frcm - 4D

[jim_mich]

Murilo,

Here are instructions to run the program...
Click 'Start', select 'Programs', select 'Murilo's Chain' folder, click 'Murlio's Chain'.

Click THIS to see what the program should look like. Did the program look like this when you ran it?

If so then click the green start button, or change the data and press the 'Enter' key or the green start button.

[Wheeler]

It may be because two sprockets are acting as one, that the system of slack in the leverage arms will have a combination effect and forward one with weight from another.

[AgingYoung]

Murilo,

I've been thinking about your chain and I think that Ken actually answered the question. Also, Scotty's mention of heron's fountain pointed me to consider the matter.

Contrary to initial appearances, this is not a perpetual motion machine. It quickly comes to a stop. The water coming out of the tube may go higher, but it is less volume than the amount of water that goes down. Assuming the fountain flask started out with enough water, when the water from the basin has filled the air supply and the pipes, the machine will stop.

The case with your chain is that although you have ½ the moments going up as you do going down you are indeed going to have to have some problems.

Think about it this way. If you have 24 moments on the left and ½ that or 12 on the right then 12 in transition on the top and another 12 on the bottom speading out. Now think about the chain being one foot tall and moving at one foot a minute. In ½ a minute there will be 12 more moments on the bottom of the chain but you will only have moved ½ the moments up or 6 of them on the right side.

Those 6 moments that moved up on the right will not have replenished the 12 moments that took the place (that were at the top) that replenished the moments that moved down on the left. After ½ minute of travel you could maintain the 24 moments on the left but you'll have 6 moments on the top and 18 moments on the bottom and still 12 or ½ the moments on the right as the left. The problem is your moments are going to pile up on the bottom.

If you solve the problem by moving your moments on the right at twice the rate as you have them coming down on the left the chain will balance. 24 moments a minute = 12 moments in ½ minute.

I wish it weren't so but I don't see any other way of thinking about it. The idea of thinking about the leverage is another way. When I first considered that idea I thought that you might shift the piles to overcome that problem. Considering this I'd say the chain is dead in the water.

Gene

[murilo]

Jim, no way! 'Error' in running the program. I give up and thank for your efforts!

Gene, I'm afraid I can't reach 100% to your msg.
The comparison has nothing to see with my chain, where a mass potential is accumulated and actively hold, or suspended. The chain will find just to a controled liberation, step by step opening, around the wheel.

Pls, be kind to search about peripheric *velocity* ( m/sec ) for a same radius but in different lenghts. You'll see that in rotative mechanics sets an 'outer' object may go much faster than an 'inner' object, besides they are positined at same radius and same 'RPM' rate.

REPEATING: the rising velocity is given by the 'outer' velocity of those 'outer' chain's rods.
thanks and regs. M.

[AgingYoung]

Murilo,
There you go again! Just when I think I've gotten my mind around what you're doing you throw me another curve!! I have to be closer to understanding what you're talking about now than before and it seems to me that I'm back to the point where you mentioned:

- a rod in touch at right side to a rail, moving down >>> O|
this rod will turn 'ccw'
- other rod, as same, in touch at left, moving down>>> |O
this rod will turn 'cw'
- a rod falling, in touch to 2 rails, 1 left, 1 right >>> |O|
when touching each oposite rails, each one will force anthagonic ways of turning, one against to the other... cw...ccw...cw...ccw.... what means a lot of friction and resistance!

... page 3

My thoughts about your chain are:

• Jim's analysis although probably accurate doesn't describe what you're attempting.
• My previous idea of your idea might be dead in the water but your actual idea deserves further consideration.
• It is possible that there's a simpler way to model your idea

I've been thinking about all that you've said and have thinking about an articulate chain with a different twist. Now that I better understand what you're trying I'll think about it along those lines.

Thank you Murilo for sharing such a complex idea. It's enough to give some people something to think about for quite a while and give a lot of other people a headache.

Gene

ps edit:

Gene, I'm afraid I can't reach 100% to your msg.

I know there's a language barrier so when I slow up I'll include a picture.

