WO2001061211A2 - Infinitely and continuously variable transmission - Google Patents

Abstract

The invention is a gear-to-gear linkage that relates to many variable continuous-load-support applications such as robotics, tools and machinery, but most significantly it relates to infinitely and continuously variable transmissions (CVTs). The basic element of the linkage is a unidirectional multi-ratio differential mechanism whereby input power is passed directly to a load and the rotational position and speed of the output is independently controlled to meet operational requirements. Most notable of this invention is its simplicty and its capacity to be scaled from the very small to the extremely large to accommodate any practical load for which gears can be built.

Description

TITLE: Simple Infinitely and Continuously Variable Geared Linkage

BACKGROUND - CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is entitled to the benefit of Provisional Patent Application Ser. # 60/183,680 filed February 18, 2000.

BACKGROUND - FIELD OF INVENTION

This invention relates to a family of continuously and infinitely variable gear-to-gear linkage mechanisms, especially as used for, but not limited to:

1) Unlimited power range, continuously variable transmissions (CVTs),

2) Constant and variable speed tools, power taps, machinery etc.,

3) Variable-position continuous-load-support mechanisms for robotics, controllers, elevators, escalators, aerial trams, wenches, jacking devices, steering assemblies, etc.,

4) Mechanical frequency modulators.

BACKGROUND - DESCRIPTION OF PRIOR ART

The invention covered by this application enjoys a broad range of uses. As a result there are several fields of prior art that must be examined. Prior art in each related field of invention will be discussed in the order indicated above. The most notable area is in the field of continuously variable transmissions.

1) Infinitely or continuously variable transmissions (CVTs). CVTs are currently the most popular application of this technology. There are three major classes of CVTs: friction, hybrid and gear-to-gear and these will be discussed below.

To understand CVTs, it is important to understand some development history of automotive transmissions. Basically, transmissions provide an interface between a power source (e.g., a motor or an engine) and a load (e.g., wheels in a vehicle). Vehicle engines have optimum operating speeds (angular velocities) and wheel speeds are dependent on operator demand. Engines typically operate best in a single, but narrow speed range. Wheels are required to not move (i.e., zero speed) or to operate at some positive (forward) or negative (reverse) speed. Engine and load operating requirements are significantly independent. A transmission provides linkage between the two to accommodate the differences for a successful marriage.

The main difference that a transmission handles in a vehicle is that it allows the engine to operate within its speed range while providing the speed range required by the wheels. This can be accomplished by a transmission having multiple sets of gears, each with a specific ratio. By "shifting" (i.e., changing) the gears, the gear ratio can be changed as needed. This was done manually in the early "manual" transmissions. A driver would interrupt the power path with a clutch and then shift gears for a better ratio. This manual process was later automated in the "automatic" transmission. It was the same process, only the transmission automatically did the shifting.

The concept is usable, but it has significant limitations. This is especially true in a modern world where vehicle performance, fuel efficiency and smog are major issues. The drawbacks are mostly from the fact that manual and automatic transmissions have a limited number of gear ratios. Maximum engine performance typically occurs in one very narrow speed range. With a limited number of ratios, engines must be made to operate over a wide speed range. The engine has to compensate for the transmission not having the best ratio at all times.

To make an engine operate over a wide speed range is grossly inefficient. An engine operates best in a narrow speed range. It has to be detuned, making it very fuel inefficient, to operate over a wide range. This also dramatically increases the amount of smog the engine produces.

There is another problem with the wide operational speed. A lot of driving is done in the lowest part of the engine performance range. To make up for lack of power in the low range, a much larger engine has to be used. There is a combined effect of compromised efficiency and larger engine size. It adds a tremendous increase in fuel consumed and smog produced. Multiplied by the number of vehicles worldwide, the cost becomes astronomical and the smog impact is nearly catastrophic.

To correct these problems, industry has for the past four decades, been trying to develop a better type of transmission. One that always provides the best ratio for maximum fuel efficiency and performance along with minimum smog. That new type of transmission is called a continuously variable transmission (CVT).

