overbalanced chain drive

[Cloxxki]

@ATT: that second drawing is exactly what I envisioned and posted about (although perhaps not in this very thread). Thank you for your effort and collective thinking. This design would be rather easy to build.

@Murilo: I admire your passion. This passion will one day make someone succeed. But it is important to be critical of one's own ideas, to not waste time on it, that could have been spent on the next, improved design. What is your preferred language? English is also not my mothertongue, I am much clearer in Dutch myself, but can try in German or French for you.
Don't give up thinking out of the box, you clearly have a mind capable or original and protical solutions. Do continue!

[murilo]

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 !

Fletcher, let`s see if I got it!
Each pile, or column was designed to present obvious centers of gravity... The condensed is punctual at perimeter and the lighter is at outer side, in line. BUT I could make them different than this IF I`m convinced about which would be the best way!!!
My GOD! We are discussing conceptions.
The vertical losses of the chain on the rails, falling or rising, are equivalent to those of elevators, around 0.2% ( skying? ).
As I saw, the full weights of both piles are active and disposable.
The weight of the lighter side - I repeat - will be discharged and divided over at least 4 peripheral hooks of the wheel ( from 8h to ~5h ) at SAME RADIUS where will fall the heavier side.
Be sure, I`ll finish that model!
regs/M.

[murilo]

@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
.

Tony, hi!
I think I understand to you.
You look to be thinking while writing, and vice versa...
So you are no satisfied with 28%?
OK, just increase a little bit the zig-zag arms... not a problem, since, I repeat, the forces are not exactly connected to where will happen some main actions, as the opening and shutting of chain.
We can re-design any point, if necessary.
BTW, in my opinion, the arch parts of the chain that surround each wheel, may be divided in two and each one will cancel to the other.
Repeat: the difference between the full ``g`` virtual acceleration and the imposed one in wheel`s shaft will be the potential of torque.
Thanks for your time and efforts!
Cheers! Murilo

[murilo]

@ATT: that second drawing is exactly what I envisioned and posted about (although perhaps not in this very thread). Thank you for your effort and collective thinking. This design would be rather easy to build.

@Murilo: I admire your passion. This passion will one day make someone succeed. But it is important to be critical of one's own ideas, to not waste time on it, that could have been spent on the next, improved design. What is your preferred language? English is also not my mothertongue, I am much clearer in Dutch myself, but can try in German or French for you.
Don't give up thinking out of the box, you clearly have a mind capable or original and protical solutions. Do continue!

Cloxxki, thanks for respecting my passion and intelligence!
I know just some 3 or 4 words of Dutch and my German ist ganz schlecht und falsch! Ich habe nur zwei jahre gelernt...
I can understand Italian, some French and have almost full command of Spanish, besides mother language Portuguese.
If you write me in Dutch,I`ll respond you in Portuguese...
Cheers! Murilo

[fletcher]

You drawing is a thing of beauty murilo.