:-*
In order to understand the concept that is presented below, you may want to first have a look at the overbalanced chain drive featured on the web page http://www.besslerwheel.com/murilo/index.html
Before proposing some changes to that original idea I want to first analyze it a little.
On the left side of the mechanism there are more chain-links than on the right side. That makes the left side heavier.
So I will refer to the side with more chain-links as "the downward moving side or heavier side" and to the side with less chain links as "the upward moving side or lighter side".
Since the weights on the heavier side are pressing down onto the lower transport sprocket, that sprocket will start to turn, transporting chain-links to the lighter side.
The main requirement for perpetuity of that motion is the following:
The upper and lower transport sprockets need to be synchronized, so that while the lower transport sprocket turns and 1 chain-link is moved from the downward moving side to the upward moving side, the upper sprocket must do the same in reverse to refill the heavier side.
Both sprockets have to transport the same number of weights during each timespan so that the weight difference between the two sides is maintained.
Murilo Luciano's design on the quoted website aims to achieve this by means of two sprockets which are in contact with the same number of chain links and turn at the same speed/rpm.
To achieve the synchronized rotation of the sprockets, he employs a special chain. Each link of this chain has a little "strut" which is automatically engaged while on the upward moving side. The struts prop up the chain links when they are unfolded and keep them in an extended state. The struts prevent the links on the upward moving side from collapsing/folding.
In this way a tower is built on the upward moving side, with all the weight of the stacked links resting on the lower ones and all together on the lower sprocket.
Since the number of links on the underbalanced side is less than on the downward moving side, the design seems valid.
The struts disengage when the chain links are transported to the heavier side. Consequently they will fold. The height they occupy is now less than when they were in the propped up state.
If this basic idea is valid, the main technical challenge is to achieve reliable operation of the struts, that is of their automatic engagement and disengagement.
Since I had difficulties to envision this mechanism working reliably I have tried to alter the idea, so that no struts are needed.
In the design proposed here (see drawing below) the upper transport sprocket will (hopefully) pull up the extended chain from the underbalanced side at the required synchronized speed.
This is supposed to work like this:
The upper and lower transport sprockets are of the same size but the number of chain links they are in contact with is different, since the links transported by the lower sprocket are folded, whereas they are extended when they pass around the upper sprocket.
So the two transport sprockets need to turn at different speed/rpm, yet in a synchronized manner.
They are synchronized by use of an additional normal chain (bicycle chain) or a timing belt, indicated in magenta.
The bicycle chain drive is meant to be powered by the lower sprocket, driving the upper sprocket at the required speed.
The gear ratio for the bicycle chain drive in the depicted setup has been determined as follows:
The two transport sprockets in the sketched example have the same number of teeth (24).
- The behavior of the lower transport sprocket:
When it turns 1/24th of a full revolution, it transports 1 link to the other side.
In other words: when it goes round once, it will have transported 24 chain-links.
- The behavior of the upper transport sprocket:
In order to transport 1 chain link to the other side, it needs to turn 5/24th, that is ca. 0.2 of its circumference.
In order to transport 24 chain links, it will have to turn 5 times.
So the gear ratio (turns of lower sprocket vs. upper sprocket) needs to be 1:5.
This can be achieved with a lower sprocket of 100 teeth and an upper one having 20).
Known issues:
-issue1:
the proposed design needs guides (guide rails) on the downward moving side to prevent weights/links from being squeezed out to the side due to pressure from others resting above them.
-issue2:
smooth feeding process of down pressing links to the lower sprocket
-issue3:
it must be ensured that the "connection plates" of the chain links fold outward (i.e. away from the machine) when the chain links come off the upper transport sprocket.
I am contemplating to build something along this line as a proof of concept.
If anyone who has experience with mechanics instantly spots that I overlooked something and/or that this can never work because ....,
or if I can save myself some trouble if I take other important facts into account ...
please make yourself heard in this thread.
I have attached the .dxf-file which was used as a base for the image.
http://www.qsc.cc/gravitymotor2.htm
@Oscar:
Thank you for bringing this idea back under the attention. I already liked its simplicity, but you've taking it to the next level!
On technical obstacle you might save yourself, is the 5:1 ratio. Go 1:4 or 1:6, to be able to pin the weight chain links with a little bicycle chain like bushing, which also fit over the upper weight sprocket's teeth. Now your chain seems to have a floating pivot point. It can certainly be done your way, but perhaps not as practical as you might.
