frcm - 4D

[ken_behrendt]

Well, I still do not think that the AvalanceDrive mechanism is workable and I have been trying to come up with ways of making it work or other variations that might work.

Below is something that came to mind. I call it the "ZipperDrive".


ken

[Wheeler]

Nice drawing Ken.
That is what I was say on page 5.
The heavy side could just let one go every so often and not need the spacer balls at all.
Then it just balls to the walls for everyone.

[ken_behrendt]

The spacer balls in my ZipperDrive are necessary. The heavy metal balls on the leftmost pulley system are "loose" in that they can slide up and down their pulley belt like beads on a string. The spacer balls, however, are rigidly attached to their pulley's belt and can not move.

What is not obvious from my sketch is that the belt carrying the yellow spacer balls must move much quicker than the belt that carries the heavy metal ball weights.

Whether or not this design would work will, I suspect, depend upon whether or not the torque created on the lower loop of heavy metal weight balls will be enough to force an incoming spacer ball between two adjacent metal weight balls so as to create the "mixed" or "zippered" set of ascending weight/spacer balls. This is a critical issue. Also, it would be necessary to coat all spheres with some sort of silicone lubricant to promote the "zipper" effect.


ken

[Wheeler]

yes
If the right side was moving faster, maybe a colision would create an opening, or hole for the heavy balls to sneek inbetween and ride the wave so to speak.

[jim_mich]

I must laugh at this, the problems involved with this zipper drive are so obvious to me. When the heavy balls and the spacer balls meet they will lock-up. A zipper works because both sides are already pre-spaced. Here we have a problem with the heavy balls arriving at the same location that the spacer ball needs to go into. The only solution would be to provide some type of stop/go latch on the heavy balls. But that produces other problems. When the balls are stopped they produce no torque. This means you get more torque from the heavy balls but for only half the time. Another problem is that when latched the column of heavy balls does not push agains the column of mixed balls. This causes the mixed ball column to be heavier than the spacer ball column on the right.

[Wheeler]

There goes the neighborhood.
Ken cancel the patent check!

[rlortie]

So we are right back to the spacer ball machine that even Ken the designer said would not work. I fail to see any difference here.

Ralph

[murilo]

Ken, hi.
Be sure I did like very much to your draw.
I can be also classified as those devices that ''just a model will say''.
If the shape of the ''balls'' is addequated as *wedges*...
No big deal about different velocities, because the lower will command the device performance and the shaft will be under constant torsion.
Congratulations. M. SP 15/feb

[ken_behrendt]

murilo...

Sadly, I must agree with both Jim and Ralph. The "ZipperDrive" is, indeed, just another variation of my last year's design for the "Spacer Ball Injector" device. And, like that device, it will not work.

The reasons for this is not immediately obvious from studying the sketches of these devices that I produce. But, the basic reason is that in all such devices (and, sorry, but this includes your "AvalanceDrive" device), the ascending mixed stream of heavy metal ball weights and lighter spacer balls must rise at double the speed at which the heavy metal balls on the descending stream drop. Since the ascending mixed stream only weighs half of what the descending stream weighs, but moves at twice the speed of the descending stream, this means that, during any interval of time, the exact same weight of material will descend on one side of the device as will ascend on the other side. Therefore, there can be no net torque produced by such a device and it simply will not run.

The section of ascending chain in your AvalancheDrive device, in a sense, acts exactly like the ascending lighter mixed stream in my devices. That is, as the chain ascends, it must flatten out a bit and this action means that there will be less weights along that ascending section of chain. However, that section of chain compensates for this by having to speed up its rate of ascent. But, this will then result in the same weight of chain descending on one side of your device as ascends on the other in a period of time. The result? Again, no torque can be generated by the device and it will not be capable of motion.

However, I do appreciate that you found my sketch of the ZipperDrive to be interesting...


ken

[murilo]

Hello!
With a delay I come with the arguments I tryed to send before, since Jim and Ken couldn't reach to words.

Avalanchedrive has, basically, the aplication of 2 different and conduced potentials at part of the perimeter of a pulley, or wheel. I say that the heavier will flow down against and pushing to the lighter. (my God, this is english language!)

At attached file a part of this 'reversion' zone of diagram is shown.

Important to considere at the wheel's grounded shaft.

The weights applied over radius are considered as antagonic levers, where 'A' is the wheel's radius, 'B' is the chain's widt and 'AB' is the 'lever' where lighter weight will resist.

Jim and Ken say that the heavier pile - applied at 'A', will not 'winn' to the lighter applied to 'AB'; shaft between them. ( Un-balance rate 2:1. )

Against this view I present now to three ''oh, yeh?''

''Oh, yeh?''1- as chain is completely articulated, the lighter resistance will be 'discharged' over those assured rods you see around the pulley. All them are in touch between themselves so as to the pulley. You will find to the small vector arrows. Chrystaline! (this is my preffered way!)

''Oh, yeh?''2- case the above version is not true, one will increase to the dimension of 'A', that will be 4 or 5 times longer than 'B'. We are talking of levers and torsion, wich is calculated by multiplication of 'force' by the elongation where it's applied. In this way, against the funcrum of the shaft, as example, at a side we'll have weight '2' x 4B against weight '1'x 5B. Also chrystaline!

''Oh, yeh?''3- IF nothing above works, also against normal rules, one will just to draw to a chain where the un-balancement will be much bigger than the 2:1. I may sugest to 4:1, just to start. Absolutely chrystaline!

You don't need to understand me... it's enough you think!

Nice karnival to you all! ( ô... isquindôôô... :D ) M. SP feb/25

[ken_behrendt]

Murilo...

I think you made a mistake when you made that last sketch of the AvalancheDrive device that you posted. It shows the width of both the descending and ascending columns of weights as being equal. For your device to work as you think it will, the width of the right ascending column must be less than the width of the left descending column. I've attached my analysis below.


ken

[murilo]

Ken...
Thanks, but I wouldn't do a so rough mistake in my appreciation!

If you look well, the heavier pile shows to *two rods diameters* and the biggers, at right, will bring charge - almost punctual - to the *inner side* of falling chain.

The lighter pile shows its main resistive structure at outer side, in the vertical braces, or locks.

The draw I showed considere to this forces composition, confronted and supported by the shaft... You and Jim discussed about its 'impossibility' and I show it's possible.

You discussed without understand it... what about Jim?

If it will not work, the reason will be someother stuff, not this like said.
Regs. M. SP feb/26

[jim_mich]

Murilo,
Tell me real numbers!

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. 

I will calculate real answers.

The 'Latched Length" (LL) is always determined going around the lower sprocket! These are the formulas...

Code: Select all

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.

[AgingYoung]

Jim,

The weights on the inside appear to have different diameters/mass.

Gene

[murilo]

Jim,
I can't exactly understand to you!
Are you asking me to send real data about a mounted set, as an example?
Case this is your proposition, I'll do it!
I'll tell it again: Jim, USE to a hook wheel at under position. Since you don't want to change to those double rails for the rods, you stay with them, but they are NO GOOD.
Thanks. M. SP 26/feb