overbalanced chain drive

[Cloxxki]

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?

[TinselKoala]

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/annex.htm#sssd

[utilitarian]

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.

[Cloxxki]

Thanks! There's always something making a machine not work, isn't there? Now I know one more place not to look.

[murilo]

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