Must say I'm impressed with you heavy side guide rails. I would propose to make the out one taller, to further enhance smooth transition. The inner might even be curved with the sprocket.
I have been looking at using an existing $3 bicycle chain as weight chain. NOt very far yet, but if feasible, it would aid replication.
Imagine we manually fold the chain as it would rest on the heavy side. We could be as modest to make the stack only 2 links wide, but more seems better here, why not 6 links wide?. You'll see the pins will not all 180 degrees. But that's fine. Just weld the "flat" ones shut. Leavint the outer pins to pivots as they're used to. Providing sufficiently welded, the chain would (with tapering guide rails encosing the whole stack from upper sprocket to top of stack and then parellel to botom of stack?) nicely fold as we first designed it to do.
On the light side, a guide box would for the chain in its extended position. The welds are supporting it laterally, it can't do anywhere.
Being a regularly pinned bicycle chain, the action on the upper sprocket will be more awkward. But, the light side box containing the extended links might aid the timing. Most complicated will be the lower sprockets, but if this chain drive is to work, even a welded bicycle chain can be made to work.
Alternative to the welds, someone with plastic fabrication technology to his/her disposal, might be able to product "toy" quality plactic strutsturning a standard $3 bicycle chain into a "welded" one, once this idea works, for international implementation, science fairs, etc.
I can't fault the chain drive, and it baffles me the thing is not better documented (dozens of failed devices is what one would expect, it being so incredibly obvious). FE instinct says "it will jam" but where?
I hope this thread will deserve the attention and support it deserves, or someone will soon offer the reason we are missing as to why this one also will not work.
Regards,
J
Hi all,
See also
http://img38.imageshack.us/i/chane3.gif/
http://img23.imageshack.us/i/chane4.gif/
Regards,
The difference in the number of links (mass) on either side is not the only consideration. The links on the right must be accelerated to five times the velocity of those on the left. It appears to me that the system would be in equilibrium.
Regards, Bill
Quote from: helicalred on June 03, 2009, 10:09:20 AM
The difference in the number of links (mass) on either side is not the only consideration. The links on the right must be accelerated to five times the velocity of those on the left. It appears to me that the system would be in equilibrium.
Regards, Bill
That's what came to me earlier today as well, that acceleration... Then, the chain is also "slamming down" on the heavy side, one might argue. Can the total weight even be used, if it only lowers 1 chain link at a time?
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/annex.htm#sssd
Quote from: Cloxxki on June 03, 2009, 02:56:46 AM
I hope this thread will deserve the attention and support it deserves, or someone will soon offer the reason we are missing as to why this one also will not work.
Regards,
J
Even if you assume no friction anywhere and everything slides past each other like well oiled cupcakes, there is no energy gain to be had.
I think Simanek probably explains it best, but in sum, each little descending link on the heavy side has to push up a link on the light side. But if you add up the weights of the links on the heavy side, they will produce exactly as much energy in their descent as is required to balance the lighter side, not an ounce more. This is because they have to push the lighter side a greater distance.
The heavy side is all bunched up, and can only descend a little bit. The light side has only a few links, so they have far to travel, compared with the heavy side. So everything is still even steven.
Thanks! There's always something making a machine not work, isn't there? Now I know one more place not to look.
Hello, guys!
Thanks to you and to Oscar!
My time is too short, but I have stuffs to tell you about my avalanchedrive.
I`ll send just some tips:
- please, try to learn about exactly as shown at besslerwhell.com, where even a power-point presentation is given.
- it`s a clean diagram and everything is there. Besides mechanically to PULL is better than PUSH, this is the simplest way to prove the concept, FOR THE WHILE!
- if that ``U`` shaped stack shown in my matter, at the end, offers one side higher than the other, all the system will be validated. :)
- in this closed system, one side will cancel to the other, BUT in my conception this will hapen if you leave it to free and natural gravity fall.
- if all system is not free but HOLD in the under wheel axle, let`s say, just 50 or 40 RPM, a SURPLUS will be evident in the form of torque, or torsion. ( this is very important )
- Don Simanek didn`t understand to my conceptions and he insist in the Roberval balance... ( ? )
- he can`t see that the reverse weight to be pushed will be discharged in at least 3 hold points in the wheel, since the formed triangles will transfer it, as an armed structure.
