Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83458
  • *Latest: Neta160

  • *Total Posts: 512842
  • *Total Topics: 15261
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 9
  • *Total: 11

Author Topic: overbalanced chain drive  (Read 44700 times)

Offline murilo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #15 on: June 09, 2009, 01:18:03 AM »
Cloxxki, sorry but I couldn`t reach to your thinking. My english skill is not so good as I wish. Anyhow I remeber you that springs have reaction or resistance at their two points.

Bill, as gift I mean a plus! If one assume that it will start the turning from rest state, much more to get with acceleration, you know?

Fletcher, I also couldn`t understand to you properly. Sorry, but I have an idea of which is your thinking, from BW!

Pls, be advised that I don`t look for believers... I consider already a goal if you have doubts or if you get the conclusion that JUST A MODEL will be conclusive.
My physical model is suspended for a while, but I had opportunities to assay to all of the parts, in separate.
I have no doubts and any hands-on help will be welcome.
Thanks+regards.
Murilo

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #15 on: June 09, 2009, 01:18:03 AM »

Offline fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #16 on: June 09, 2009, 02:44:50 AM »
This is what I consider an analogue of the avalanche drive murilo - the gearing is 4:1 [80:20] - everything is balanced & in equilibrium until either an extra weight [blue, all 1 kg] is added to either side in which case that side moves down or conversely the gearing ratio is changed to something other than 4 :1 & that alters the equilibrium & it moves & settles at its lowest position of gravity Pe - it can be summarised, IMO, by work done formula's for each side, as I & others have said previously.

P.S. couldn't use the gear option in WM cause my model just kept falling off the page [pins let go] so did it the old fashioned way.

FWIW - a simple static test using something like this [or perhaps with gears but same sized pulleys] will tell you if one side is heavier as you believe murilo - it wouldn't be too difficult for one of the builders [if not yourself] to build & test.

Offline murilo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #17 on: June 09, 2009, 03:51:51 AM »
Fletcher...
none will need to make any model to see that the device you designed will stop.

Then I ask you: an so what? You showed us just a mask!

Why not to chose rates that will send better evidence of the unbalance? What said I about radius variations IF NECESSARY?

Why you insist in stuffs far from my design and from what i said?

A pint of good will, or intelligence, is going to separate what has to see with the conception itself, from what is, or can be, current mechanic and physic resources , that can be used by any technician to reach good appliance and results.

Regs. Murilo
( one more draw is sent now.)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #17 on: June 09, 2009, 03:51:51 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2009, 05:29:23 AM »
So put all the bits together murilo & let 'er rip - you've said you've tested the individual components - all that's left is to place them altogether, nes't par ?

In my analogue you could have used the same diameter pulleys for ascending & descending, for a static test, but that requires gear connections - it doesn't however change the basic relationships.

In your drawing the tightly stacked side is flatter & wider, whilst the stretched side is elongated & thinner [where the Center of Mass (CoM) is located] - but both sides must have a datum to work off, which I'm assuming is the cog arrangement, or perhaps the guides ? - the guides themselves will make friction - a guide is like a ramp if it forces something to move laterally from its 'natural' position - the cogs also may well cause the center of mass of each side to relocate slightly depending on whether that section is fat or thin & how well they 'nest' together - IMO, the chain drive concept all boils down to leverage & pulleys, & cogs are just levers - by all means prove me wrong & complete the build to do it !
« Last Edit: June 09, 2009, 06:06:14 AM by fletcher »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline ATT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #19 on: June 09, 2009, 07:11:09 AM »
@murilo
I didn't have your DWG to work with so I pasted sections of your drawings together from your power-point file.

Now, regardless of the finished height, the vertical segments should exhibit about the same ratio of force-weight to load-weight - the first image shows what I came up with based on your drawing.

There's a lot of things that have to work 'just right' in order for everything to run smooth, like the latches that have to engage and disengage at just the right spot in coincidence with the cogs in the upper and lower gears.

The second drawing steals from the 'guide' ideas in the sjack abeling thread to try and hint at a simpler way to go. Granted, guides have friction but if this (or any OU rig) can't handle a little roller-friction, it's not worth your trouble.

Anyway, think it over, no gears, no latches, just non-symmetrical 'arms' on weight-sets (notice they are different sizes) and straight guides to enforce weight-spacing.

The major 'gotcha' with this idea is it might have a tendency to 'jam' as it enters the 'choke-point' that's necessary for load-side weight spacing (always has to be at least three 'gotchas').

A way around that might be to redesign the weight/arm sets with a center pivot to allow for an easier transition.

