>>31085
>I can't visualize a sleek tubular long and narrow form factor windlass design whereby I can fit a lot of windlasses where a muscle would normally be. Volumetric area space constraints
I understand fully. The idea I had about the "belted" windlass I've never seen anyone do anything like it. I just came up with it. I wish I could post a pic, it would plain to see, but "whoever" has disallowed picture posting.
I'll try to explain one more time, slightly differently. This does have a long, linear form factor, just like your Archimedes compact pulley system. It would fit in a smaller space. To describe I have to start from very low basics, which I know you already know, but to explain this odd ball thing I have to build the case at a low level. Don't take this as me talking down to you. I know you know much more than I.
First look at this picture here, Chinese windlass. Forget the Spanish one for this.
https://etc.usf.edu/clipart/61400/61437/61437_windlass.htm
You can see that the larger the wheels are and the smaller the difference in radius(circumference) between them gives you the most leverage. As one rope, important, is "tied" to one wheel and the other rope, important, is "tied" to the other. One lets out while the other takes up.
The action is because of the outer circumference difference between the smaller and larger wheels. Who says this circumference difference must ride on a big wheel??? Could just as well be ANY surface, as long as the mechanics are the same. One larger wheel (belt) circumference lets out, one smaller wheel,(belt) circumference, takes up.
Here's the leap, replace the wheels with two belts. Now you see instead of the rope riding on the wooden wheel, it is riding on a belt. The ropes are tied to the belts just like the wheels, since now the belts sets are the circumference values. The ropes ride on the belts. So you have four pulleys(five, counting the one that pulls the rope up like a normal pulley system).
One top set tied together, that can rotate on a shaft, and one lower set, that can rotate on a shaft. So you have two pulleys. Both top and bottom sets are the same. The two pulley sets are, one left pulley, slightly larger, one on the right, slightly smaller. These are on the same shaft and can rotate on that shaft but are mechanically tied together. So far, just like the Chinese windlass.
Here's the leap, removed from the top shaft is another set of pulleys below the top set. They are exactly the same. One larger, one smaller. (the lower smaller pulley must be on a bearing and not tied mechanically to the larger on the bottom pulley set). Now normally when you think of a pulley system you think of the lower block of pulleys moving upwards as you pull the rope, This one does not. It is mechanically constrained and fixed in relation to the top set of pulleys. The lower and upper pulleys sets are fixed in position and separated from each other. One on top, one on bottom.
What we have here is that instead of the rope riding on the pulleys we have the rope "tied" to the belts. In fact we have the exact same system as a Chinese windlass but instead of the rope track being on a round large wheel it rides on the belts. The belts ARE the outer circumference. There, of course, will need to be guards to keep the rope on the belts, but you need guards on the Chinese big wheels also. So a rope is tied to the top (left)larger belt. It travels down to a load pulley(the fifth one I talked about). This load pulley acts exactly like the Chinese windless. It DOES move up, like the original. The rope goes through the pulley and back to the smaller right pulley at the top and is tied to the belt.
Action. You rotate the top pulley(mechanically fixed to the smaller). The rope goes down to the load through a normal pulley, pulling the load up), goes back up and is tied to the smaller belt/pulley on the right. It's exactly the same as the Chinese windlass but you use two different size pulley ""belts" as "circumference surfaces". So the rope is let out by the bigger two sets of pulleys and taken up by the smaller set of pulleys by riding on the belts. The advantage of this is that the pulley sets can be very small. All they do is guide the belts. The length of the belts and the difference in length of the belts,(same as the Chinese windlass), are what gives you the mechanical advantage. So the pulleys can be small, the belts long and you get a very high advantage because of this large "circumference "track" and it fits in a slender package.
Now let's go even farther. Do they need to be belts at all? NO, you could have round, circular strings substitute for the belts. On each they would be tied to the take up load string same as if they were tied to belts. I only used belts as an illustration because it's easy to visualize the rope "riding" on a belt just like the rope "rides" on a big Chinese wooden spool.
The advantage of this is you cut out a lot of bearing, a lot of different pulley paths and it's more compact.