect and power output.

I also believe that healthy skepticism is a good check and balance. ME plays the devils advocate well and I know from personal experience it's not fun, but necessary imo. He makes me stop and re-think some assumptions I might have made and try and find another way to prove something or mechanically achieve it, as a cross-check.

On that note. I've put the unlit cigar back in the box for the moment. I have to check a few things out further. My sim automated-workaround on reflection is I think being a little too optimistic. I needed it because I could not sim an entire dual wheel and chain arrangement. Parts of it sure, but not the whole thing. And it was hard to work thru all the permutations etc without the whole sim to find any small advantage or relationship to exploit.

What was nice to achieve and see in action was the chain and the MT9 like levers interaction at various masses. That part of it did indeed work as I envisaged. Now I have to try and find some real mechanics to replace the 'fake' auto-workaround which I now tend to think is distorting the picture and giving overly favourable results (100% efficiency).

That may not be easy, or even doable, tho I will keep thinking on it to see if its possible.

[ME]

ME plays the devils advocate well and I know from personal experience it's not fun, but necessary imo. He makes me stop and re-think some assumptions I might have made and try and find another way to prove something or mechanically achieve it, as a cross-check.

You're welcome. But why else do we have a discussion forum?
I'm by the way not aware of any 'devil' other than the one hiding in fast and easy judgement that something "sure must work", or "surely doesn't work".
Rethinking an idea and shine a light to uncover the reason of its operation on the most fundamental level is for everyone's benefit, or so I assume.
It is also very interesting when people quickly start digging to cover up their idea in mystery again. Not my goal to seek that one out, but I suspect I have a bit of a weak spot there.
In the mean time I just gain extra ideas or otherwise discover what I should not do (again).

It's a lot of work developing one's own theory about a possible solution, let alone wrapping your head around someone else's.

The latter can be a strange realm sometimes but totally worth it if you want to peek outside your own box. Opens possibilities for the former.
The other option is:

...staring at the screen with befuddled looks on our faces.

Ateotd B's solution to true mechanical PM (as defined by him) was simple. He said so and Karl said so. He also said it'd be a hard nut for a mechanic to crack. That means to me the it might not be that intuitive, else surely someone else would have also found a workable solution by now. So I tend to think he took something reasonably familiar to us and 'finessed' it (i.e. coaxed it, tuned it) until it had continuous net positive torque and accelerated and accumulated momentum up to a working speed.

Basically that's the only reason I'm still looking for a mechanism that's "perpetual motion by accident" while it shouldn't actually be one.

[Fletcher]

Ateotd B's solution to true mechanical PM (as defined by him) was simple. He said so and Karl said so. He also said it'd be a hard nut for a mechanic to crack. That means to me the it might not be that intuitive, else surely someone else would have also found a workable solution by now. So I tend to think he took something reasonably familiar to us and 'finessed' it (i.e. coaxed it, tuned it) until it had continuous net positive torque and accelerated and accumulated momentum up to a working speed.

Basically that's the only reason I'm still looking for a mechanism that's "perpetual motion by accident" while it shouldn't actually be one.


But why else do we have a discussion forum?

Rethinking an idea and shine a light to uncover the reason of its operation on the most fundamental level is for everyone's benefit, or so I assume.

It is also very interesting when people quickly start digging to cover up their idea in mystery again. Not my goal to seek that one out, but I suspect I have a bit of a weak spot there.

Actually ME, as I said earlier, I'm just trying to make a coherent story out of an old book with a treasure map (MT) in it. And again it goes something like this (paraphrased).

IMO .. The MT9 groupings show up regularly with notes of importance attached to them. 9 says must you have a connectedness (zusammen gehangten / together hung) principle. 10 says correct handle-construction required. 11 says its doubled and more to it than meets the eye. 15 says a Prime Mover not seen. 38 says correct application of SB's not shown. 41 says more to SB's than shown. 44 and 48 show dual wheels. 47 shows a mirrored number 47. While 13, 15, and 113 show CCW rotation (backwards). 113 shows a chain. Toy's Page Item A looks like a chain with pivots inside edge. C and D look like dual systems.

So I formed a Hypothesis of a hung together system with a special handle construction (rlws) that when ganged with pulleys and ropes formed a Jack for shifting things sideways or upwards, or both. I ran around the rlws something that could be influenced by them. A Chain, which I surmised is the Prime Mover in question. My recent sims showed that the Jack did move the Chain Driver easily, within a range of masses. The combined effect was a left side CoM for the Carrier wheel, and a right side CoM for the Chain Prime Mover. But the single Carrier wheel and Chain had a tendency to rotate CCW. That did not help the cause. It would have to rotate CW (backwards) to be effective.

And to rotate backwards I would have to add an additional second Carrier wheel (the triple system). It's purpose to mitigate or partially null or cancel the first Carrier wheels torque tendencies. This I called chasing Torque Symmetry (i.e. Mirroring Torque). That arrangement (of 2 wheels like 44 and 48) would require the additional unbalancing effect of the outer Chain Driver. Thus <>> !