Industry has succeeded in developing some CVTs, but to date, these have fallen short of a CVT that provides all the desired performance. CVTs come in three basic categories, friction, hybrid and geared. Some of the main disadvantages of each are as follows:

A) Friction CVTs. Because of relative simplicity, friction based CVTs were the first to be developed. From what is found in industry, the most successful CVTs are friction-based devices. The most popular friction based CVTs use belts and pulleys or power transfer rollers. These types of CVTs have the following disadvantages: a. Have loose, imprecise or "slippy" coupling from input to output. b. Significantly limited in amount of power that can be transferred. c. Many are noisy d. Have high rate of wear e. Limited ratio range f. Limited rotational speed range (many require multiple modes or phases) g. Require clutches for operational modes to achieve a "geared neutral" (engaged, but zero output).

Clutches are also needed to expand operating range to make the transmission practical. h. Significantly limited in maximum rotational speed. i. Many designs require inefficient high-pressure hydraulics to operate. Some use rotatable hydraulic seals. These limit hydraulic pressure, reducing power transfer.

These disadvantages can be seen even in the more recent belt and pulley designs such as in US patents 6,165,088 to Tsubata et al (1999) and 6,068,565 to Riemer (2000) as well as in earlier designs of this same type. These designs use two pulleys with a belt in between. Input power rotates the input pulley, which in turn, rotates the belt, which rotates the output pulley.

The pulleys are adjustable and can change the radius at which the belt is held. Changing the radius of the pulleys change the ratio of the transmission. As pointed out above, this design has numerous disadvantages. To be adjustable, the pulleys as well as the belt must be smooth. Because of this, the coupling from input to output is loose and slippy. This limits the amount of power that can be transferred.

The material that the belt is made of also limits power. If it can be stretched, too much power will stretch it. To overcome this, some designs use metal belts, but these belts are noisy. The metal of the belts also rub against the metal pulley surfaces, causing significant wear.

There is another design that attempts to overcome the belt problem. It uses a metal ring to transfer. While increasing the power transfer capability some, the use of friction coupling is still a major limiting factor.

To keep transmissions to a reasonable size, the components cannot be large. In these designs, the span of transmission ratios is limited because they use components that are limited in size. This also limits the maximum speed. To overcome these limitations, multiple transmission segments are used. Clutches are often used to operate these additional segments. Operation has multiple modes or phases.

Another major problem is that high-pressure hydraulics (10 - 20 tons psi) is required to position and hold the adjustable components. High-pressure hydraulics requires a large energy expenditure significantly reducing efficiency. It takes a large percentage of engine power to operate the hydraulics. This makes a friction based CVT much less efficient.

A more recent improvement in friction CVTs is a design that uses solid metal power rollers instead of belts. This approach is seen in US patents 6,155,951 to Kuhn (2000), 6,152,850 to Inoue (2000), and EPO patent EP 1 061 288 A2 to Schmidt (2000). Using high-pressure hydraulics, the metal rollers are pinched between two curved (toroidal) surfaces. One surface is for power input and the other is for power output. The ratio of the transmission is determined by the angle of the roller between the surfaces. Using a solid metal roller carries more power than a belt design. But since power is still coupled using friction, it is still limited. While not as noisy, the roller still has the same basic disadvantages of friction design. B) Hybrid CVTs. These designs are reflected in US patents 6,139,458 to Simmons (2000), 6,033,332 to Evans (2000), and 5,624,015 to Johnson (1997). These use a combination of gears, clutches and/or hydraulics. These designs seem to have most of the same friction and hydraulic drawbacks indicated above. Use of clutches, further detracts from performance.

Another type of hybrid is seen in the US patents 5,334,115 (1994) and 4,983,151 (1991) both to Pires, and the EPO patent EP 0 021 452 to Schnell (1980). These designs use reciprocating mechanisms, incremental advancement techniques, dog clutches and ratcheting mechanisms. Devices that rely on such mechanisms are inherently limited in speed or power. While pointing this out, it should be noted that the steam engine was a highly successful member of this family of transmissions.

C) Geared CVTs. A true and practical gear-to-gear CVT is the "Holy Grail" of the transmission industry. The main difficulty with developing a gear-to-gear CVT is that gears are rigid elements. It appears to be a complete contradiction to use only rigid gears and still have variability. The seemingly impossible challenge in developing a gear-to-gear device that has variability has fought all practical efforts until now.

By study of past inventions vs. what is happening in industry, it is obvious that a practical CVT has eluded all effort. Assuming that the solution was complex. Developers have been looking to the complex, compromising with hybrids or using clutches. Industry's failing to develop a good gear-to-gear CVT is a result of having the wrong mindset. It has been looking in the wrong directions.