- CASE Don Simanek is right, but he isn`t, enough will be if we enlarge the wheel`s radius to 3 or 4 times the chain`s width. :)
- OF SURE, lots of mechanical contact is all around and all them conduced by gravity... and this is a must!
- the articulated differently formed bodies, or parts, USE gravity to be stand up. There is touch and contact but it is a part of mechanism.
- only when the chain is opening and shutting is when one will find some ``active friction`` operating in those small angular axles.
- VERY IMPORTANT, when the chain is getting open state this will happen at a higher radius, outside in wheels periphery, already in the rise higher velocity - this is calculated.
- the chain MUST be hooked at that sprocket, or wheel. When sustained by the hooks ALL the mass will be applied there, casing the most clear torsion and turn.
- NOTE that all points above are mentioned without considering ANY occurrence of kinetics and any acceleration... :)
- kinetics and acceleration will be the natural gift to the system.
- the top wheel must work free and passive; not a big deal.
Later on, I`ll try to put some draws here.
Tell me where it brakes... I can`t!
Thanks again,
best regards.
Murilo
Hi Murilo, thanks for explaining yourself here.
I see how the outer weights on the chain at least accelerate themselves using gravity. The increased distance at 6:00 is then maintained, which is fighting gravity.
The inner weights though, increase distance right after 3:00 on the lower wheel, it seems? Do these then not accelerate after that constance wheel speed?
Please educate us how the energy transfer works.
I see that when the left stack drops 1 chain link (let's say 1cm):
- 2 weights x 1cm worth of energy is freed
- On the light side, 2 weights x (let's take) 2 cm of work is done
- On the heavy side 2 weights x 1cm are added to the stack.
This evens out, it seems?
I wonder what we are missing here.
In zero friction, I'm sure it would continue at the same pace forever. In reality though, I see it coming to a halt by lack of surplus energy.
Please enlighten us!
Thanks,
J
Quote from: Cloxxki on June 07, 2009, 03:12:20 PM
Hi Murilo, thanks for explaining yourself here.
I see how the outer weights on the chain at least accelerate themselves using gravity. The increased distance at 6:00 is then maintained, which is fighting gravity.
The inner weights though, increase distance right after 3:00 on the lower wheel, it seems? Do these then not accelerate after that constance wheel speed?
Please educate us how the energy transfer works.
I see that when the left stack drops 1 chain link (let's say 1cm):
- 2 weights x 1cm worth of energy is freed
- On the light side, 2 weights x (let's take) 2 cm of work is done
- On the heavy side 2 weights x 1cm are added to the stack.
This evens out, it seems?
I wonder what we are missing here.
In zero friction, I'm sure it would continue at the same pace forever. In reality though, I see it coming to a halt by lack of surplus energy.
Please enlighten us!
Thanks,
J
Hi, J.
Thanks for your time.
At 3h the inner weights will open, assuming the straight line, almost without take any energy out of the system.
As you said, it would work forever with zero friction... and I say it will because the friction is
really small if compared to the
falling mass.
Remember,
the falling mass is hang, or suspended, by the wheel`s periphery hooks, which axle points are supported by ground.
This means that for the opening of small axles at 9h to 7h, it doesn`t mind the total weight of that condensed pile.
The liberation of the chain will also ``cost``
a little when compared to the applied masses.
Many times I ask myself about ``what are we forgetting here``. Since there are no responses, I say it will turn free and cold for long, as any other mechanical device... :)
The mechanical situation is similar to the act of hold a balance plate that ``wants`` to fall down... with no rest!
Remember the point where I said that the fall velocity will be hold by a charge, or break, as wished, at wheel`s grounded axle and that the acceleration will come to be a plus( ~1m for first second).
This is a good puzzle, isn`t it?
Cheers! Murilo
Thank you for your elaboration Murilo.
As much as I want to believe in the strength of that heavy side...I see that for each link it's lowered, the light side has to rise that same weight much higher.
Perhaps you'll end up being right. That the fact that the heavy side is being kept heavy prevent equilibrium to be reached.
Have you ever started creating this wheel?
However smart your high-tech collapsing links are, I think that to test the idea, a simple bicycle chain with some changes will work just fine.
You brought me to an alternative idea.
In stead of your collapsing links, there are now springs. Just a V shaped spring steel rod to start with, weights at each point.
