overbalanced chain drive

[Cloxxki]

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

[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

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

[Cloxxki]

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 :-)

[helicalred]

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.

- 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

[fletcher]

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.