That geared designs have not been successful is shown by the fact that industry has not adopted any to date. Acknowledging the failings of geared designs, industry has spent billions developing the less than optimum friction transmissions. The failings of geared CVTs are relatively obvious. Existing geared designs fall far short by having some of the following disadvantages: a. Complex and/or intricate design b. Complex operation c. Limited ratio range (often requiring multiple modes or phases) d. Limited rotational speed range e. Limited power transfer capacity. f. Marginal operation g. Some have non-linear operation resulting from operational modes h. Some require multiple power sources or paths to achieve variability

It seems best to discuss these drawback generalizations, by examining patents representative of past development. Seven patents found appear to be generally representative of past designs. These are as follows:

(1) US 4,019,405 to Winter (1977). This design uses a power input disk with pie-shaped gear segments with parallel teeth. Two pinion gears on spline shafts are ultimately connected by bevel gears to an output shaft. At any radius, the two pinion gears alternately engage with the elongated teeth of the segments. This alternating engagement ensures that at one pinion is always engaged with input disk teeth.

This is a novel approach that appears to work. There are nonetheless, several obvious drawbacks to this design. One is that teeth engagement is not optimum. The effective arc transcribed by the pinion gears cannot be nullified. The also limits power throughput. The design overall lacks a quality of being substantial.

(2) US 4,854,190 to Won (1989). This design is a study in complexity that uses floating gear assemblies and gearboxes. There are also multiple control mechanisms and feedback loops. This complexity would seemingly make the design relatively impractical for a general application transmission. It may also limit overall power transfer.

(3) US 5,352,162 to Coronel (1994). This is an interesting design that I had independently considered years earlier. I decided that it, while workable, was not practical and discarded it. This approach uses a variable tilt in the main shaft axis that provides continuous linkage and ratio variation. Two major problems exist with this for a practical transmission. The first is that the tilt uses U- joints that have power and angle limitations. The second is that dynamic balance becomes a very complex issue. Complexity is too high for practical application.

(4) US 6,053,840 to Jones (2000). Certain aspects of this design I had, as above, independently studied. I do not see that this design is functional. Force vectors do not appear to add up and at least one statement in the description appears to be in error. The intent of this design is desirable, but it appears to fail in execution.

(5) US 6,055,880 to Gogovitza (2000). This concept appears quite workable, but as some above, it is almost completely impractical for a general application transmission. This is primarily because of complexity and the variable meshing interface methodologies. It is just not a high-speed approach.

(6) US 6,0066,061 to Yun (2000). This is a completely different approach to the previous design, but it also uses a variable meshing methodology. It also has major problems with meshing as well as with complexity. It also is not a high-speed approach.

(7) US 6,132,330 to Leggett (2000). Of all these designs, this appears to be the most practical, if it actually works. It is a little more complex than desirable, but not to the point of complete imprac- ticality. There are several problems with this design. The first of which, I am not convinced that it will, in fact, work. Secondly, assuming that it works, the ratio range would be significantly limited as it has so little dynamic range for inducing ratio change. Finally, the output ratio is not a positive control. It is based on a balance of forces. This does not ensure that system loads will not overwhelm the transmission and cause undesirable ratio changes. This lack of positive ratio control would seemingly limit overall power transfer. 2) Constant and variable speed tools, power taps, machinery etc. The prior art for this class of devices is essentially very similar to that discussed with CVTs in the previous section. Current applications use motor speed variation or some form of variable friction or hydraulic power transfer to achieve functionality. None of these approaches are optimum. The variable motor speed approach often operates the motor in low power output ranges, compromising efficiency and performance. Friction versions, as discussed above, are less efficient, limited in power transfer capacity and potentially have higher levels of wear than might be achieved with a gear-to-gear system that was variable.

3) Variable-position continuous-load-support, rotatable and linear mechanisms. To my knowledge, there is no prior art that directly relates to the capability and functionality of this invention. There are a number of compromise techniques and approaches that attempt to achieve the desired operation. While entire industries have been built using the various compromise methods, there are many applications that would benefit by the invention of this application. Some of the compromise methods and techniques are identified and discussed in the following: a) Worm and Wheel Gears. This is a time-tested design that, though not perfect, meets many, but not all needs, satisfactorily. There are several inherent problems with worm gears. The worm gear attempts to be a true unidirectional device, but it is not. It relies on friction to function. If a worm gear were frictionless, any amount of torque on the wheel gear would cause it to slide along the worm, inducing worm rotation. That would completely defeat the intent of the design in most applications.

