An infamy: the Bessler secret discovered by a troll?

[murilo]

Calm down, Tarsier,
calm down...
( you don't got it... others don't want to...)
My problem, anyway!
Best!
Murilo

[Grimer]

...

Myself, I think a persons time would be better spent thinking of ways energy could be conserved. They might make on it while actually helping the planet. Even a more efficient electric motor would be worth a lot.

On the question of energy conservation I read an interesting book some time ago (I'll have to contact my son to see if he can remember the name) which points out that the world is moving towards a state where less and less energy is needed.

One example is working from home rather than commuting.

Another is the use of those large metal containers that goods are now packed in. There was a very good BBC programme on the subject which pointed out that it cost less to bring something to England from China on a container ship than it cost to carry it by lorry to the distribution depot.

I'm sure members can think of plenty of other examples.

[Tarsier79]

I thought I was being calm. I was wishing you well on your build and the lessons that should be learned from it.

[rlortie]

I wish that people would stop debating over the math equations and friction issues displayed here regarding Murilo's Avalanche drive.

I have repeatedly pointed out the following question, and to date have not received an answer that makes any sense to me.

Look at the top left weight that has just left (descending) the sprocket. Tell me and explain why this single weight is not the sum of force expected to pull up all the alleged ascending weights.

IMO not unlike water the concentration of compressed weights will seek there own level and one free hanging weight is not going to lift many.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

I wish that people would stop debating over the math equations and friction issues displayed here regarding Murilo's Avalanche drive.

I have repeatedly pointed out the following question, and to date have not received an answer that makes any sense to me.

Look at the top left weight that has just left (descending) the sprocket. Tell me and explain why this single weight is not the sum of force expected to pull up all the alleged ascending weights ?

IMO not unlike water the concentration of compressed weights will seek there own level and one free hanging weight is not going to lift many.

Found it - scroll down to Details:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/frcm.htm

Ok, no math but must mention friction due to geometry.

First the top & bottom sprockets are not linked or geared - the top one is a smooth pulley wheel while the bottom one is a toothed sprocket which is said to help spacing & latching of the gravity activated chain spacer on the ascending side, otherwise it wouldn't be necessary.

Next the chain sections moving over the top wheel & also the sections moving under the bottom sprocket have the same angle & number, so their forces cancel out therefore they can be disregarded - this means we can disregard your top left mass coming off the wheel on the descending side etc.

Next the left side chain sections are compressed in height vertically but have greater width displacement while the right side is expanded to a greater distance apart vertically with less width - they are held that way by the gravity activated locking spacer - if there were no guide rails to dictate the geometry of the chain links on the ascending side then like water it would find its own level & rush around the bottom sprocket.

The fact is the guide rails to the right side 'force' the chain sections to expand apart vertically by squeezing the chain sections thus narrowing their width - this means that they are constrained & the 'water finding its own level' analogy can not happen - this is because it's like trying to squeeze a large volume of water thru a narrower venturi, to keep with the water metaphor.

Next imagine the chain links & sprockets replaced by a continuous water vessel that forms a oval loop, except the left descending side has a large cross sectional area [& volume], the volume at the bottom & top curves are the same, whilst the ascending side reduces to a narrow cross section & volume - the weight of water on the left side will not cause a continuous flow of water around the circuit - the water must be constrained & squeezed into the narrow ascending side then sped up [CoE] & as it leaves the top part it must slow down [CoE] & fill a larger volume again.

In both Murilo's chain section Avalanche Drive & tube water example there is no torque possible, either statically or dynamically !

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


Now, before someone says a tube of water is not a fair comparison to the Avalanche Drive because the tube of water can have the same radius from the central line & water has the same density at any horizontal level whilst the chain sections have different densities left & right, I will point out that the radius on the descending side is less than the radius on the ascending side - effectively whilst radii are different this is cancelled by the asymmetric chain section densities, making it directly comparable to the tube water metaphor.

[Richard]

..I borrowed the following from

"murilo Inventor's Inventory

1- Development and field tests for a new liquid/solid, or liquid/liquid, adjustable separator equipment, using density and size grain, or viscosity, variation. Excellent for primary concentration of fine and free gold present in great volume iron ore, specially if from Brazilian mines – continuous on-line, controllable, trustful and economic. *


...I sense that murilo has knowledge of "Mining Processes"

..A suitable frame of reference, to compare the "avalanche drive" to....may also be found in the Mining industry..

..Hydrosizing...here, a weighted bed of particulates will indeed, create a static rise in a riser tube...far in excess of the hydrosizer containment vessel itself..

..the question I am left with..

can the physics of "bed building" be accomplished through a mechanical process alone?

..in such a case...leverage is not an issue...rather it is displacement I.e.

how does one make the water stay higher on one side of the "U" tube?

