Electric Motor Geenerator/alternator looped

[ARMCORTEX]

did you all see the video I linked from the russian seller ? Disk size can be approximated by watching videos, I these people went and machined custom parts, more likely they took what was on hand. Something about rotoverter and modified inverter.

@ Webby, plz show us a video if you can.

[lumen]

Webby,

If it was possible to rotate disk "A" by applying torque to "C", then we could just wind a spring and connect it to "C" and watch the disk "A" rotate forever because the spring would never unwind with "C" traveling a circular path but never itself rotating. (as long as "B" was stationary)

It would be interesting if you achieved something different using the gear setup because pondering that configuration, I was wondering if it achieves the same goal but using different force directions.

Applying a torque to "C" with "B" stationary, only applies a force in disk "A" from the center point of "B" to the center point of "C".

[lumen]

Webby,

I like the bola and the hatchet, it's like art only scary.

It does look more like a gravity experiment than what I am thinking here.
You are right that a spring connection between disk "A" and sprocket "C" will turn the disk "A" until the spring unwinds, but nothing should connect to disk "A"
from any of the sprockets "B" or "C".

The view that rotating "C" from "A" will turn the disk backwards, you are really turning "A" from stationary sprocket "C", because "C" cannot turn with "B" stationary.
In any case, I was meaning that the spring was applying a torque to sprocket "C" from an external point not connected to disk "A".
This is the confusing part, the chain is not connected to disk "A" in any way.

I'm still not seeing a problem, when disk "A" is rotating, it is only following sprocket "C" with it's weight attached. If sprocket "B" stops then sprocket "C" starts rotating the same as if it was winding up the chain around a pole on stationary sprocket "B".

[TinselKoala]

At least now you don't have to worry about leaks!

[lumen]

Indeed TK,, no leaks, and at this time of the year no freezing solid

@lumen

Where do you see the torque from the arm being expressed?

I see it being expressed into the belt or chain going around "B" and then with the other "C" providing an equal and opposite force I see no torque left over.

Here is a pic of a crude spring testbed I did a while ago,, in the junction of the two arms is a spring that connects the two arms together,, so the one arm can be rotated and wind the spring up.  This was to test for the transfer of the spring potential created by the one arm into the other,, the testbed was mounted in several different orientations and stuff, the question was if one arm could tension the spring and be held at a constant value and still create a motion in the other arm.  It did not manage to do that, if I kept moving the input arm with force, some of that force was transferred but that took an input force being moved over a distance.

Exactly!

You have it, with no motion or distance traveled, no work is done. That is why placing a torque on "C" cannot rotate "A" even though "C" is free to move around, it still does not rotate and no work can be done.

Now, all the centrifugal force from the weights are trying to rotate the center sprocket "B".

So we allow "B" to rotate at the same rate as disk "A" and now "C" and "B" are stationary to each other so still no work is done, But actually "B" is now rotating with this huge torque from the weights on "C", and needs to be restrained to rotate only as fast as disk "A" is rotating.

So we can load it down with a generator.

In the end, those are the two conditions for no work on disk "A"

1: sprocket "B" is stationary
2: sprocket "B" rotates with disk "A"