The springs totally fold under 5+ links of weight, but expand when the load comes off (after 6:00) So, the increased distance between the light side's weights now come from springs. It remains the light side, again due to the strictly timed upper and lower cogs.
Trick: we'd need spring (systems) that collapse prograssively under load, allowing the heavy stack to be the same height while housing more stacked weights. I suppose the springs ends (tops of V) would have to be sliding down incresingly curved slopes. Above the maximum load to be attained on the right side (say, 4 increasingly but yet far from completely collapsed springs), the collapse is so great vertically that the height is reduced to less than the light side. A quick slap would collapse the light side too, but we're not doing that.
When the load on a spring (bottom of heavy side reaches 5 weight, the spring collapses completely. The thin weight resting on each other. 7 heavy side weights (3 collapsed, 4 partially would take the equivalent height of 4.4 or so on the light side. Smart gearing might overcome that difference already. More complicated sping-linking might allow the 2nd weight in a stack of 5 (normally only bottom one collapsed) to also collapse. Like domino game. But, only after the 5th weight is added, it collapses from the bottom. Like a demolished building.
Which only room for 4 on the light side, collapse doesn't happen.
As long as the springs once passed at 6:00 do indeed fold open to full height again, I do see a way for this to work. Please show me where I'm wrong :-)
Murilo,
I tried this thought experiment: I imagined your machine lying horizontal and stationary. Then I imagined it being tilted into a vertical position when gravity should have come into play and started it moving. But I'm sorry to say I just couldn't visualize it starting to move of its own accord.
Quote from: murilo on June 07, 2009, 12:38:31 PM
- NOTE that all points above are mentioned without considering ANY occurrence of kinetics and any acceleration... :)
- kinetics and acceleration will be the natural gift to the system.
Yes, - well OK - but sooner or later you
do have to consider kinetics and acceleration but in my opinion they wont be much of a gift. I don't doubt that your system is capable of movement given some applied external force and that in the absence of friction etc it would then rotate for ever, but then, so would a flywheel.
Regards, Bill
I should imagine that it would temporarily work if the gearing were NOT in sync - then the side with more compressed links would slowly lower its CoM [compared to the other side] - the result would be the the entire CoG of the device would find its lowest level i.e. lowest position of PE - then it would stop [much like a chain driven pendulum clock needs the drive weight lifted periodically after gravity has acted on it] - as soon as the gearing is in sync [so that no Pe is lost (no height lost)] then all forces would probably be in equilibrium & the work done [fxd] would be the same on both sides of the vertical axis, as has been said.
A simple test might be to build a simple elevator system with pulleys top & bottom - have this geared to a separate pulley arrangement - 4 weights falling [under gravity] 1 unit of distance attempting to lift 1 equal weight 4 units of distance at 4:1 gearing ? - then change the gearing ratio up or down & see that one or other side wins depending on the new ratio.
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
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.
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.)
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 !
@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
.
@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!
Quote from: fletcher on June 08, 2009, 11:29:23 PM
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.
Quote from: ATT on June 09, 2009, 01:11:09 AM
@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
Quote from: Cloxxki on June 09, 2009, 02:26:40 AM
@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
You drawing is a thing of beauty murilo.
@ATT,
Your Sprocketless Avalanche Drive is an elegant simplification that should make analysis somewhat easier. If friction were neglected, and all the weights considered massless except for one, then someone with far more expertise in physics and maths than me should be able to develop a formula that expresses the energy that weight acquires on the 'force' side versus the energy required to return it to its original postion up the 'load' side. The difference would be the theoretical energy gifted (to use Murilo's term) to the system by that weight alone.
Maybe an inner weight and an outer weight should be considered simultaneously as they follow slightly different paths.
@Murilo
I do admire your drawings - they really help maintain a coherent discussion. Good luck with your build.
Regards, Bill
Wow...
Thanks for your words, guys.
I`ll pretend that Fletcher is not been sarcastic, since for years he was a hard opposition to avalanchedrive.
Actually, a computer full simulation for the shape in ``U`` would be enough to a good conclusion.
See you!
Murilo SP june/10th
Go ahead and build it, it will definitely work. More detailed plans are available in the practical guide to free energy pdf manual from Patrick J Kelly and he even improves on the device by a good amount. Can't wait to see one in action. Good luck :-)
Quote from: maxpesh on February 15, 2013, 03:31:20 AM
Go ahead and build it, it will definitely work. More detailed plans are available in the practical guide to free energy pdf manual from Patrick J Kelly and he even improves on the device by a good amount. Can't wait to see one in action. Good luck :-)
Max, thanx for your words!
