Ralphs Basting Brush and Pendulum Wheel

[murilo]

[quote="FunWithGravity2"]

2, how noone accepts the avalanche drive, and an obligatory view of it from Murilo

First rule of Avalanche Drive device, don't deny it works. Second rule of Avalanche Drive device, don't deny it works. Third rule of Avalanche Drive device, it works.




Fun and Lust,
absolutely, you are welcome and free to do and say what you want about avalanchedrive!

My complains are if you 'put words in my mouth' telling stuffs you think as true happen FACTS.

Case you still have some kind consideration on my IQ 60, you may try to tell me your opinion about WHY NOT - for sure, IF YOU CAN and WANT.

(yes, this thread is now a mess. 8)

Best!
M

''Beware of the Romer Simpson inside your person.''

[daxwc]

Murilo, you really got to quit bulling the members it is so passé. 8P

[rlortie]

murilo,

I am not LIB, but I will take you up on your below offer;

you may try to tell me your opinion about WHY NOT - for sure, IF YOU CAN and WANT.

An old proverb states That a chain is as strong as its weakest link. Your drive is like a chain that extends (telescopes) on the ascent and accumulates by compressing on the descent. You expect this accumulation of mass to outweigh the ascending lighter side and therefore pull it up.

Your weak link is located in the upper left corner where a single weight is expected to allegedly pull the full load of the ascending side. All the preceding amassed weights do not assist in anyway as they are not pulling on the weak extendable link.

I was once asked;'why are you dragging that chain?' my reply was 'did you ever try pushing one?' The amassed weight on the left is not going to force and extend the ascending side, it will only compress them until an equalization is achieved not unlike water seeking its own level.

That is my opinion, I have voiced it before and you deny it. To 'refute' means to prove my analysis is false or erroneous, which you have not been able to do.

Prove me wrong, then maybe some here will then then show interest in you design.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Your drive is like a chain that extends (telescopes) on the ascent and accumulates by compressing on the descent. You expect this accumulation of mass to outweigh the ascending lighter side and therefore pull it up.

Your weak link is located in the upper left corner where a single weight is expected to allegedly pull the full load of the ascending side. All the preceding amassed weights do not assist in anyway as they are not pulling on the weak extendable link.

Ralph, I see your point, but it is not valid. The weights do not 'hang' from the top. They do not 'pull' against the ascending side. Rather they are supported from the bottom. This is why guide rails are needed.

The weights on the left all compress together and rest upon the bottom sprocket at an inner radial distance.

The chain expands and latches in its open configuration as it travels around the bottom sprocket.

Then the chain and weights is pushed upward on the rising right side.

The 'fly in the ointment' is that this unique arrangement acts exactly as if the sprocket had two working radii. The chain enters the sprocket at one speed at the radius of the sprocket. Then the chain expands. As the chain leaves the sprocket it is moving around the sprocket at a much larger radius, which is a combination of the actual sprocket radius plus an additional extended distance caused by the expanded chain.

Thus there is a leveraging of the heavy multiple weights on the left side against the lighter fewer weights on the right side.

If you add more height to the mechanism or if you shorten the mechanism then the ratio of left weights to right weights remains exactly the same ratio. And also that ratio is exactly the same as the ratio between the sprocket radius and the extended radius of the sprocket/chain combination.

This is a mathematical certainty. The leveraged weight on the left will always match the leveraged weight on the right. It can be no other way. The bottom sprocket arrangement simply acts like a fancy double sprocket. It is simply a leveraging mechanism. There is heavy weight at a short radius on the left. It is exactly balanced by lighter weight at a longer extended radius on the right. I cannot state this any clearer.

Murilo hates me for being truthful. Murilo posted pictures a long time ago of his partially built machine. If it actually worked then he would be showing a working machine by now. But it doesn't work. And no amount of tweaking or modification will ever make it work. The basic concept is flawed.