You are most welcome to lend your mind to finding an efficient arrangement for the second Carrier wheel. One that goes along way to mitigating the firsts Torque contribution. It need not look the same or function as the other. Just have opposite Torque effects (most of the time) to be useful.

If any of us find that by second Carrier wheel arrangement by design or by accident I will be thrilled.

P.S. I can automate its contribution with a fake force in the sim which nulls 100% the first Carrier wheels Torque at any frame. The sim takes off building RPM and system KE. The task is to find a real mechanical arrangement that performs the same or similar task (perhaps with less efficiency) as the the auto-workaround I built. I have a few ideas about that that I will explore.

There you have it in one post !

[ME]

Oh...
To clarify. With "by accident" I don't mean "accidentally stumbled upon". I know you follow some "route".
I tried to emphasize that a working mechanism will likely be counter intuitive to find or seem unworkable at first glance.
For example, it's natural to think that overbalance is easy because you only have to swing a lever sideways to capture that torque, just as the lower MT's depict. We can dismiss most perpetual motion designs on this principle alone.
But looking closer and see the perhaps unnatural principle that you need to raise a weight to get that overbalance. It's not that unnatural, because it can be checked with force decomposition, integrals and drawing geometry. Though it dismisses the lower MT's, raising a weight is Not a solution because it just breaks even. We can dismiss perpetual motion designs on this second principle too.
Now once again we need to turn intuition around to find a possible solution. Using a design that shouldn't work (like MT009) but is yet required to make things work is one of such totally counter intuitive thing. Can we dismiss a design based on this attempted third principle or does it simply fall into a one of these previous principles?
I meant that kind of "accident": a confusing principle. At least it drives me almost crazy for years.


Thanks for your summary, now we have it neatly condensed :-)

[Fletcher]

And yours neatly summarises the lay of the land. Principles 1 and 2 are dead ends. We need another way forward.

*Taking a break from concreting and lifting the boxing. Will be busy for a few more days yet.

The 3rd principle (like mine) may end up being a subset of 1 and 2. Or just as much a dead end without merits. Dunno unless we try to get across the finish line.

I believe that the 3rd principle changes the dynamics from a levers and weights falling creating torque but needing lifting again = zero sum game (with no frictions), to the continuous torque and lifting (aka Stevin's Problem) is guaranteed IF we can find a mechanical way to add the right amount of counter-torque to the whole system. This may not be a full 100% counter-measure technology because of other mechanical constraints I'll talk about in another post.

But it might be a way forward to having a small NET surplus of available torque that can be put to work for us.

So we're no longer looking to lift weights (like 1 & 2), but adding counter-torque (3). A completely different beast IINM.

When I get the opportunity I'll load up my auto-workaround sim and some screen grabs etc (no time to learn to animate atm). Then you can dig into it and see the formula for the variable fake force input and see the Chain to rlws proportions and change them at will. Mainly see that the thing works quite well thru a range of proportions - IF - we have a good counter-torque workaround or mechanics that achieves the same or similar thing.

That will get us past the finish line, if it can be done !

I'm sticking with the dual axle setup for now but ultimately we'd want to migrate to a single axle setup if successful. At least to be similar to B's wheels, tho its entirely unnecessary.

[Fletcher]

Here's the sim and screen grabs of my RHS Carrier Wheel, plus Chain Drive Prime Mover in action. Note the RPM steadily increase as does the System KE/Momentum until it starts leveling out due to frictions set on High.

The sim calculates slowly at this complexity. For that reason I do not include a LHS Counter-Torque Wheel (it would crash) but replace it with an Auto-Counter-Torque Force (the Automated Workaround) that takes the Turning Moments of the RHS rlws (torques) and mirrors / nulls them frame by frame as a force. That means the Chain Drive has no opposition to turning because of the secondary wheels torque mirrored symmetry. This would be an ideal but perhaps unobtainable situation. The masses of the Roller-Weights can be changed at will, as can the Link masses. I have just given an indicative scenario to see if the Jack worked as imagined. It did and will work when the links are even more massive, tho the 'falling out' of the 3 o'cl rlw is retarded somewhat, but still works. Feel free to experiment with the ratios (until failure) and see the movements etc.

The sim has back stay ropes to limit Cf's swinging the rlws. It also has Rigid Joints at lever pivots modified to act as latches so the levers can only release at one place just above 3 o'cl. I could replace the Pin Joints of the Chain Links with Rotational Spring Pin Joints which makes the Chain behave more rigidly and keep its form longer. But it adds another level of complexity to compute and I'm near the limit for my laptop. The Chain is also 48 Links long so that it does not interfere with the lower rlws and cause an early lifting, which it does with 47 Links tho later this lifting effect might be a plus in some circumstances.