Friction is thus designed into any worm gear assembly by the angle of the gear helix. The intent of the design is to have a sufficiently high enough ratio that most of the wheel gear force is nearly perpendicular to the worm surface. The remaining force, which is directed "down the hill (slant)" of the worm is then very small. The force is so small that, because of friction, it cannot cause the wheel to slide along (down) the worm gear's slanted surface.

This, in turn, requires that any input force overcome friction as well as load to rotate the worm gear. This causes the efficiency of the design to be limited.

Further, the greater the ratio to produce a holding effect, the faster an input must be to produce any rotational benefit to the wheel gear.

A worm and wheel gear can continuously hold or support a load during all operations. Friction and ratio performance issues, though, are major failings. These failings prevent this approach from being practical in many applications (see SUMMARY and OBJECTS and ADVANTAGES). b) Ratchet mechanisms. These are also time-tested devices, but are definitely compromises in design. Any position advance or retreat of a load is piecemeal. Reversing methods and techniques are often cumbersome and/or difficult.

With ratchets, the operator, operational mechanism or motor must carry the load during position changes. This is an unnecessary (with this invention) and an often-tedious burden as can be experienced with ratchet jacks for automobiles. The structure of ratchet mechanisms only holds or supports a load at discrete points. All the rest of the time, the load must be born by the operator. This is specifically true when the load must be raised or lowered. c) Sliding brakes and swage clutches. These devices are also compromise designs and have all of the failings of the above designs. They are essentially variations of the ratchet mechanism, with undefined or nonspecific steps. As with ratchets, the load is held by the structure only when the operator allows the load to settle into a holding state. At all other times, the operator bears the burden of the load. d) Direct support by operator or power source. Designs such as used with mechanisms such as this make no attempt to involve the structure of the device to support a load at any time. The load must always be born by the operator or power source. A simple example of this is a free-moving non-ratchet crank handle used to lift a bucket out of a well. The person cranking the handle must always support the load of the bucket of water, even if not cranking the bucket up. If the person gets tired and stops cranking the bucket up (and there is not ratchet or tie rope) they must continuously hold the weight of the bucket.

The failings and shortcomings of the above designs have left a need that has been waiting to be filled.

4) Mechanical Frequency Modulators. No prior art was found. Possibly this is because relatively high fidelity frequency modulation in mechanical devices has been reasonably practical. The closest search found was US 6,157115 to Hassler (2000). That system used piezoelectric actuators. That approach, while valid could not control or transfer the amount of power that the current invention can provide.

SUMMARY

In accordance with the present invention, there are number of gear arrangements identified in this application that allow gear-to-gear linkages with multiple simultaneous ratios to exist. The arrangements further allow the influence of one or more of these ratios to be variable. This variability of influence can modulate the overall ratio of the linkage. Such a geared arrangement has application in many fields, and especially as a high performance continuously variable transmission.

OBJECTS AND ADVANTAGES

Accordingly, several objects and advantages of my invention are:

1. As a Continuously Variable Transmission: a. Exceptionally simple gear-to-gear linkage typically consisting of (but not limited to) one or two gears (minimum). While multiple parallel links can be used for expanded capacity, dynamic balance, etc., this is definitely not an "intricate" design. b. Operation and design is simple c. The ratio range is infinite. It nominally has all ratios from zero to one. The ratio range is not dependent on physical characteristics of components, but is developed mathematically. No clutches are needed or required. d. Rotational speed range is basically dependent on the maximum practical design speed for the power and load, and materials used. e. Maximum power transfer is basically dependent only on gear quality, material, size, etc. It is not limited by friction couplings or stretchable power coupling media. f. This is a high capacity design that is not marginal in any regard. g. The operation is linear over the entire speed range which can be accomplished is a single mode of operation. This does not preclude combining multiple CVTs to accomplish more complex or expanded functionality. h. This design typically uses only one power source and one variability control input. This does not preclude the incorporation of multiple power sources for some applications. i. This design does not need or require hydraulics. The design does not preclude the use of hydraulics if desired. j. Being a gear-to-gear design, coupling between input and output is precise and "non-slippy." It is also not limited in power transfer capability, is not especially noisy and does not have a high rate of wear.

