http://www.doe.gov/

[AgingYoung]

murilo,

That's an impressive build. Most people don't approach something like that. I know I've never come close. The reason that I understand why it won't work is because the greater weight (Wl) of the chain on the left has a shorter lever arm (Al) than the arm of the lesser weight (Wr) on the right. The products of each side of the weights and the arms are equal.

• Wl * Al = Wr * Ar

It's hard for a person to separate their ideas from what they really are. It's very easy to become emotionally attached to an idea to such an extent that you are your idea. When your idea fails it's like you fail. That shouldn't be the case. Most ideas have been around a long time; we're just looking at them for the first time and imagine they're our ideas. I do agree with Kepler when he stated he was, 'thinking God's thoughts after Him.' Good luck.

Gene

[ken_behrendt]

murilo...

Sorry that I disappointed you. I posted the design for my "Tidal Wave Drive" device as a joke...I am well aware that it is unworkable. I think it is unworkable for the same reason that your AvancheDrive can not work.

In the Tidal Wave Drive device, the paddle wheel at the bottom will not turn because the water will not flow from the left to right chambers. Why? Because, although the weight of the water in the left tank is obviously greater than the weight of the water in the right chamber, the water pressure each chamber exerts on a paddle wheel blade from both side are always equal. That pressure only depends upon the height of the water in each chamber and not on the total weight of water in each chamber.

In your AvalanceDrive device a similar mechanical version of this problem of equal "pressures" exists. It is certainly true that the chain on the left weights more than the chain on the right side. But, for the chain to move CCW around the device, the bottom ratchet wheel must be able to accelerate the weights up the guides on the right side. This acceleration will result in a CW torque on the ratchet wheel that will exactly balance the CCW torque created by the difference in weight between the lengths of chain on both sides of the device. Thus, no motion should be possible.

I went to the Simanek site and read his analysis of the AvalanceDrive. He also concludes that it can not work when he wrote:

What does happen? Suppose we carefully held everything in place as illustrated in the drawing above. What happens when we "let it go"? Actually, nothing. The system just sits there, unmoving. Sure, there's more weight on the left than the right, but because the effective lever arm on the left is shorter than that on the right, these unequal weights are exactly in balance.

I wish that I could be move enthusiastic about the AvancheDrive because it is obvious that you really believe in its potential, but it seems that most of the people here feel it is unworkable...


ken

[murilo]

Gene and Ken, hi!
Let's take out Don Simanek from this thread. He's a very emotional pseudo-scientist and time will prove this. He's just trying to be interesting.

I'll not try to convince you, but I'll try to send arguments to the same appreciation you sent above. Hope you'll reach to me.

Your question is, the heavier side will be hold by lighter because of balance between radians and chain's lenght.

1- The lighter side weight will be applied exactly at same hooked wheel radian's, because the chain is not axactly a solid but articulated body. The chain forms to trelisses - armed triangles - that will distribute the resistance, at least, in 4 contacts in the same wheel's radian... OK?

2- Not OK? Case you are right and this thinking above is not true, an arithmetic and geometric resource will be used, as I have tryed to explain before.
Follow this single calcule EXAMPLE:
- two oposite columns, one with wheight '10' and other with '5' ( 2:1 )
- chain's dimentional lenght equals to '1' ( wich will cause elongated resistive radian)
- radian to collect heavier column at wheels hooks equals to '4' ( this size is the choosen to compose lower resistance)
- as in levers calculation, applied potential is '10x4=40' and bigger radian resistance is '5x5=25', with differential of '15' ( I mean '+5' ! )

In the appreciation of any project, one must not mixt the *new questions and discussions of the propper conception and idea*, together with simple and current solutions and technical resources one may use as 'adjust details'. Believe me, ingeneers are very usefull indeed! :]

Thanks! Now I'm going to another thread where JimMich found an interesting stuff with a motion about this project!
Regs. M. SP 28/jan/06