overbalanced chain drive

[murilo]

Cloxxki, sorry but I couldn`t reach to your thinking. My english skill is not so good as I wish. Anyhow I remeber you that springs have reaction or resistance at their two points.

Bill, as gift I mean a plus! If one assume that it will start the turning from rest state, much more to get with acceleration, you know?

Fletcher, I also couldn`t understand to you properly. Sorry, but I have an idea of which is your thinking, from BW!

Pls, be advised that I don`t look for believers... I consider already a goal if you have doubts or if you get the conclusion that JUST A MODEL will be conclusive.
My physical model is suspended for a while, but I had opportunities to assay to all of the parts, in separate.
I have no doubts and any hands-on help will be welcome.
Thanks+regards.
Murilo

[fletcher]

This is what I consider an analogue of the avalanche drive murilo - the gearing is 4:1 [80:20] - everything is balanced & in equilibrium until either an extra weight [blue, all 1 kg] is added to either side in which case that side moves down or conversely the gearing ratio is changed to something other than 4 :1 & that alters the equilibrium & it moves & settles at its lowest position of gravity Pe - it can be summarised, IMO, by work done formula's for each side, as I & others have said previously.

P.S. couldn't use the gear option in WM cause my model just kept falling off the page [pins let go] so did it the old fashioned way.

FWIW - a simple static test using something like this [or perhaps with gears but same sized pulleys] will tell you if one side is heavier as you believe murilo - it wouldn't be too difficult for one of the builders [if not yourself] to build & test.

[murilo]

Fletcher...
none will need to make any model to see that the device you designed will stop.

Then I ask you: an so what? You showed us just a mask!

Why not to chose rates that will send better evidence of the unbalance? What said I about radius variations IF NECESSARY?

Why you insist in stuffs far from my design and from what i said?

A pint of good will, or intelligence, is going to separate what has to see with the conception itself, from what is, or can be, current mechanic and physic resources , that can be used by any technician to reach good appliance and results.

Regs. Murilo
( one more draw is sent now.)

[fletcher]

So put all the bits together murilo & let 'er rip - you've said you've tested the individual components - all that's left is to place them altogether, nes't par ?

In my analogue you could have used the same diameter pulleys for ascending & descending, for a static test, but that requires gear connections - it doesn't however change the basic relationships.

In your drawing the tightly stacked side is flatter & wider, whilst the stretched side is elongated & thinner [where the Center of Mass (CoM) is located] - but both sides must have a datum to work off, which I'm assuming is the cog arrangement, or perhaps the guides ? - the guides themselves will make friction - a guide is like a ramp if it forces something to move laterally from its 'natural' position - the cogs also may well cause the center of mass of each side to relocate slightly depending on whether that section is fat or thin & how well they 'nest' together - IMO, the chain drive concept all boils down to leverage & pulleys, & cogs are just levers - by all means prove me wrong & complete the build to do it !

[ATT]

@murilo
I didn't have your DWG to work with so I pasted sections of your drawings together from your power-point file.

Now, regardless of the finished height, the vertical segments should exhibit about the same ratio of force-weight to load-weight - the first image shows what I came up with based on your drawing.

There's a lot of things that have to work 'just right' in order for everything to run smooth, like the latches that have to engage and disengage at just the right spot in coincidence with the cogs in the upper and lower gears.

The second drawing steals from the 'guide' ideas in the sjack abeling thread to try and hint at a simpler way to go. Granted, guides have friction but if this (or any OU rig) can't handle a little roller-friction, it's not worth your trouble.

Anyway, think it over, no gears, no latches, just non-symmetrical 'arms' on weight-sets (notice they are different sizes) and straight guides to enforce weight-spacing.

The major 'gotcha' with this idea is it might have a tendency to 'jam' as it enters the 'choke-point' that's necessary for load-side weight spacing (always has to be at least three 'gotchas').

A way around that might be to redesign the weight/arm sets with a center pivot to allow for an easier transition.

Another 'gotcha' is the old saw of 'force' vs 'work'. With any lever arrangement, we have to consider motion through a distance. If you notice the arbitrary 'boundaries' I've delineated in both drawings (the red-lines), you'll see that the 'load' side comprises a greater distance than the 'force' side.

This points out that even though you may have more weight on one side than the other, you still have to push that lesser weight a greater distance, hence you have to do more 'work' (force through distance).

Whether your final weight-arrangement will cover all the bases ultimately depends on your final design, but consider these and other alternatives before you 'carve it in stone'.

All the best, Tony
.