A Totaly Different Type Of Overbalancing Machine

[Airstriker]

As promised, I give you SPANG's device info send to me on email (I edited it in a way to meat forum's restrictions):

OVERBALANCING WHEEL
                   ___________________

This design, consists of; A 'top-wheel' (which is in
fact, two wheels,) a bottom-wheel, also two wheels, and
a pair of small wheels/cogs(?).
There is also a'pivot-arm', and a 'pivot-arm' connecting
-arm. Please see drawing. There are also a pair of
'continuous' chains.

Please don't forget; this idea is just that, an idea!
I have NOT built this device yet ----- I'm simply
looking for 'feedback'. Of course, I may be wrong -----
but that's the way it goes. I've been wrong before -----
and I'll probably be wrong again!

Anyway, here's how I think it will work.

The object of this device is to create EQUAL forces on
the top-wheel, which will overbalance due to the
positions OF these forces.
To start with, these forces are generated from the
bottom-wheels, and are produced by BOTH bottom-wheels.
The weight of each bottom-wheel, is basicaly up to you,
but I've gone for 20kgs each! 40kgs in total.
This means, there is a force operating on the top-wheel
of 10kgs + 10kgs + 20 kgs ----- 40 kgs! See drawing.
Because the bottom-wheel is supported by one side of
each chain (the other side being slack,) the bottom-
wheel will try to 'drop' ----- on the slack sides.
As it tries to drop, the slack-chained side of each
wheel, will be the direction each wheel will try to
'fall'. It's pretty obvious really, what will happen if
these wheels DO manage to drop ----- they will,
eventualy, tighten up their slack chains, and the whole
device would come to a standstill. This is something to
be avoided ----- like the plague! I thought about this
for a while, and came up with what I think is the
answer.
By placing two small wheels/cogs at the 6 O'clock
position on the bottom-wheel, this will prevent the
bottom-wheels from dropping, because, as each of the two
bottom-wheels try to drop, they will rotate their own
bottom-wheel, which, in turn, rotates one of these
small wheels/cogs. Because each of the bottom-wheels
is supported on different sides of their vertical axis,
these two small wheels/cogs will rotate in different
directions and opose each other ----- PREVENTING the
'drop' from happening. This leaves each bottom-wheel
with their 10kg force(s) ----- at different distances
from the top-wheels hub, and will cause overbalancing.
As I say, I might be wrong, there again, I might be
right! This 'judgment', I leave up to you.
This set-up, ensures the correct speed for each chain.
There is one wheel supplying its own force (and chain
speed), for each of the top-wheels two wheels.
Let's hope I'm right!

[Airstriker]

To be honest, I don't really understand the way, the chains are mounted to the wheels. Could you explain it better SPANG ? Why some of them are drawn as discontinuous lines and some are solid ?

[SPANG]

Airstriker,
          Thanks for getting these documents on this forum for me. Well appreciated!
As to your query, the discontinuous lines equal the 'slack' section of each chain -----these slack sections of chain contain no force!
BILL.

[SPANG]

After having studied my own 'text' accompanying my drawing, I've seen a mistake which I'll now
put right!
I said, the forces acting on the top-wheel are; 10kgs + 10kgs + 20kgs ----------------- this is
incorrect!     What it SHOULD have read was; 20kgs + 20kgs.
How I made that mistake ----- I don't know!
Never mind ----- it's put right now. I just hope it hasn't 'put you off'.
BILL.

[SPANG]

Mr_Video,
            Just to put you right ---------------- my ORIGINAL email address  (being different from
my current address) was in MY name!
THIS email address, is in my WIFES' name, and I was not allowed to use (couldn't), my original
email address! So, I had to re-apply for membership. What you were saying, is allmost like calling
me a liar!  I'm NOT!
BILL.