..murilo...if my analogy or assumption is wrong....it still deserves a "look at" in your design.


richard

[Grimer]

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/frcm.htm

At least Murilo has achieved the distinction of being raised to the altar in the Museum of Unworkable devices. A martyr who has shed his blood for the faith.

[murilo]

I wish that people would stop debating over the math equations and friction issues displayed here regarding Murilo's Avalanche drive.

I have repeatedly pointed out the following question, and to date have not received an answer that makes any sense to me.

Look at the top left weight that has just left (descending) the sprocket. Tell me and explain why this single weight is not the sum of force expected to pull up all the alleged ascending weights.

IMO not unlike water the concentration of compressed weights will seek there own level and one free hanging weight is not going to lift many.

Ralph

Ralph,
you got at one of the main 'points', just as I said so many times.

You saw well! This 'weight' you say is really a point of maxim gravity pressure, what means the weight SUM of all left pile! The chain is consciously designed with this 'detail' and you'll see that the chain's outer side, of this left pile, is free of touch, just to let max. pressure over inside zigzag corners.

Note also important and fatal point: this potential is applied over the wheel's perimeter, which offers an eccentric contact, hanging or supporting all left pile!

As you know, the water potential, as a fluid column, offers no chances for a full punctual only point as this dedicated zigzag chain.

Since the momentum intrinsic is there, the next step will be just a question of to chose the adequate proportions to push right side.

In the matter I sent there is a rough draw with shape in 'U', where is so obvious that the right side will stop at a taller level...

Thanks!
Best!
Murilo

[murilo]

Fletcher said:

''Now, before someone says a tube of water is not a fair comparison to the Avalanche Drive because the tube of water can have the same radius from the central line & water has the same density at any horizontal level whilst the chain sections have different densities left & right, I will point out that the radius on the descending side is less than the radius on the ascending side - effectively whilst radii are different this is cancelled by the asymmetric chain section densities, making it directly comparable to the tube water metaphor.''

Fletcher,
you are an intelligent guy! Please try to understand me at THIS time!

( this question is mandatory! )

Your above phrase shows a possible problem for the device, ok? For first this is your opinion and for second this is NOT an intrinsic fail for the complete conception of the involved principle!

As said several times face to this very old jim_mich's argument, IF this will happen, one will correct to the proportions and will reach to the results one chose as ideal!


Please, be kind to comment my above phrases and try to understand me!!! PLEASE! If my broken english is a problem, please tell me and I'll arrange it!

You see, there are peripheral counter-arguments that are out of the main conceptual discussion and that shadows core questions!

( I'm getting pathetic, latino and dramatic! 8)

Thanks!
Best!
Murilo

[murilo]

..I borrowed the following from

"murilo Inventor's Inventory

1- Development and field tests for a new liquid/solid, or liquid/liquid, adjustable separator equipment, using density and size grain, or viscosity, variation. Excellent for primary concentration of fine and free gold present in great volume iron ore, specially if from Brazilian mines – continuous on-line, controllable, trustful and economic. *


...I sense that murilo has knowledge of "Mining Processes"

..A suitable frame of reference, to compare the "avalanche drive" to....may also be found in the Mining industry..

..Hydrosizing...here, a weighted bed of particulates will indeed, create a static rise in a riser tube...far in excess of the hydrosizer containment vessel itself..

..the question I am left with..

can the physics of "bed building" be accomplished through a mechanical process alone?

..in such a case...leverage is not an issue...rather it is displacement I.e.

how does one make the water stay higher on one side of the "U" tube?

..murilo...if my analogy or assumption is wrong....it still deserves a "look at" in your design.


richard

Rich,
yes I have long practice about heavy ore mining and dealing fluids, and this helps me a lot, but...

... since 12 I know about the 'communicant vases' classic school experiment, where the level of several different communicating tubes will show same level... no way to get level rise without external means... no way for tricks!

BUT avalanchedrive absolutely has nothing to see with this question, as said above, since it applies principles proper to solid matter, geometry, gravity, time management, and for sure, some mechanic tricks.

Thanx for your words.
best!
Murilo

[murilo]

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/frcm.htm

At least Murilo has achieved the distinction of being raised to the altar in the Museum of Unworkable devices. A martyr who has shed his blood for the faith.

Grimer,
yes! I rise to the fame Simanek's gallery! 8)))

He's very intelligent and has good intention, but he was not able to understand my conception - too much stubborn!

I was very patient and we changed many e-mails!

He changed the above text at least two times! Very easy when you are the owner of the site!

Best!
Murilo

[Fletcher]

Sorry Murilo - I actually wrote that for Ralph's benefit since he asked, not to get a rise from you.

Changing the proportions does not change the basic facts as I continue to see them.

[murilo]

I'm sorry too, Fletcher.
Very sorry indeed!