I keep working, alone, on this and I'm glad that Patrick sent it in his manual.
Time will come when a good computer simulation will come!
Take a look at the condensed pile in my model.
Best regards!
Murilo
Quote from: Gianna on February 15, 2013, 04:02:43 PM
This device will not work. Like any 'overbalanced' device it shares the characteristic that there is no net energy production per revolution. Any energy gained during the descent of the heavy side is exactly equal or less than the amount of energy required to raise this mass back to the starting position.
In a frictionless world this device would continue to rotate, as no energy would be lost per revolution, and it would be perpetual motion. However, so would a perfectly balanced wheel and that would be much simpler to build.
In the real world friction would stop the device quickly.
Gianna, thanx for your appreciation, which I don't agree.
Relatively to all mass of the set, the ACTIVE friction is very small, with opening and shutting angles on small axles of chain.
This means that the vertical mechanic contact is beneficial, since a provisional assembling is part of the 'trick'.
We have a grounded axle that deal to both sides with different potentials...
Well, when starting ANY moving the gravity acceleration rules will play, with a quadratic application on results - non linear.
This is very easy to see: the heavier side will go down just like heavier side of a seesaw.
Best!
Murilo
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 ;-)
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/frcm.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/frcm.htm)
Simanek explains:
Quote[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 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/murilo/index.html), 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) (http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/museum/annex.htm#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.
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!
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
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!'
C'mon people. No arguments, a working model will prove one way or another. Let's just accept that overunity DOES exist, just take the rotoverter for example 7HP (5243watt)3 phase motor converted now runs at 1.46HP (1100watts) and yet only consumes 200watts. 1100/200 = 5.5x over unity. So, let's just keep things like this in mind and always be positive and supportive of each other and leave the petty things to the rest of dumbed down society watching soaps and sports. just saying ;-)
Quote from: murilo on February 16, 2013, 05:40:04 PM
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!
You apparently didn't read the link I posted. There are two fully developed technical arguments showing why the overbalanced chain drive will not work. Here, I'll give it again.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/frcm.htm
All YOU have to do is to come up with a working model, to prove Simanek wrong (and me, and Gianna, and a lot of other people).... you've had many years to do it and you haven't yet.
Quote from: maxpesh on February 19, 2013, 04:07:02 AM
C'mon people. No arguments, a working model will prove one way or another. Let's just accept that overunity DOES exist, just take the rotoverter for example 7HP (5243watt)3 phase motor converted now runs at 1.46HP (1100watts) and yet only consumes 200watts. 1100/200 = 5.5x over unity. So, let's just keep things like this in mind and always be positive and supportive of each other and leave the petty things to the rest of dumbed down society watching soaps and sports. just saying ;-)
Well, then....since it's so easy to "accept that OU DOES exist", taking the rotoverter for example..... I am so glad to hear that you, maxpesh, are running your home on a rotoverter power supply and don't need to be hooked to the grid any more. Oh... wait.... that's not the case is it. In fact, NOBODY, nohow, anywhere, is using a rotoverter power supply for _anything_ and getting 5.5x overunity from it.
Of course it is easy to disprove my "petty things"... all you have to do is to show your rotoverter putting out 1.46 HP on only 200 Watts input, which would _EASILY_ make it capable of self-looping. Tear yourself away from your soaps and sports, if you can, and show your working model that proves what you claim.
I say.....you cannot.
When I invited you to think by yourself it was because Simaneq DIDN'T understand my proposition and/or he doesn't to...
All design I sent are to be seen as DIAGRAMS... basic diagrams...
The composition of the momentum he shows can be managed - IF NECESSARY - with larger wheel, for ex., with 22 or more hooks, instead 12, for that same chain proportions.
Simaneq will find himself very smart when advised that you are his absolute follower... 8(
All you have to do is be quiet and wait for new inputs. 8(
Be sure, you all, that I expected some grandness when this thread came over again.
Take care!
Murilo
Quote from: Gianna on February 19, 2013, 03:07:12 PM
No it doesn't. There is absolutely no conclusive evidence at all that any device so far has been shown to be OU.
Gianna,
I read to your last 30 mails/responses in this forum...
