frcm - 4D

[Wheeler]

Thanks Jim
That helps.
I don't know for sure, but this looks like it could actually be a possibility.

Murilo might be saying the heavy weight is locking as it falls into the gear of the descending side.
Therefore, the pile up weight is acting like an advantage system to the ascending side.

More weight is always available, because the ascending side is always in expansion. The left side is compression.

This system may run slow.

Sort of like everybody getting on the down side of a sea saw, while the up side is held back slightly.
As everyone piles up on the heavy side, the light side is letting some go.
It can feed a weight at the bottom as a (hole) becomes available from the upward movement of the ascending side.

[Wheeler]

I am not sure if a pile of weight can be stored on one side, while used on the other.
It may still be equil, unless the gear ratio can be calculated.

If the left side starts with more weight, and always has more weight could it push the expansion side?

[jim_mich]

I've said many times this won't work as Murilo thinks. Any gear ratio used seems to balance.

So why do I look at it? Why don't I just walk away? This idea can be reduced to just a see saw teeter-totter lever system that balances. But in the real world with straight chain links that tilt as they wrap around the wheels, the leverage varies a little. So the right side chain does not always apply its force exactly upon the larger diameter. Likewise the left side weights don't always apply their weight on the smaller diameter. And at the top there is a gap between the weights. As the chain links wrap around, the chain does not move smoothly, so it needs some gap somewhere to allow for slack. Each weight needs to be lifted through that gap. If I analyze everything will I find any out of balance? Experience tells me "No." But I keep looking for some small unusual unnoticed unique behavior that might lead me to a Bessler wheel solution.

[ken_behrendt]

Hmmm...I've been thinking about the reasons why murilo's AvalancheDrive device will not work. Much is being made of the differences in weight between the two side of the device being negated by the differences in mechanical leverage caused by the different degree of linkage "folding" that occurs on both sides.

However, suppose that issue could be removed from the operation of such a device. In other words, suppose that the weights on both sides were always the same distance from the centers of the wheels, but the spacing between the weights on the ascending side (the right side) could always be made greater than the spacing between the weights on the descending side (the left side) of the the mechanism. Would not that have to cause the weights to continuously circulate in a CCW direction?

I've attached a quick Paint sketch below of what I have in mind. However, I have no idea what kind of mechanism would be required to make such a device.


ken

[murilo]

Jim, please, ask someone to translate my previous message to you.

Please, someone help me: Jim does not understand that this leverage/radius antagonism may be compensed and/or neutralized. It's enough to considere chain's widt ( arm distance between outer and inner rolls/rods ) as a *multiplier*, as an *unity*.

If the wheel's radius is 4 or 5 times longer than this *unity*, the question of the differences as Jim says will be compensated.

For the other side, this radius encresing will be not necessary, since the chain is completely articulated and those triangles-force will bring the resistance back to wheel's shorter perimeter.
I'm wasting my time with this expanation.
regs. M. SP 11/feb

[Wheeler]

Murilo
If you want us to understand, just draw some arrows on your design.
Point to what you are trying to say.

[murilo]

Wheeler, thankyou.
If you will be kind to send me a fax number, I'll send you a draw on monday, with those 'arrows'.
( sorry, I can't draw on computers!!! )
For the while, tell me, can you understand to those Jim's arguments? For the oposition of forces finding higger resistance thanks to the radians?

He says - here I go again - ''oh, the unbalancement is neutralized, because bigger force mets a shorter radius than the lighter!''
I say: ''Oh, yeh? So use much bigger radius, what means bigger levers to compensate that difference, or increment!'' ( this has to see with the first day of classes of mechanics: leverage calculation! )
Maybe I'll try something else to put this clear.
All the best! M. SP feb/11

[Wheeler]

Murilo
Be Patience.
You and I know Jim has much to offer.
I am not fast to understand, but I can see simplisity very well.
I will send you a pm before Monday.
I will look again at the posts.
It is not over or proved from just 4 or 5 people.
Your idea is very wonderful.

[jim_mich]

Murilo is ignorant in that he does 'know' certain things. I and others have tried to educate him. We have tried to explain why. He says If the wheel's radius is 4 or 5 times longer than this *unity*, the question of the differences as Jim says will be compensated. This is false. Changing the arm distance between outer and inner rolls/rods affects two things. It affects the wheel ratio. This is what Murilo says will make it work.

