Hi all,

Here are a picture of SPANGs project:

Here are the explanation from SPANG:

Imagine, two sets of wheels. Each set comprises; 1 large
wheel, and 1 smaller wheel ----- this set, makes up the
top-wheel, and an identical set, makes up the bottom-
wheel.
A continuous chain 'envelopes' both of the smaller
wheels ----- as another continuous chain 'envelopes' the
larger wheels.
To make this device work, the right-hand side of the
chain that is fitted to the large top-wheel, is made
taut, and its left-hand side made slack.
The continuous chain that is fitted to the smaller
wheels, has the reversed proceedure done with it.  Its
left-hand side is made taut, and its right-hand side is
made slack. (Broken line(s))
Now, if the chains are set-up (as they are shown on the
drawing), the position of the left-hand chain, will
transmit 2/3rds of the bottom-wheels weight, to the top-
wheel, and the taut section of chain on the right, will
transmit 1/3rd. If the weight of the bottom-wheel is
3kgs, then the left-hand chain will transmit 2kgs, and
the right-hand taut section of chain, 1kg!
This means, the device BALANCES! This is because, the
1kg weight is twice as far from the top-wheels hub, as
the 2kg force is. Vis: 2 x 1kg=2kgs.
This 'balancing act', is because of the positions of the
two chains involved. But, there is a way round this.
By placing an extra weight exactly in between the two
taut sections of chain! The downward force of this
weight ('X' kgs?) is now shared equaly by these two
chains ----- 50% left chain, and 50% right chain.
This means, regardless of whatever weight the bottom-
wheel came to, (don't forget, it balanced) it, (the
bottom-wheel), might just as well had weighed nothing!
The way I've placed this extra weight, is by a 'tension'
wheel that is on an arm, that is itself pivoted.
A 'shepherd'-wheel is required at the 9 O'clock position
(by the side of) the large bottom-wheel, because the
act of 'pushing, or 'pulling' down the bottom-wheel,
will force this bottom-wheel over to the left-hand side,
because this 'pull' is itself on the right-hand curve of
the bottom-wheel. Increase the downward force, and you
increase the torque.
By placing this 'extra' force (say 10kgs), in between
these two chains, a force of 5kgs is felt on each chain.
Don't forget, the right-hand 5kgs is further from the
hub than the left-hand 5kgs!
It's now up to you all, to make your minds up.
I don't mind being wrong, in fact I'm quite used to it!

I cannot see how this is suppose to work. The 10kg tension wheel, as it is free to roll, are pushing towards the center of the big wheel and not from an angle, and will therfor not provide torque. The loss in any friction toward the surface and in the bearings will even act as a break. Those 5kg weights positioned on different diameter have a different potential energy, as you lift the inner 5kg weight with less altitude than the outer 5kg weight. This will however end somewhere and the two (weightless) wheels will finally stop.

Maybe several drawings in different positions would help us out to understand the idea.

PS! When scanning documents, you can choose a lower resolution, and maybe a smaller color space (If possible in the software). 8bit colors should do at 100dpi resolution.

I will try to read your explanation once more - maybe I have forgot something...

I would in the meantime advice you to build a prototype, and se how it works in real life.

Vidar

I've come to the coclusion, that my designs are way above your heads -------------- and that
you will never grasp these ideas of mine ---------- sorry!
SPANG.

Gee Spang, I'll bet you say that to everybody...

You indicate "slack chain","tight chain" -> But why this asymmetry?
In a symmetrical situation the force on the chain will balance.
The one levered roller imparts downward force...But that force
will be redistributed between chain sides and the system will
promptly not rotate, again.

To make a system move requires a constant net *imbalance* of forces.
The way this generally happens, in a cycle, is that a signal designating
the "phase angle" of the rotor is amplified and that energy is
used to drive the rotor so that the rotor feels different forces
across time. This "sense -> amplify -> drive" is a crude form of
empathic intelligence. That is what constitutes the human specialty
for controlling stuff.

I suggest you Google the "Phun" free software physics simulator.
While it somewhat difficult to "draft" scenarios using Phun, but the
system specified is nonmagnetic and simple enough that it should
provide some insight.

:S:MarkSCoffman

@SPANG: "I don't mind being wrong, in fact I'm quite used to it!"

The members of this forum might not be the sharpest cheese on the crackers, but I assume this last sentence in your explanation, are still valid....

Maybe your explanation should be enhanced, have a more educational approach. It is hard for anyone to read others mind while reading that persons explanations. I bet you have it all clear in your mind - except that you have overlooked a few essential details about potential energy...

I can only tell you this:
If this setup are some how limiting any weight to change altitude beyond any given mechanical limitation, there will never be excess potential energy that will run this thing forever. No matter how you put it, and configure the weights, the potential energy will never exceed itself.

Also have in mind that the rightmost 5kg weights have a greater velocity and moves a longer distance pr. revolution,than the other 5kg weight. Maybe you forgot to calculate with that too?

If the bottom wheel are not suppose to go anywhere, neither left, right, up or down, what would the difference be if you placed a hub in that one too?

Vidar

mscoffman,
              My statement above most deffinately applies to people like you.

Oh please SPANG, don't say that. I may not be a high class member of this forum, but I'm here long enough to know that mscoffman usually speaks with wisdom ;> The same may also apply to you. All we're trying to do here is understand your design. To be honest, I also don't really understand the idea with taut and slack parts of chains. How do you want to make part of a chain slack ?

I feel I have no choice, but to try and build this device --------------- to prove, once and for all,
who is right, and who is wrong.
This will take some time, as I have various physical dissabilities, that need not be gone in to right now. I will also find it difficult to finance this project ---------------- another reason why I estimate it will take quite a while! Not too long, I hope!
BILL.

Vidar,  Be my guest! And, Good Luck!
I don't know if you've realised this or not, but there is NO NEED FOR GRAVITY!
A 'TENSION'-rod can be used, to 'pull' down on the chains INSTEAD of gravity.
This means of course, this device can be used in SPACE ----- where there is
NO gravity. Just think, what that can mean for mankind!

I have several other designs, that I think will work ----- the problem here is,
which one should I go for?
BILL.

P.S.   I'm glad you're thinking of 'having a go'.

AIRSTRIKER,
                The use of chains in this design, allowes the force to be applied because the chain
(which has links), 'hooks' on to the teeth of the top sprocket, and further down the chain, to
'hook' on to the teeth of the bottom sprocket ----- I don't think it can be done with a rope, as it
has no links! How can one side of a rope, be made 'slack'?
I don't know how you'll proceed with this problem.
BILL.