No surprises and your opinions are single viced pure skeptical talk, as one can find everywhere.
At the contrary, I would be afraid about what you say to see in my project.
Sorry to say this, but I bet as 'NO' is already a positioned refrain word in your brain/mouth/fingers/life!
TC!
M
Hello!
As you can see, this thread falls again in silence and NONE intelligent talks and arguments are sent!
This is the reason why Simanek and other smart guys come to say: ''Oh... in all these years Murilo has done anything or gave-up!
He's trying, he's trying... Murilo is only one more stubborn PM searcher!''
BUT, actually I'm just a guy that fortunately/unfortunately got some ideas much bigger and complicated than myself and much more complicated than 'my cultural environment' may deal!' 8(
( of sure, the honored reader is included on above said 'my cultural environment')
See you around!
Truly!
Murilo
Quote from: murilo on February 19, 2013, 04:11:28 PM
Gianna,
I read to your last 30 mails/responses in this forum...
No surprises and your opinions are single viced pure skeptical talk, as one can find everywhere.
At the contrary, I would be afraid about what you say to see in my project.
Sorry to say this, but I bet as 'NO' is already a positioned refrain word in your brain/mouth/fingers/life!
TC!
M
So when will the build be finished ?
Quote from: murilo on February 25, 2013, 10:04:56 AM
Hello!
As you can see, this thread falls again in silence and NONE intelligent talks and arguments are sent!
This is the reason why Simanek and other smart guys come to say: ''Oh... in all these years Murilo has done anything or gave-up!
He's trying, he's trying... Murilo is only one more stubborn PM searcher!''
BUT, actually I'm just a guy that fortunately/unfortunately got some ideas much bigger and complicated than myself and much more complicated than 'my cultural environment' may deal!' 8(
( of sure, the honored reader is included on above said 'my cultural environment')
See you around!
Truly!
Murilo
DITTO!
Murilo
Perhaps a system where there are no solid links.
One where the loop is broken into two parts.
One where the weight is hoisted by rope then allowed to drop.
But before it drops the cog engages the next weight to hoist.
When the weight is allowed to fall a significant distance it crashes into the pile.
This way you are not relying solely on the offset weight theory but the acceleration theory to boot.
A flywheel may also have to be incorporated to harvest the energy to hoist the next weight.
Quote from: murilo on February 25, 2013, 10:04:56 AM
Hello!
As you can see, this thread falls again in silence and NONE intelligent talks and arguments are sent!
This is the reason why Simanek and other smart guys come to say: ''Oh... in all these years Murilo has done anything or gave-up!
He's trying, he's trying... Murilo is only one more stubborn PM searcher!''
BUT, actually I'm just a guy that fortunately/unfortunately got some ideas much bigger and complicated than myself and much more complicated than 'my cultural environment' may deal!' 8(
( of sure, the honored reader is included on above said 'my cultural environment')
See you around!
Truly!
Murilo
Truly?
Yes, I forgot about Murilo: another claimant who cannot provide evidence for his claims, who proceeds to insult and disparage his critics and who disappears back into the wilderness without ever producing so much as a YouTube video or a photo of an apparatus of his own. How many of those vanishing claimants have we seen now? Quinn, Ainslie, Mylow, elecar, Wayne Travis, PJH... the list goes on and on. At least some of those people actually had something to show besides words.
Quote from: Tradie on May 27, 2014, 06:21:35 AM
Perhaps a system where there are no solid links.
One where the loop is broken into two parts.
One where the weight is hoisted by rope then allowed to drop.
But before it drops the cog engages the next weight to hoist.
When the weight is allowed to fall a significant distance it crashes into the pile.
This way you are not relying solely on the offset weight theory but the acceleration theory to boot.
A flywheel may also have to be incorporated to harvest the energy to hoist the next weight.
Guys,
you can believe... I'm still on arena... B)
As I can see, in the wile you also got no goals...
Enemies??? Oh, yes... many... I'm getting popular...
My design will run with the basic logic you see! Later on, we all the others can make different stuffs.
As example, a device built with brute steel and iron from old ships and trains! B)))
Take care!
Murilo
Yep I have seen some trolls in my time but you sir take the cake.
I have never met either of you and thought I would throw an idea out there.
Even after how many years you have an opinion like that?
Round one aparently goes to Murilo by default of not being an arse.
"If you have nothing nice to say then dont copy and paste your garabage incesantly."