[daanopperman]

jim_mich ,

You are absolutely correct in all your explanations ,also , the weights on the descending side must let three weights drop to compensate for one weight length on the ascending side , so you can calculate exactly how many turns the shaft will turn before you have the same weights on either side . If the weights is 3x as long as it is wide you have a ratio of 3-1 leverage or a 3-1 gearbox , that means that you must move the ascending weights 3 x as fast as the descending weights are falling . Also the track that the weights are moving in on the ascending side will , with each section of chain , become more resistive until they will not move in the channel anymore , the side force will eventually be like a doorstop . The smaller the chain angle rise from horizontal , the more side thrust on the channel , if the chain section was vertical , there would be no side thrust and no resistance to move in the channel .
You can very easily test this by using two stacks of coins , on the ascending side lying flat , on the descending side stacked . It does not matter if you push the weights up from the bottom or pull them up form the top .

Sorry Murilo , I did not want to tell you this bad news , it is a very nice drawing though.

[murilo]

James Randal,
I love you, for sure!
I love you because you ALMOST got there in your so clear explanation.
I'm sorry because I feel that you still didn't give the best of your intelligence.

Ralph, Jim's description is absolutely correct. There is no pull, just push. Why should I chose the less intelligent mechanic option, Ralph? Your point just show that you even took a look at avalanchedrive.

If any of you will make a search in this BW threads forum, he'll find many times similar statements as the phrases I send in below:

PLEASE, try to appreciate the wide BASIC conception and not one or other particular point, or issue, SPECIALLY if this point can be solved under SOME or ANY mechanic current resource, or 'trick'.

Jim insists in show an specific problem located at the division of two opposite charges in that sprocket, ok? Clear?

He says that the resultant 'levers' are going to find equilibrium, because the wheel, or sprocket, has its radius and the chain is going to elongate the resistive arm, neutralizing the heavier side.

( at this point, as a simple detail, I must say that under my personal view, the counter resistive mass will be distributed in the contact points near 5h, 6h, 7h, 8h and 9h.)

BUT let's suppose that Jim is correct in his view...

In the above supposition, IF Jim is correct, I ask: is this a FATAL problem of the conception, of the principle, OR this is ONLY a detail and characteristic of my draws, models, sketches? Can this be avoid? SURE!

BY MY GOD! What has Jim to say if I decide to change the parameters between the radius and the chain width, to a more favorable rate?

OR... what has Jim to say if I change the open locking system applying those arms at inside, instead outside the open chain?

This is an old, hard and tasteless gum I shew... except if a miracle will come now, if you read me you will not understand! And some of you still waste time in the search of trembling, unpredictable and fragile pendulums! Look at the power! At least try to reach WHY I am still in this stuff!

Dramatic? Yessss, but serious!

Best!
Murilo

''Beware of that Romer Simpson inside you.''

[eccentrically1]

Murilo, do you think Bessler's wheels used an avalanche of chain links to explain their over-unity?
Or is your drive a complete re-invention of a PM principle?

[jim_mich]

In the above supposition, IF Jim is correct, I ask: is this a FATAL problem of the conception, of the principle, OR this is ONLY a detail and characteristic of my draws, models, sketches? Can this be avoid? SURE!

No, it is not ONLY a detail or characteristic of your drawings. It is a hard mathematical fact.

BY MY GOD! What has Jim to say if I decide to change the parameters between the radius and the chain width, to a more favorable rate?

That is the point. Any parameter that you choose for one determines the other.

If you choose a specific pitch spacing between the weights then that pitch spacing determines the pitch diameter of the sprocket.

If you choose a specific sprocket pitch and a diameter then that pitch determines the spacing between the weights.

Murilo, I spent 20 years working as a quality control inspector in a machine shop where gears were made. I've seen, handled, and inspected most every size, shape, and configuration of gears and sprockets you might imagine. I know how gears and sprockets work.

No amount of tweaking, fudging, designing, or praying will cause the avalanche drive to become perpetually unbalanced. That is the cold hard facts. Either accept it and move on, or spend the rest of your life trying to make it work.

[LustInBlack]

Where is the physical model?