It also affects the vertical spacing of weights on the right side. This is what Murilo in ignorant about. There is a mathamatical ratio. The differences can't be compensated. Murilo does not understand this mathamatical relation.

This is the math:

Code: Select all

Ri = ____   'Radius inner sprocket circle.
Ro = ____   'Radius outer sprocket circle.
Rw = ____   'Radius of weights.
Hi = ____   'Height between sprocket circles.
Mw = ____   'Mass weight on each weight assembly unit.

A2 = Atan(Rw/Ri)*2    'Angle between two weights as they
                      ' wrap around a sprocket.

LL = Tan(A2/2)*Ro*2   'The vertical latched distance between
                      ' each weight on the right side.

N1 = Hi/(Rw*2)        'Number of weight assembly units on left side.

N2 = Hi/LL            'Number of weight assembly units on right side.

T1 = N1*Mw*Ri         'Torque on left side of sprocket.

T2 = N2*Mw*Ro         'Torque on right side of sprocket.

Fill in the blanks above. Do the math. T1 will equal T2. The torque on left side balances the torque on right side.

[fAtnhapy]

That's exactly what I had! Of course if you make the weights on the assending side hollow you got a whole new ball game. :0)
fAt

[Wheeler]

Murilo
I am sorry, but as little as I know math, I believe Jim is very correct.
If you place heavy weight on one side of a see saw, and light on the other, the heavy side will fall and lift the light side, until it hits bottom.
If you try to hold the right side with a connection to the left side, it simply makes a locked system.

This scissor system of expansion from falling weight is not in nature, and so in an Avalanche there can be no return to where it began.

If it could work, it would be like a water ram that could lift all the water back to the supply height.
I am sorry I did not understand it right away.
Sincerely yours

[murilo]

Jim, you are right! I ignore that I'm ignorant... very simple! OK?

Wheeler, I'm sure you are a *refined gentleman*! Be sure I appreciate to yours and Jim's behavior and patience.
Really! I just can't imagine Jim is unhonest in his propositions! He's just a bit nervous as I am. I thank for the flux of education lights that flows over me!

Eccept by you, declaring that still must put things clearer, every body is deeply convinced and sure - me included!
I must be submerged in some kind of madness! ... so, this is how madness goes! Oh... good! It's funn! Cheers to my avatar! ;s

But let's go on: I have done *many variations* for avalanchedrive, as you may guess. OK? ( look-out with fast reading, please! )

One of them uses a chain wich has *bigger rods applied at outer side*, and the sprochts, locks, or triangle forming arms, are at 'inner'' side...
So, what is the big deal? What will hapen with Jim's arguments if the main weight is now applied at a *bigger radius* and the *lighter at shorter*?

The diagram I show as principal in my matter is one between infinite presentations for a *single basic conception*!!! This conception is based in the controled linear, or lenght, profiling, or transforming, of a concentrated mass, using to a propper special articulated body.

And I'll repeat, even if now Jim will have just a little to say with this *inner locks* version, the other shown previously will also work well *because the chain is articulated* and finds vectors accomodation, when forced.

There is a local philosopher that says: ''ignorance is just an empty vase in case of children not mature minds, for adults ignorance it is a stuff to be transmutated''. ( transmutation is real strong word! )

Transmutation is only possible throughout hard pain... ( I know this.)
Cheers. M. SP 12/feb

[murilo]

Editing:
I'll find a good way to explain exactly what I mean with radius compensation.
Bye! Have a nice week! M.

[Sevich]

Murilo...

Interesting thread!

Your avalanche drive seems to be incomplete and I asume it's for a good reason. :)]

May I ask if you have a working model? ....even if it looks much different to this one. .....(just a YES or a NO........................don't do a kuenstler on us man!)..lol

Wish you good luck if you have!!

[murilo]

Hello, boys!
Let's be calm down a little.
Sevich, nice to see you and thanks for asking.
No, I'm showing to everything in my matter.
No false charms, no faquery, no cheat and no gossips, but it's a not finished stuff.
The draws are conceptive and simple diagrams, but the photo shows axactly as ONE of many chains could be choosen to build.
Many people thinks that a chain is to be *pulled*, but this one is to be pushed in all situations, included pushed by gravity.
Regards! M. SP 41/feb