2. For constant and variable speed tools, power taps, machinery etc. This invention overcomes many of the problems that existed before. This invention allows a power source to operate at peak performance with speed regulation being an independent function. No friction coupling of power is needed to provide variability. This eliminates friction related problems.

3. Variable-position continuous-load- support, rotatable and linear mechanisms. This invention provides a direct geared link between the input and the output. In one embodiment, the main "input" is tied to the frame or housing. All input power is applied through the "control" path. In this configuration the output is thus tied, by a geared link to the housing. No amount of load (within design limits) can cause the link to move. The load is thus continuously supported by the structure. The load can only change position when there is a control input to make such a change.

Unlike a worm and wheel combination, there is neither friction nor any unnecessary ratio to provide functionality. Any practical input ratio is acceptable to this invented linkage. This greatly expands the practical application of this invention. A simple example of this application is to use this linkage in a mechanism to raise or lower a water bucket in a well. The operator can begin to raise the bucket with this device. At any time, the operator can stop cranking the bucket up and the bucket will remain in the stopped position and not fall back into the well. This is true, no matter when the operator stops cranking. The structure always supports the load, no matter what position it is in. A miraculous benefit is gained; the operator never supports the load. Operator input is only used to raise or lower the bucket. This is a tremendous gain in efficiency. With the exception of the worm gear, past systems always required an expenditure of energy to support a load in addition to having to expend energy to raise a load. While the worm gear would work in some application, as pointed out friction and ratio issues generally precluded practical application.

A number of applications can use such a concept. Some of these are: a. Automobile jacks, come alongs, belt tighteners, etc. The benefits should be obvious. The structure holds the load at all times and it is a relatively simple, less tiresome and safer to raise, lower or tighten a load. b. In elevators, escalators, aerial trams, etc. this invention would provide a greater degree of safety. The invention could be used to provide position changes, but always support the load. c. Steering assemblies and components of a similar nature. The structure holds the load of keeping the wheels positioned, but the operator has full control of position.

Other objects and advantages are seen in the nature of this invention. A miraculous benefit of this design is that in the generally preferred modes of operation, it is a true unidirectional device. No amount of system power input or load can cause the link to move relative to the input or output. Because of this, no amount of input power or load can backflow into the control path. Nonetheless, the control path can still cause major changes in the transfer of power and development of load.

The application of this unidirectional capability can best understood by looking at the linkage as a continuously variable transmission (CVT). Some aspects of this invention in this capacity are as follows:

1. The linkage essentially is a method for providing a rigid link between input and output, but one that allows a difference in speed to exist between the two. In a CVT configuration, one effectively can have a "rigid shaft" with the input side running at whatever fixed or variable input speed and the output side of the "rigid" shaft running at whatever speed is desired (within design limits). Because of this rigidity, in the preferred embodiments, regardless of input or output shaft speeds, two things happen: power is transferred to the output at a 1:1 ratio and load is carried the power source at a 1:1 ratio. (Note: the 1:1 ratio is not a design restriction as other ratios might be implemented.)

An interesting example shows the idea of this shaft "rigidity." Assume the input shaft is operating at 5,002.1 revolutions per minute (rp ) and the output shaft is operating at 307.6 RPM. Assume also, because of some outside change, the load induces an additional 1.3 rpm in the output shaft (i.e., 307.6 rpm + 1 rpm => 308.9 rpm). The 1.3 rpm is then, instantaneously transferred directly to the power source (5,002.1 rpm + 1.3 rpm => 5003.4 rpm). The reverse would happen if the load change caused a decrease in shaft speed. If there is a governor on the power source, the change in speed could be detected and used to maintain overall operational speeds.

Because of the mathematical nature of ratio manipulation, a relatively high degree of control of rotational speed or phased related output is possible. This facilitates operation in high precision control systems.

2. There are a number of safety benefits. One is that the transmission is always engaged. There is no risk of a missed gear and have a truck running out of control because of a "missed gear." For the automo- bile driver, there is the safety of always having maximum power available for all driving conditions. This includes the safety of never again stomping on the gas peddle to get out of a dangerous situation and only having an automatic transmission downshifting, but delivering no real power while the engine just races. The simplicity of the design itself, adds reliability and safety.