Rounds 1 through 10 have gone against Murilo because despite his efforts he has been unable to produce either a module that holds up to ordinary scrutiny, or a device that works as he asserts.
Yep nice, another hero.
Im sure if we all never ever tried ever again the world would be such a happy place.
I suppose I just realised this isnt a forum for sharing ideas.
Shame on me really.
Quote from: Tradie on May 27, 2014, 04:52:05 PM
Yep nice, another hero.
Im sure if we all never ever tried ever again the world would be such a happy place.
I suppose I just realised this isnt a forum for sharing ideas.
Shame on me really.
There is no reason to make this personal. I am only the messenger.
It's not about trying or wishing. It is always about evidence. Wanting to be able to jump off a building and fly may be a wonderful dream. Just jumping without first at least coming up with a concept that has evidence that it has a chance of leading to a safe landing is just foolish or worse. Murilo has yet to come up with any evidence that he has a scheme that works, or a scheme that could work in theory.
Most ideas are flawed. Sometimes the flaws can be fixed. Sometimes the flaws are irreparable and fatal. If one wants to get help or advice then one should share. If all one wants is to live in a fantasy of one's own making then seeking outside opinions from people who aren't also so deluded is bound to disappoint. Would you be happier if people here lied to Murilo and didn't point out the truth?
I love it when people say no need to make this personal when that is all they have contributed.
Your assuming that this group knows all there is to know.
Sure we can use theory, computer models and opinions but these do not turn Generator shafts.
Reality can be the only determinate of truth.
If it costs Murilo his life savings to understand a fact comprehensively is that such a bad thing?
Others pay that for a University degree.
Im currently building an Oil Hydrogenation Plant to remove PCB's.
Around me are 4 engineers who in theory designed it.
I build it and reality shows this model doesnt work.
Rather than get their hands dirty and understand their failings they go back to their computers and opinions.
The experts who have been there and done that dont carry on like children, as they know there is no possible way that this method will result in success.
The experts understand the direction of the learner and run them through their problems step by step until there is no more confusion.
If you are unwilling to be the expert then step aside while the learners thrash out their problems.
Quote from: Tradie on May 27, 2014, 06:03:08 PM
I love it when people say no need to make this personal when that is all they have contributed.
My statement:
QuoteQuoteRounds 1 through 10 have gone against Murilo because despite his efforts he has been unable to produce either a module that holds up to ordinary scrutiny, or a device that works as he asserts.
Recounts fact. It is not personal.
Quote
Your assuming that this group knows all there is to know.
Again, my statement recounted Murilo's history that does not support his extraordinary claim. The burden of proving an extraordinary claim falls upon the claimant.
Quote
Sure we can use theory, computer models and opinions but these do not turn Generator shafts.
Neither has any overbalanced device that Murilo or anyone else has ever built. Were someone to successfully build such a thing, then matters would be different. But no one has, and that is where matters stand.
Quote
Reality can be the only determinate of truth.
And so far reality has mercilessly rejected such ideas.
Quote
If it costs Murilo his life savings to understand a fact comprehensively is that such a bad thing?
Like anyone, he is free to hold what ideas he likes and pursue them as he likes. When such ideas are discussed he should not be surprised or offended that given he has no supporting evidence, that his arguments are unconvincing.
Quote
Others pay that for a University degree.
Others buy cars, or homes, or vacations. So what?
Quote
Im currently building an Oil Hydrogenation Plant to remove PCB's.
Around me are 4 engineers who in theory designed it.
I build it and reality shows this model doesnt work.
Rather than get their hands dirty and understand their failings they go back to their computers and opinions.
If they are capable engineers they will determine the root cause as to why their expectations were not realized. What does this have to do with Murilo?
Quote
The experts who have been there and done that dont carry on like children, as they know there is no possible way that this method will result in success.
If you consulted with and believed such expert opinion before you started, then why did you proceed despite such opinions?
Quote
The experts understand the direction of the learner and run them through their problems step by step until there is no more confusion.
Mr. Simanek and TinselKoala both seem to have tried to educate Murilo.
Quote
If you are unwilling to be the expert then step aside while the learners thrash out their problems.
I think that the facts speak for themselves. You seem very unhappy with the report even though you do not dispute the facts.
I love how you break down each sentance without considering the context of the whole.
Im yet to see an expert nor talk to one.
The most technical response I have received is "Truly".
