overbalanced chain drive

[maxpesh]

I find it hard to believe that some people think this will not work. Of course it will, 4 - 5 times more weight on one side than the other always ! Good luck and get that thing working ;-)

[TinselKoala]

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

Simanek explains:

[Note, Nov 11, 2008] When I first received this design from Murilo I thought it was a clever puzzle, or even a joke. But subsequent email exchanges with the inventor convinced me that he sincerely believes that it will work, and the photograph he sent me proved to me that he had already begun to build a prototype. That was several years ago, and he hasn't reported any success yet. He admits that his skills in this sort of work aren't up to the task. It is a sad story. Normally I don't reveal names of inventors in cases such as this, to protect self-deluded people from ridicule, but I subsequently found that he's proclaiming it to the world through his web site, AVALANCHEDRIVE - FRCM, and on web forums that discuss perpetual motion ideas, over-unity devices, and similar matters. So it is public knowledge now. He has also been annoying people by asking them for advice, then responding in anger when that advice does not confirm his own preconceptions. His feeble attempts to explain his invention show that he's using a brand of physics of his own invention, physics unknown to anyone else. When people refuse to respond to his pestering, he crows that this just proves that his device must work, and the lack of response is from people's frustration that they can't prove otherwise. You can read Murilo's own account of his invention at his web site, or at the link above, but I doubt that it will help you solve this puzzle. However, the animations are nice, and worth a look.
[Note, May 23, 2009] I received an email from Murilo, full of insulting language directed at me. He's apparently miffed at something he thinks I did, but his incoherent diatribe didn't reveal exactly what. I've been following his contributions to internet forums, where he refers to me by name and says I'm not capable of understanding the subtle principles of his wonderful invention. I have not responded to those. But it is sad to observe that there are people out there who swallow his ridiculous claims and cannot grasp why they are baseless. Not all are taken in. One fellow suggested that Murlio read my website to see why this avalanche drive can't work, but then added "Donald Simanek is debunking stuff so others can make it work." I don't think this person correctly discerned my motivation. My purpose is to educate people about physics so that they can correctly apply it to the real world, and help them to realize that these perpetual motion and over-unity schemes can never work no matter how much you tinker with them.
I see no evidence that Murilo has finished building a prototype. I predicted a couple of years ago that if he did ever make one, it would just sit there, unmoving. I stand by that. Murilo seems to be spending a lot of time defending his ideas on the internet, time that would be better spent building the thing and settling the matter. Like so many perpetual motion ideas, this one seems to be powered by hot air.
[Note, May 31, 2009] Another email from Murilo shows that he's still angry. Now he's accusing me of plagiarizing his design, with my Silly Slinky Device (SSSD). He seems unaware of the implications of this accusation. I clearly stated that my SSSD was deliberately designed to be an example of something that doesn't work. If it were a rip off of Murilo's idea, then he's admitting that his device doesn't work either. My SSSD was one of a number of crazy designs we undergraduates devised for fun, to explore the principles of classical mechanics, back when I was a student at the University of Iowa in the 1950s.
However, since there may be a language barrier here, let me state clearly that I do not claim any priority for Murilo's avalanche drive. The two devices are quite different. His has an articulated chain that acts as a compound lever. Mine does not. His chain has the same principle as the Roberval balance. My SSSD does not. The only similarity is that both devices are belts over a pulley, but so are many unworkable devices invented and even patented in centuries past. Also, they both are continually heavier on one side of the pulley axle, in any position of rotation. But that fact alone does not make them turn continuously, as I have explained elsewhere on these pages. In fact, both will just sit there, unmoving. I told Murlio that what attracted my attention to his device was the compound lever system in the chain, a feature that was (so far as I know) original, and I give him full credit for that idea, even though it doesn't do anything that could help his device to move perpetually. It's his idea, and a worthless one, and he is welcome to full credit for it.

Sorry... but there it is.

[murilo]

Koala,
thanx for reprising Simaneq matter, that he change all time.

As you see, NO technical arguments are sent... only talk and gossip.

PLEASE, since you a kind of master, with 6000 msg in the forum, try to send us your own and concise appreciation.

Pls, we know already all axioms... so you don't need to repeat them.

Send just logic arguments, just like MANY tried before. 

All you have to do is, PLEASE, show me that you are able to think by yourself!
The unforgivable thing is that up to now I'm in cook together this same hot pan.

Best!
Murilo
PS: I love cute and fair koalas! 

[murilo]

Gianna,
be sure, I'm glad that you have an working mind!

So, you'll also reach this argument in below, based in the same '1:2' example of sent draws:

- under acceleration we get falling speed '1' with mass '2' AGAINST opposite speed '2' with mass '1' - as seesaw.

- under 'g' behavior, or acceleration, in the very start, one side will block/break the other, due to equalized forces, as you and old physic say.

- BUT... remark this... before the full gravity action, we'll see that the grounded axle is HOLD by a charge and this charge will transform any primary mechanic gain in high torque... at very low RPM.

It's so simple, Gianna!

Since you are smart, you'll know what to do with this concentrated source of torque, that for sure will never reach the high speed of FREE 'g'.

Best!
Murilo

[murilo]

Please, Gianna... Com-on!
Don't disappoint me!
Nothing else to say?
Generally I stay enough satisfied when someone says: 'oh... this is a case where only a model will be conclusive!'