Prime mover, this cant be true.

[roberval]

Hi,

need help in confirming if there is more force on one side of this crankshaft system.

Fig 1 shows the system that allows force to be transferred for rotation. It's similar to a crankshaft piston setup, except it has gears that allows force to be transferred back from outside of the crankshaft via a secondary system.

The shafts of the center gears pass through the central crankshaft axle, IE they are not fixed to the crankshaft and can turn separately from the crank.
(double shafts).
Fig 1, in this example the green gears of the red crank have 20 teeth, the pink gear has 40.
when the crank turns 360 degrees CW the central green gear turns 360 degrees CCW

The light blue gear of the yellow crank has 80 teeth, the dark blue 40 teeth. when the crank turns 360 degrees CW the central light blue gear turns 540 degrees CW (1.5X).

Fig 2, shows the crank halves combined.

Fig 3, and 4, shows a 3D image of the crank, on the outer ends of the crank, the green gear/sprocket on the left side and pink gear/sprocket on the right can be linked to a secondary system.
One design runs on tracks the other runs in similar fashion to a Roberval balance, "Parallelogram".

Fig 5, shows a simple Secondary system which connects either through gears or chains/sprockets to the central green and light blue gears in Fig 1.
the system consists of 2 pulleys that turn at different speed and direction so the cable gets wound around increasing tension, between the cables connected to the pulleys is an extension spring.
as the cable is wound up spring tension increases.

The direction of travel for the crankshaft is Clockwise.

the light blue pulley on the left Fig 5 is connected to the light blue gear in fig 1
When the crankshaft turns, the light blue pulley turns 1.5 times CW for each crank revolution.

the green pulley on the right side Fig 5, connects to the green gear of fig 1.
it turns 1 revolution CCW for each crankshaft rotation.
the light blue pulley turns 180 degrees more than the green pulley which allows the cable/spring to wind up and increase tension.
the pulleys receive the same tension force.

so with this current gearing setup 1 revolution is lost due to the CCW rotation of the green pulley.
other gearing ratios of the light blue pulley can be applied, though it needs to turn more than 1 revolution CW  for each crank revolution.

forces are reduced on the left side e.g. when replacing the dark blue gear with 20 teeth and the light blue with 200 teeth.

the force is transferred through the system using gears and shafts and applied through the geared levers rollers on tracks.
these levers are fixed to the outer gears, the gears bearing is the pivot.

when the outer gears levers place an equal amount of force but in opposite direction to each other via the rollers on the track, (the left lever tries to lift up due to a CW force, the right lever tries to lift up due to a CCW force , the crankshaft remains stationary,  the crankshaft is in equilibrium.
the crankshaft can easily be turned in either direction at this point even when force is in the system, the only resistance is friction.

This is where it gets interesting, when calculating the force transferred back through the left and right sides it seems like there's more force on the right.
the pink geared lever which has more CCW torque is trying to turn the crank CW.
As this occurs the force increases due to the pulley system winding up due to the crank now turning CW.
Multiple pulley systems would be used, so that a quick reset can occur (unwind) on one pulley while the others wind up.

the percentage of force on the right side is 4 times greater than the left side when using the gearing combination in this example.
it improves when changing the gearing on the left side.

This just sounds too good to be true and need some confirmation about the maths.

Chances are that the calculations are incorrect, though as long as the left side does not have a greater force than the right the system is viable.

if the systems a big fail hopefully someone can show where I've gone wrong.

[lumen]

Looks like a good job for your 3D printer.

[roberval]

Looks like a good job for your 3D printer.

  now there's an idea, would probably shatter under the strain.