[murilo]

Gene,
thanks, you are an educated guy.
You know, specially when I met people face by face, it's very hard to any tell me why frcm wouldn't work. IT'S A PUZZLE!
A nice idea may be a curse...
If we could met, you would be convinced if I show you some pieces of that chain! :]

>>>This part of your msg:

''now than before and it seems to me that I'm back to the point where you mentioned:
Quote:
- a rod in touch at right side to a rail, moving down >>> O|
this rod will turn 'ccw'
- other rod, as same, in touch at left, moving down>>> |O
this rod will turn 'cw'
- a rod falling, in touch to 2 rails, 1 left, 1 right >>> |O|
when touching each oposite rails, each one will force anthagonic ways of turning, one against to the other... cw...ccw...cw...ccw.... what means a lot of friction and resistance!
... page 3 ''

The abofe text was sent to Jim when I was trying to explain to him *why* I didn't recommend the use of those *single rails* he draw, in touch to the rods. In essence this has not much to see with. You may forget this for the while.

My drawings are so *stupidly simple* that people fall in confusion.
A nice week to you all. M. SP mar/05

[murilo]

James Randall,
how are you doing?

On feb/28th I asked you about this::::

''Try to calculate with the same data I sent and use Ri as 400mm and Ro as 485mm - unbalance 2:1. ''

James, this is a ball that is still at your side...
I was in a hope that some thing like that could be at the software you sent...
Regs. M. SP mar/10th

[jim_mich]

Murilo, see attached picture using your dimensions.

You never told me what the error is when you run my program? Does my program run at first, but then error when you change dimensions? Be specific. Give me facts and details.

My program will show you why your chain doesn't work.

[murilo]

Dear James,
not so fast, dear James! It's not that elementar...

In feb/28 I said to you>

''Try to calculate with the same data I sent and use Ri as 400mm and Ro as 485mm - unbalance 2:1. ''

For months and months you used to an argument to ''prove'' me that why frcm wouldn't work. This argument was that the resistance was applied at a much bigger distance than the main force, that would be annulated.

For all this time I tryed to tell and show to you that this was not true and I have at least 3 other different arguments against your view. I lost my words and I couldn't make you and Ken understand that the stuff may be managed in all the possible project views.

If you use to the data I sent, for unbalance 2:1, you'll see to the geometric forces compensation, as levers! And I almost gave up to show it!!! ( this is the main point in this message!!!)

So as my avalanchedrive, your software ( using to your words) is not foolsprof. It was installed but nothing was ok when I tryed to change data. After insistance of mine it apears a box ( wich I tryed to copy but couldn't ) saying that this 'sw' has errors in its execution.

OF SURE, James, if you make a wheel as I see in this draw above, ALL set will ask to be drawn again.
The NEW wheel will not let to those inner rods stay in touch, because the outer angles need to be enough open and a space must be forced to the action of the locks. Of sure you didn't reached to a 2:1 unbalance. You must look at the draw and not only to the logic math you mounted.

Take care!
Have a good one, you all! M. SP mar11

[jim_mich]

Murilo,

Communicating with you is painfull. Your English is very hard to understand. You use strange words in strange ways. For instance, the word annulated which means 'shaped like a ring' make no sense in your sentence.

If you use to the data I sent, for unbalance 2:1, you'll see to the geometric forces compensation, as levers! And I almost gave up to show it!!! ( this is the main point in this message!!!)

What data? You keep changing data. You give only partial data. "... the geometric forces compensation, as levers!" has little or no meaning.

Of sure you didn't reached to a 2:1 unbalance.

I used your dimensions. Your dimensions don't make a 2:1 unbalance. That is the point I've been trying to make. You don't understand! It is not my fault that your dimensions don't make a 2:1 unbalance. I told you to give me dimensions and you give me incomplete dimensions. Then you complain that it's not 2:1.

It was installed but nothing was ok when I tryed to change data. After insistance of mine it apears a box ( wich I tryed to copy but couldn't ) saying that this 'sw' has errors in its execution.

This tells me that the program works OK. It is your data that causes it to error. There is a computer saying, "Garbage in, garbage out." If you give my program garbage data then it will get sick and and display error boxes. Tell me the data that causes errors and I will explain why.

[Wheeler]

Murilo,
You might consider checking the use of some of your words, if you want it to be clear for Jim and everyone.
You sometimes use the word (as) incorrectly.
If you are now tying to describe you project and mathematical formula, you may wish to ask us for help on some of your words.
I am not one of those, but I think Ken can help you if he has time.
Your design has a level of math that Jim_Mich can calculate if you are willing to give up the details as he asks.