Another 'gotcha' is the old saw of 'force' vs 'work'. With any lever arrangement, we have to consider motion through a distance. If you notice the arbitrary 'boundaries' I've delineated in both drawings (the red-lines), you'll see that the 'load' side comprises a greater distance than the 'force' side.

This points out that even though you may have more weight on one side than the other, you still have to push that lesser weight a greater distance, hence you have to do more 'work' (force through distance).

Whether your final weight-arrangement will cover all the bases ultimately depends on your final design, but consider these and other alternatives before you 'carve it in stone'.

All the best, Tony
.

 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #19 on: June 09, 2009, 07:11:09 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #20 on: June 09, 2009, 08:26:40 AM »
@ATT: that second drawing is exactly what I envisioned and posted about (although perhaps not in this very thread). Thank you for your effort and collective thinking. This design would be rather easy to build.

@Murilo: I admire your passion. This passion will one day make someone succeed. But it is important to be critical of one's own ideas, to not waste time on it, that could have been spent on the next, improved design. What is your preferred language? English is also not my mothertongue, I am much clearer in Dutch myself, but can try in German or French for you.
Don't give up thinking out of the box, you clearly have a mind capable or original and protical solutions. Do continue!
« Last Edit: June 09, 2009, 06:23:37 PM by Cloxxki »

Offline murilo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2009, 12:42:34 AM »
So put all the bits together murilo & let 'er rip - you've said you've tested the individual components - all that's left is to place them altogether, nes't par ?

In my analogue you could have used the same diameter pulleys for ascending & descending, for a static test, but that requires gear connections - it doesn't however change the basic relationships.

In your drawing the tightly stacked side is flatter & wider, whilst the stretched side is elongated & thinner [where the Center of Mass (CoM) is located] - but both sides must have a datum to work off, which I'm assuming is the cog arrangement, or perhaps the guides ? - the guides themselves will make friction - a guide is like a ramp if it forces something to move laterally from its 'natural' position - the cogs also may well cause the center of mass of each side to relocate slightly depending on whether that section is fat or thin & how well they 'nest' together - IMO, the chain drive concept all boils down to leverage & pulleys, & cogs are just levers - by all means prove me wrong & complete the build to do it !
Fletcher, let`s see if I got it!
Each pile, or column was designed to present obvious centers of gravity... The condensed is punctual at perimeter and the lighter is at outer side, in line. BUT I could make them different than this IF I`m convinced about which would be the best way!!!
My GOD! We are discussing conceptions.
The vertical losses of the chain on the rails, falling or rising, are equivalent to those of elevators, around 0.2% ( skying? ).
As I saw, the full weights of both piles are active and disposable.
The weight of the lighter side - I repeat - will be discharged and divided over at least 4 peripheral hooks of the wheel ( from 8h to ~5h ) at SAME RADIUS where will fall the heavier side.
Be sure, I`ll finish that model!
regs/M.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2009, 12:42:34 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline murilo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2009, 01:08:20 AM »
@murilo
I didn't have your DWG to work with so I pasted sections of your drawings together from your power-point file.

Now, regardless of the finished height, the vertical segments should exhibit about the same ratio of force-weight to load-weight - the first image shows what I came up with based on your drawing.

There's a lot of things that have to work 'just right' in order for everything to run smooth, like the latches that have to engage and disengage at just the right spot in coincidence with the cogs in the upper and lower gears.

The second drawing steals from the 'guide' ideas in the sjack abeling thread to try and hint at a simpler way to go. Granted, guides have friction but if this (or any OU rig) can't handle a little roller-friction, it's not worth your trouble.

Anyway, think it over, no gears, no latches, just non-symmetrical 'arms' on weight-sets (notice they are different sizes) and straight guides to enforce weight-spacing.

The major 'gotcha' with this idea is it might have a tendency to 'jam' as it enters the 'choke-point' that's necessary for load-side weight spacing (always has to be at least three 'gotchas').

A way around that might be to redesign the weight/arm sets with a center pivot to allow for an easier transition.

Another 'gotcha' is the old saw of 'force' vs 'work'. With any lever arrangement, we have to consider motion through a distance. If you notice the arbitrary 'boundaries' I've delineated in both drawings (the red-lines), you'll see that the 'load' side comprises a greater distance than the 'force' side.

This points out that even though you may have more weight on one side than the other, you still have to push that lesser weight a greater distance, hence you have to do more 'work' (force through distance).

Whether your final weight-arrangement will cover all the bases ultimately depends on your final design, but consider these and other alternatives before you 'carve it in stone'.