3. The CVT technology offers the benefits of fuel savings and reduction of smog. This CVT uses only gears in the power train and does not require friction, hybrid configuration or high-pressure hydraulics to operate. Further, the design is not size constrained for ratio. Ratio in this invention is a result of a mathematical combination(s) of inputs and is not limited to variation of limited physical features. The combination of these benefits, make this CVT design extremely efficient.

As a further benefit of this approach for controlling ratio, this transmission can be made relatively compact to carry large amounts of power and have practical ratio variation. This makes the design simple to manufacture at relatively low cost while maintaining a high profitability.

4. There are a number of significant health and environmental benefits. Because of efficiency and power transfer capacity of this CVT; much smaller engines can be used for most applications. Further, the engines used can be tuned to operate at peak power and performance with minimum of smog. The combined benefits will result in a very large savings in fuel consumption, smog produced and health costs.

5. The simplicity and the geared design would make this design longer lasting, easier to repair and more salable.

6. Industry has already shown its strong interest in CVTs by having spent over a billion dollars developing what exists already. A good, efficient and simple gear-to-gear CVT will flood the market. Because of the power transfer capability this invention could be the transmission of choice for everything from toys, bicycles, motorcycles, all terrain vehicles (ATVs), utility and sport vehicles and crafts of all sizes and types, aircraft, tanks, mobile weapon and support systems, all the way up to the largest ships afloat.

Objects and advantages in control systems. There is a myriad of control and robotic systems that can use geared linkage that have the properties of this concept.

1. In robotic systems, the ability to have the load held or supported by the structure frees position control mechanisms and activators from the task of support. This also adds to the stability of load support.

2. In aircraft and other high power systems, there is a need to tap off power from the main power source. Optimally, the power tap should produce regulated usable power, almost without regard to the speed of the main power source.

3. In our modern society there are innumerable machines that can benefit. One application could be as a load delay during startup. This is an obvious benefit in refrigerator and air conditioner compressors. A simple and inexpensive version of this linkage could allow the compressor motor to pick up speed and then, once the optimum operating range was reached, the load could be picked up as an optimized rate.

The benefit of this is similar to that of automotive CVTs. Electric motors designed for high-speed f*πn tnιιπιι*ϊ nnt-Tj-itinn riπn't

mnτimιιm αf ofαrfπr-* Δ c α

ϊαrσpr mntnrc •ΛTP needed just to overcome startup loads. They also draw extremely large amounts of electric power at that time. The number of air conditioners and refrigerators (not to mention all other devices and machines) in our society multiply the cost to the economy and impact to our natural resources. This invention could provide society with massive savings in this area alone.

Objects and advantages in mechanical frequency modulators. The use of this invention in this application is simply a result of the mathematical nature of how the linkage as a CVT develops speed changes in the output and the fidelity of the process. In one method of speed control, the control is a variable rotational input. The rotational control adds to or subtracts from the power source speed to produce an output speed. In this sense, rotational speed is a frequency. By this method, a relatively low power input can control the frequency of a relatively high power output with a high degree of fidelity. The use of this aspect is discussed in all the above applications, the CVT being the most obvious. This aspect as a frequency modulator is mentioned here to identify and cover this aspect of the invention.

DESCRIPTION OF DRA WINGS

A description of the enclosed drawings:

Fig. 1 is a side view of one embodiment of my invention. This embodiment, beyond input and output, shows side view of three major planes: a speed or ratio control, power transfer gears, and torque control/neutralization gears.

Fig. 2 is a sectional view indicated by the section lines 2-2 in Fig. 1. This shows one possible configuration for power transfer gears.

Fig 3 is a sectional view indicated by the section lines 3-3 in Fig. 1. This shows one possible configuration for torque control/neutralization gears.

Fig 4 is a sectional view indicated by the section lines 4-4 in Fig. 1. This shows one possible configuration having multiple "floating" assemblies that include the power transfer gears and torque control/neutralization gears.

Fig 5 is a sectional view indicated by the section lines 5-5 in Fig. 1. This figure shows one possible configuration of components for implementing a speed or ratio control input to this embodiment.