I cant even see how a technical response can come from a suggestion that wasnt even detailed to the point where it could have a technical response without further clarification.
Ripping shreds of someone with honest input definitely seems that way to go.
Murilo's history is vast with all of his 18posts.
I dont know if you are dragging shit from elsewhere and I dont care.
Im taking this thread on face value and in good faith, can you claim the same?
Rounds one through 10 obviously sounds very technical and I could probably build the Mars Rover from it but it is opinion none the less.
Considering I dont know who Simanek is and koala has only 4 posts i'm assuming the rounds are quite short.
If the machines on this forum worked as hypothesised it would no longer be a forum, nor would the requirement for such a forum exist as we would be flying round the place with free energy.
It is wonderful that such forums exists so people can share thoughts and ideas to stimulate creativity within themselves.
Im sure if Murilo had working machines for sale that contractual liabilities may come to the fore for that claim, but lets just assume we are not contractual litigants and treat this idea on its merits.
So far all you have done is waste time on everything bar facts.
And since I havent seen any photos or evidence of your build im going to assume your not the expert.
Before you idiot "hero's" go round bitchslapping everyone for having a thought, take a deep breath and count to 10.
Quote from: Tradie on May 27, 2014, 10:06:03 PM
I love how you break down each sentance without considering the context of the whole.
I have pointed out the discrepancies in fact between what you have said and what is true.
Quote
Im yet to see an expert nor talk to one.
Non-sequitor.
Quote
The most technical response I have received is "Truly".
More non-sequitor.
Quote
I cant even see how a technical response can come from a suggestion that wasnt even detailed to the point where it could have a technical response without further clarification.
Ripping shreds of someone with honest input definitely seems that way to go.
I have challenged only Murilo's claims. It's not personal. He simply doesn't offer evidence to support his extraordinary claims.
Quote
Murilo's history is vast with all of his 18posts.
I dont know if you are dragging shit from elsewhere and I dont care.
Im taking this thread on face value and in good faith, can you claim the same?
My responses have been factual and not personal. A good way to demonstrate good faith is to stick to the facts.
Quote
Rounds one through 10 obviously sounds very technical and I could probably build the Mars Rover from it but it is opinion none the less.
Does it?
Quote
Considering I dont know who Simanek is and koala has only 4 posts i'm assuming the rounds are quite short.
TinselKoala provided handy links. You could show some good faith by following them.
Quote
If the machines on this forum worked as hypothesised it would no longer be a forum, nor would the requirement for such a forum exist as we would be flying round the place with free energy.
And what does that tell you?
Quote
It is wonderful that such forums exists so people can share thoughts and ideas to stimulate creativity within themselves.
It is indeed nice of Stefan to host this forum.
Quote
Im sure if Murilo had working machines for sale that contractual liabilities may come to the fore for that claim, but lets just assume we are not contractual litigants and treat this idea on its merits.
That's more non sequitor. Murilo asserts extraordinary claims. He fails to support those claims with evidence. Rational people point out the deficiency while rejecting his claims. You object that is somehow unreasonable.
Quote
So far all you have done is waste time on everything bar facts.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Quote
And since I havent seen any photos or evidence of your build im going to assume your not the expert.
I find such logic absurd.
Quote
Before you idiot "hero's" go round bitchslapping everyone for having a thought, take a deep breath and count to 10.
How about we just stick to the facts and don't make things personal?
Im getting paid to reply to these posts and even then i'm growing tired of the same troll rubbish.
Everything you've spewed out is purgamentum and I wont be entertaining it any longer.
Quote from: Tradie on May 27, 2014, 11:42:02 PM
Im getting paid to reply to these posts and even then i'm growing tired of the same troll rubbish.
Everything you've spewed out is purgamentum and I wont be entertaining it any longer.
If you think that pointing out facts is trolling, you are free to hold and express that opinion.
Quote from: MarkE on May 28, 2014, 12:04:05 AM
If you think that pointing out facts is trolling, you are free to hold and express that opinion.
MarkE,
yes I have to thank you for your sense of justice and equilibrium!
For rude brains is very easy to condemn to any one and this has been constant in my path!
Someday, I hope, I'll see all this in a clear, very clear condition!
Please, consider me as your friend down in Sao Paulo, doesn't matter what can happen.
Not sure if I sent or not, but here is my short site:
http://avalanchedrive.com
Thanx again and best regards!