Now if you wish to keep spin on this topic, I suggest you also type some letters backwards.
I also do not knwo hwo yu could od this, but thry muts be a way.

[murilo]

Jim and Wheeler, hi!
Yes, my english is painfull and reacts bad with some human will.

''Annulation'' is a not propper word, of sure... I wanted to say 'nullification', or 'anullment', 'canceller'... but the main thing is the stuff itself, I mean, not my english but what and where I want to reach...
and this asks for some conscious efforts. I'm sorry... latin roots may be a trap...
For many times I saw to some of you saying that couldn't understand to the other, even if you are 2 americans... Besides this normal misunderstanding, Jim is seeing to try complicate to the mess.

There is in Jim's previous msg::::

''Murilo wrote:
If you use to the data I sent, for unbalance 2:1, you'll see to the geometric forces compensation, as levers! And I almost gave up to show it!!! ( this is the main point in this message!!!)
What data? You keep changing data. You give only partial data. "... the geometric forces compensation, as levers!" has little or no meaning. ''
>>>The data, Jim, is those well clear Ri and Ro, 400 and 485mm! GOD!
The rest of data is not so important, you know?
''Murilo wrote:
Of sure you didn't reached to a 2:1 unbalance.''

The unbalancement, Jim, is visual... it's what you call 'visual ilusion'!
Flexible mind is a must to fix and modify to parts and basic points who suffer consequences. This is not a plastered stuff, important are the conceptions...
Thanks + regs. M.

( I'll install that program again and will send a better report... but I have the feeling that Jim has a 'plasted' vision about the stuff!)

[jim_mich]

The unbalancement, Jim, is visual... it's what you call 'visual ilusion'!

An 'optical illusion'? Which line is longer in attached picture? They are both the same!

This is not a plastered stuff, important are the conceptions...

Plastered? I must assume that you mean fixed, solid or not flexable. Plaster is the stuff that is put on walls, like mud that hardens when it dries. Also if you go out and get drunk it is sometimes called 'getting plastered' because you become 'dead drunk', you pass out, become unconsciuos, don't move, you just lay there fixed like hardened mud.

Conceptions? I must assume you mean concept, idea, theory. Conception means beginning of life. It is a verb. It is an action. It is what happens to young women. In contrast a concept is a beginning thought. It is a noun. It is a thing. It is an idea or theory.

You say: This is not (fixed) stuff. Important are the (idea or theory).
You say: I have the feeling that Jim has a (fixed) vision about the stuff!

You want me to be flexible, that is not fixed or 'plastered'. You want me to believe in an illusion. A magician can make an elephant seem to disappear, but it would be just an illusion.

One of us is wrong! Is it me or you? Is my math wrong or is your illusion wrong?

[AgingYoung]

The lines in the middles are longer than the end lines or those little lines shaped like arrows.

Gene

[ken_behrendt]

Trying to communicate with murilo is, indeed, a slow and difficult process. I guess that is the price that must be paid when we reach out across the globe to share our ideas.

However, although murilo's AvalanceDrive is certainly unique in its construction, the actual overall mechanical principle of it has appeared in other designs down through the centuries. When viewed statically, it appears "obvious" that the left column of weights will always be heavier than the right column of weights. From this it seems certain that the device must work and the chain continuously move.

However, when one considered what would happen IF the chain was to move, then it becomes apparent that the device can not work. The number of weights that would rise per second on the right side MUST be equal to the number of weights that would fall on the left per second. This condition is absolutely necessary if the chain is to maintain the configuration shown in the static illustrations of the device. That is, this condition is absolutely necessary if the numbers of weights on each side of the device are to remain constant IF any motion took place.

Well, if the number of weights rising is always equal to the number falling, then how can the device produce any excess energy for the performance of outside work? At best, the energy gotten from the falling left side weights should exactly equal the energy consumed by the rising right side weights and the device would just maintain a constant velocity.

However, there would be a lot of friction in the operation of this device that would then drain off a percentage of the energy released by the left side's falling weights. This would mean that there would then not be enough energy remaining to get the right side weights to rise to the top of the device.

If any friction is present in the device, then if must quickly come to a halt. Even if friction could be completely eliminated, this device would still not be able to perform any useful work external to itself.


ken