Fig. 6 is a side view of a variation of the embodiment shown in Fig. 1. This figure shows another possible implementation of a speed or ratio control input.

Fig. 7 is a sectional view indicated by the section lines 7-7 in Fig. 6. Figure 7 does double duty. It is also referred to by the section lines 7-7 in Fig. 8. In depiction, the structure is almost identical. The reference numeral for one component is different. The correct reference numeral for each figure is noted in the view.

Fig 9-15 are not proper format but are included to meet deadline and good drawings will be submitted later. Sorry (time beyond my control - working for the DoD on high priority project last 8 months). REFERENCE NUMERALS IN DRAWINGS

10 Power Input - Rotational 150 Housing

12 Power Input Shaft 152 Centerline of transmission

14 Power Input Frame 180 Output Power Gear

16 Power Input Gear (internal) 182 Spline 184 Output (Load) Shaft

40 Control Input Rotational Source 186 Power Output (Load)

42 Control Input Shaft

44 Control Input Gear 200 Bearing - Main Input Shaft

46 Control Input - Bridge Gear 202 Bearing - Output Shaft Stabilizer

48 Control Input - Bridge Disk 204 Bearing - Lt Main Bridge Support

50 Control Input - Bridge Structure 206 Bearing - Rt Main Bridge Support 208 Bearing - Main Output Shaft

58 Control Input Displacement Shaft 210 Bearing - Bridge

60 Displacement Shaft Bushing 212 Bearing - Bridge

62 Displacement Input Beam 214 Bearing - Bridge

64 Thrust Bearing 216 Bearing - Bridge

66 Cone Piston A 218 Bearing - Bridge

68 Cone Piston Bushing 220

70 Cone Piston B 222

72 Cone Piston Bushing 224 Bearing - Ratio Control Thrust

74 Centering Cone 226 Bearing - Torque Arm Pivot

76 Cone Bushing 228 Bearing - Lt Main Assembly

80 Control Input Torque Arm 230 Bearing - Rt Main Assembly

82 Beveled Torque Focusing Cavity

90 Torque Arm Counter Balance

100 Bridge Assembly Frame

102 Bridge Assembly Support A

104 Bridge Support Spindle/axle/shaft A

106 Bridge Assembly Support B

108 Bridge Support Spindle/axle/shaft B

110 Power Transfer Gear A (PTG-A)

112 Power Transfer Gear B (PTG-B)

114 Torque Control Gear A

116 Torque Control Gear B

118 Torque Control Gear C

120 Torque Control Gear D

122 Torque Control Gear E

124 Torque Control Frame

126

128 Torque Control Gear Shear Pin

130 Assembly Spindle/axle/shaft 1

132 Assembly Spindle/axle/shaft 2

134 Assembly Spindle/axle/shaft 3 DESCRIPTION OF INVENTION

Possibly the most notable application for this invention is as a continuously variable transmission. This discussion initially centers on that application for this description. A preferred embodiment for the infinitely and continuously variable geared linkage of the present invention is illustrated in Fig 1 through 5. Looking at Fig 1, this embodiment is basically divided into six parts. One is a housing 150. Next is a rotational power input source 10 and a power input shaft 12. These are shown to the left of the figure along a centerline 152 of the transmission. Next to the right is a ratio or speed control section with components 58, 62, 66, 74, 80, and 82. Next to the right between section lines 4-4 and 2-2 are power transfer gears 16, 110, 112 and 180. These gears carry power from the input to the output and load from the output to the input. Next, to the right of section line 3-3, there are torque control gears 114, 116, 118, 120 andl22. These gears balance torque forces to create steady state and static conditions. Next, there is an output shaft 184 and a load 186.

This design is bi-directional. The designation of which side is an input side and which is an output side is a design consideration. In either approach, power and load flow through the power transfer gears 16, 110, 112 and 180 from 16 to 180 or vice versa. Gears 110 and 112 as a pair transfer power and load to and from the input and output gears 16 and 180. Gears 110 and 112 act as a power-load bridge between 16 and 180. To perform this function, Gears 110 and 112 are mounted in a rotatable bridging assembly frame 100 shown in Fig 5.

Again referring to Fig 1, the power source 10 inputs rotational power to the input power shaft 12. This causes an input power frame 14 to rotate. Attached to 14 is an internal gear 16 that is rotated by said power input. Referring to Fig 1 and 2, gear 16 is continuously meshed with a planetary gear 110. Gear 110 is permanently meshed with a second planetary gear 112. Gear 112 is permanently engaged with the power output gear 180.