All the best, Tony
.
Tony, hi!
I think I understand to you.
You look to be thinking while writing, and vice versa...
So you are no satisfied with 28%?
OK, just increase a little bit the zig-zag arms... not a problem, since, I repeat, the forces are not exactly connected to where will happen some main actions, as the opening and shutting of chain.
We can re-design any point, if necessary.
BTW, in my opinion, the arch parts of the chain that surround each wheel, may be divided in two and each one will cancel to the other.
Repeat: the difference between the full ``g`` virtual acceleration and the imposed one in wheel`s shaft will be the potential of torque.
Thanks for your time and efforts!
Cheers! Murilo

Offline murilo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2009, 01:21:30 AM »
@ATT: that second drawing is exactly what I envisioned and posted about (although perhaps not in this very thread). Thank you for your effort and collective thinking. This design would be rather easy to build.

@Murilo: I admire your passion. This passion will one day make someone succeed. But it is important to be critical of one's own ideas, to not waste time on it, that could have been spent on the next, improved design. What is your preferred language? English is also not my mothertongue, I am much clearer in Dutch myself, but can try in German or French for you.
Don't give up thinking out of the box, you clearly have a mind capable or original and protical solutions. Do continue!
Cloxxki, thanks for respecting my passion and intelligence!
I know just some 3 or 4 words of Dutch and my German ist ganz schlecht und falsch! Ich habe nur zwei jahre gelernt...
I can understand Italian, some French and have almost full command of Spanish, besides mother language Portuguese.
If you write me in Dutch,I`ll respond you in Portuguese... :)
Cheers! Murilo

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2009, 01:21:30 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #24 on: June 10, 2009, 03:21:05 AM »
You drawing is a thing of beauty murilo.

Offline helicalred

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2009, 07:13:03 AM »
@ATT,
Your Sprocketless Avalanche Drive is an elegant simplification that should make analysis somewhat easier. If friction were neglected, and all the weights considered massless except for one, then someone with far more expertise in physics and maths than me should be able to develop a formula that expresses the energy that weight acquires on the 'force' side versus the energy required to return it to its original postion up the 'load' side. The difference would be the theoretical energy gifted (to use Murilo's term) to the system by that weight alone.

Maybe an inner weight and an outer weight should be considered simultaneously as they follow slightly different paths.

@Murilo
I do admire your drawings - they really help maintain a coherent discussion. Good luck with your build.

Regards, Bill

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2009, 07:13:03 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline murilo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2009, 12:32:36 AM »
Wow...
Thanks for your words, guys.
I`ll pretend that Fletcher is not been sarcastic, since for years he was a hard opposition to avalanchedrive.
Actually, a computer full simulation for the shape in ``U`` would be enough to a good conclusion.
See you!
Murilo  SP june/10th

Offline maxpesh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2013, 09:31:20 AM »
Go ahead and build it, it will definitely work. More detailed plans are available in the practical guide to free energy pdf manual from Patrick J Kelly and he even improves on the device by a good amount. Can't wait to see one in action. Good luck :-)

Offline murilo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2013, 03:00:13 AM »
Go ahead and build it, it will definitely work. More detailed plans are available in the practical guide to free energy pdf manual from Patrick J Kelly and he even improves on the device by a good amount. Can't wait to see one in action. Good luck :-)

Max, thanx for your words!
I keep working, alone, on this and I'm glad that Patrick sent it in his manual.
Time will come when a good computer simulation will come!
Take a look at the condensed pile in my model.
Best regards!
Murilo

Offline murilo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: overbalanced chain drive
« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2013, 03:11:27 AM »
This device will not work. Like any 'overbalanced' device it shares the characteristic that there is no net energy production per revolution. Any energy gained during the descent of the heavy side is exactly equal or less than the amount of energy required to raise this mass back to the starting position.

In a frictionless world this device would continue to rotate, as no energy would be lost per revolution, and it would be perpetual motion. However, so would a perfectly balanced wheel and that would be much simpler to build.

In the real world friction would stop the device quickly.

Gianna, thanx for your appreciation, which I don't agree.
Relatively to all mass of the set, the ACTIVE friction is very small, with opening and shutting angles on small axles of chain.
This means that the vertical mechanic contact is beneficial, since a provisional assembling is part of the 'trick'.
We have a grounded axle that deal to both sides with different potentials...
Well, when starting ANY moving the gravity acceleration rules will play, with a quadratic application on results - non linear.
This is very easy to see: the heavier side will go down just like heavier side of a seesaw.
Best!
Murilo

 

OneLink