[FunWithGravity2]

Here is what it needs to work, guaranteed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvuR-wT9hEQ


Maybe it needs some of pequiades magic found here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nomeW2FDDtM
whats that dog expecting to catch?

[murilo]

jim_mich ,

You are absolutely correct in all your explanations ,also , the weights on the descending side must let three weights drop to compensate for one weight length on the ascending side , so you can calculate exactly how many turns the shaft will turn before you have the same weights on either side . If the weights is 3x as long as it is wide you have a ratio of 3-1 leverage or a 3-1 gearbox , that means that you must move the ascending weights 3 x as fast as the descending weights are falling . Also the track that the weights are moving in on the ascending side will , with each section of chain , become more resistive until they will not move in the channel anymore , the side force will eventually be like a doorstop . The smaller the chain angle rise from horizontal , the more side thrust on the channel , if the chain section was vertical , there would be no side thrust and no resistance to move in the channel .
You can very easily test this by using two stacks of coins , on the ascending side lying flat , on the descending side stacked . It does not matter if you push the weights up from the bottom or pull them up form the top .

Sorry Murilo , I did not want to tell you this bad news , it is a very nice drawing though.

Daan,
there is nothing to be sorry of!
You didn't understand Jim's thinking.
He's talking of levers or momentum and you talk of velocity.
The wheel/chain natural turns deal to 2 velocities: one inside and other outside, and both are there coexistent, what is not a big deal.
The project is what will say which will be the relations weight and velocities compensation.
( by the way, the device is intended to work at high torque and low velocity, thanks to the charge at axle. 8)
Best!
M

[murilo]

Murilo, do you think Bessler's wheels used an avalanche of chain links to explain their over-unity?
Or is your drive a complete re-invention of a PM principle?

eccentrically,
no... I see no way for JB to use a chain, because a wheel offers just one axle and only one possible velocity for all device.
Anyhow, I feel that I have to think more upon this possibility.
A PM device as I see must be used as high torque source, not high velocity or full 'g' acceleration.

Be sure, I got it by myself.
Best!
M

[murilo]

In the above supposition, IF Jim is correct, I ask: is this a FATAL problem of the conception, of the principle, OR this is ONLY a detail and characteristic of my draws, models, sketches? Can this be avoid? SURE!

No, it is not ONLY a detail or characteristic of your drawings. It is a hard mathematical fact.

BY MY GOD! What has Jim to say if I decide to change the parameters between the radius and the chain width, to a more favorable rate?

That is the point. Any parameter that you choose for one determines the other.

If you choose a specific pitch spacing between the weights then that pitch spacing determines the pitch diameter of the sprocket.

If you choose a specific sprocket pitch and a diameter then that pitch determines the spacing between the weights.

Murilo, I spent 20 years working as a quality control inspector in a machine shop where gears were made. I've seen, handled, and inspected most every size, shape, and configuration of gears and sprockets you might imagine. I know how gears and sprockets work.

No amount of tweaking, fudging, designing, or praying will cause the avalanche drive to become perpetually unbalanced. That is the cold hard facts. Either accept it and move on, or spend the rest of your life trying to make it work.

Jim, c'mon... soon you'll be tired and again upset.

PLEASE, - oh, this is a deja' vue -, think in this possible arrangement:
- wheel's radium = 4m
- chain width = 1m
- contracted chain = 10t (pile)
- expanded chain = 5t (pile)
- positive potential = 4m x 10t = 40.000kgf (force)
- negative potential = 5m x 5t = 25.000kgf (force)
- 40 - 25 = 15.000kgf ( force as surplus)

The question, James, for the case is not the opening I chose, BUT the width of that chain. The opening is proportional to the weight rate.

BTW, all the positive potential is absolutely hold by the wheel.
So clear, darling!
Best!
Murilo
PS edition: the above calculus is only valid for the static condition of the device. Imagine what if 'g' acceleration comes over!!! 8)

[murilo]

Where is the physical model?

Lust, the physical model, as shown in photo, is exactly here in my visit room.
If you come, I'll easily show it to you.

[LustInBlack]

It runs perpetually?