Planetary gears 110 and 112 are freely rotatable about their respective axes, 134 and 130. Being meshed, forces these gears to rotate in opposite directions if they rotate about their respective axes. These two gears are held together by the bridging assembly frame 100 shown in Fig 5. Assembly 100 is also freely rotatable about centerline 152 of the transmission in the annulus between gears 16 and 180. The bridging assembly 100 is mounted on a spindle or axle 104. Assembly 100 and its gears 110 and 112 have restricted rotation about the axis of 104 and 108. The torque control gears 114, 116, 118, 120 andl22 prevent assembly 100 from rotating about 104. Torque control gears 114 and 122 shown in Fig 1 and 3 are attached together. Torque control gears 114, 116, 118 and 120 are held in the bridging assembly 100. As shown, they are also meshed between 114 and 122. The net ratio of the group of torque control gears is the same as that between 114 and 122. As a consequence, even though assembly 100 is freely rotatable about centerline 152 in the annulus, the assembly will maintain its angular orientation relative to centerline 152. In addition, any torque forces centered along the axis formed by spindles 104 and 108, will be nullified. In addition, no net forces are left to cause assembly to rotate about centerline 152. In addition, no amount of input power or load on gears 16 and 180 can cause assembly 100 to rotate about centerline 152.

When input power rotates gear 16 that attempts to rotate gear 110, the load opposes this by attempting to rotate gear 180 in the opposite direction. Gear 180 attempts to rotate 112 in a direction that is opposite to that which is possible because it is meshed with 110. Gears 110 and 112 form a rigid link between 16 and 180 and transfer

Claims

power and load at a 1:1 (one to one) ratio. Assembly 100 and power transfer gears are effectively locked between gears 16 and 180.With no additional input, assembly 100 cannot relative to the input and output gears 16 and 180 and the 1:1 linkage continues. In fact, this linkage always exists and transfers whatever power and load at that ratio always. The ratio is potentially modifiable and is thus not a design restriction.The key is that assembly 100 cannot have relative motion by virtue of power input or load. This embodiment provides a lever 80 with a beveled cavity 82 that is attached to assembly 100 in such a manner that if a centering cone 74 is pushed into cavity 82, this shifts the center of torque from the 104 - 108 spindle axis toward center- line 152. This shift, compromises torque nullification, allowing input and load forces to produce a net force that causes assembly 100 to rotate about centerline 152. The more the more lever 80 is centered along centerline 152 the greater the shift of torque forces and the greater the forces are to rotate assembly 100 about centerline 152.When assembly 100 begins to have motion relative to the input and output gears , the slower the output shaft rotates. This creates a phase shift between input and output changing the speed (angular velocity) ratio.Fig 6 and 8 show different approaches to inducing relative motion in assembly 100. Fig 7 shows a possible physical structure. An outside power source causes assembly 100 to rotate and can cause output shaft to rotate at a higher speed than the input.CLAIMSWhat is claimed is:

1. In combination, a method of using one or more gear or gear-like rotational elements in and as part of one or more rotatable bridging assemblies that continuously mesh with and link a fixed input reference element or a rotational input gear or gear-like element, to a rotational output gear or gear-like element whereby said bridging assembly(ies) in combination with said input and out elements create a plurality of simultaneous physical ratios between the input and the output that merge to yield a net overall input-output ratio and whereby the influence of one or more of said ratios is continuously and infinitely variable and whereby one or more inputs provide a means for variation of said influence of said variable ra- tio(s) and whereby .

Note: Narrow by reflecting the mechanical balance and opposing forces. A mechanical balance is created by the gearing and structure such that the load forces on the output element oppose the input forces (and vice versa) in such a manner that no net forces exist to rotate said rotatable assembly(ies) relative to the input or output elements, whereby the input and output forces, combined with structure A mechanical balance in said bridging gear(s) whereby the input and output forces, combined with structure

2. A method of using one or more gear or gear-like assemblies as a means for linkage between a power input gear or gear-like rotational energy connecting element to an output gear or gear-like rotational energy connecting element using a gears or gear-like rotational energy connecting elements in such a manner that the phase