General > General Technical Chat
Force multiplier
<< < (23/71) > >>
electrodacus:

--- Quote from: PlainName on February 08, 2023, 09:28:51 am ---
Do you want to learn that it does indeed have something to do with the original problem, or must you hide under your safety blanket?

Now, imagine the right wheel is not connected with a belt (and, sorry, I used 'horizontal belt' previously when I should has used 'treadmill' to save confusion). The wheel is locked rigid. You, the HoG or whatever push the vehicle to the right and that causes the treadmill to move to the right. I presume you are perfectly OK with that since it's pretty basic. So..

Let's say the vehicle moves to the right (via whatever strange force) at 2m/s. With a locked right wheel the treadmill will move to the right at 2m/s. Yes? Good. Clearly, any clockwise rotation of the right wheel will reduce the speed of the treadmill. We can thus have three distinct situations:

1. The connection between the wheels is 1:1 (that is, the left wheel drives the right wheel at the same speed). In this case, the vehicle moves right at 2m/s, the right wheel rotates at the same speed the vehicle is travelling  and the treadmill is stationary.

2. The connection is 2:1 (that is, the left wheel drives the right wheel at half the speed). In this case the vehicle moves right at 2m/s and the treadmill moves right at 1m/s (since the right wheel is rotating slower than is necessary to keep up with the vehicle speed).

3. The connection is 1:2 (that is, the left wheel drives the right wheel at twice the speed). In this case the vehicle moves right at 2m/s and the treadmill moves left a 1m/s (since the right wheel is rotating faster than is necessary to keep pace with the vehicle speed).

Do you agree with those? If not, which of 1..3 do you think is wrong? I can assure you that this will resolve your original problem if you stick with it.

--- End quote ---

As I mentioned in your imaginary setup the vehicle has 3 points of contact and that god will need to be real as a force will need to act against the vehicle body and not an imaginary one as you think.

If a real force acts against the vehicle body then due to 3 separate forces acting on the different vehicle parts the vehicle will work as you mentioned.

I already provided an example but in my example the vehicle body was rigidly connected to ground and in that case the mechanism acts as a functional gearbox and the red box can be moved by the treadmill and force acting on the box provided by left wheel can be 2x larger than the input force at the right wheel provided by the treadmill.

In case you do not understand what our disagreement is I will try to make it clear.

The setup in diagram (a) as well as the real setup in my video has only two points of contact (no HoG involved or anything else touching the vehicle body) and in this conditions you can not have a functional gearbox as that will require 3 points of contact.
With only two points of contact F2 can only be equal and opposite to F1 in non accelerating reference frames so when vehicle is not moving or when it is moving at constant speed. In accelerating reference frames to this newton's 3'rd law F2 = F1 you add the Newton's 2'nd law m*a.   
electrodacus:

--- Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 11:06:55 am ---From your responses to my own postings and those of a number of others, it seems that you do understand the arguments that we are making.  However, in every case you throw a spanner in the works by bringing up your version of Newton’s third law.

Try a very simple experiment.  Extend the forefingers of you left and right hands, then press the tips of those two fingers together.  You will notice that the forces you can feel at your two fingertips are equal and opposite and there is no way of performing this experiment where that would not be the case.

You may regard this experiment as pointless, and that it just demonstrates a law of physics which is intuitive and completely obvious.  So obvious in fact that there would be no point in giving it a name.  But it does have a name, it is Newton’s third law of motion.  A key characteristic of this law is that the two forces involved always act on different objects, in this case the tips of your left and right forefingers.


--- End quote ---

Now you imagine the same experiment but the finger from right hand is under the right wheel and the finger from your left hand is under the left wheel.
Try to bring the hands together and you will understand why it is a locked gearbox and can be treated as a single object.

Your right hand will try to move to the left and you left had to the right and so the right wheel will try to move clockwise and the left wheel counter clockwise.
Due to the way the belt connects the two wheels it will be impossible for the wheels to spin in different directions thus what I call a "locked gearbox"

So unless you allow for one of the wheels to spin on your finger you can not move the hands closer and all you can do is apply a force that will be as you mentioned Newton's 3'rd law of motion.
IanB:

--- Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 03:35:20 pm ---The setup in diagram (a) as well as the real setup in my video has only two points of contact (no HoG involved or anything else touching the vehicle body) and in this conditions you can not have a functional gearbox as that will require 3 points of contact.
--- End quote ---
The requirement for 3 points of contact is not correct, so this argument can be rejected.


--- Quote ---With only two points of contact F2 can only be equal and opposite to F1 in non accelerating reference frames so when vehicle is not moving or when it is moving at constant speed. In accelerating reference frames to this newton's 3'rd law F2 = F1 you add the Newton's 2'nd law m*a.   

--- End quote ---
With a kinematic structure neither forces nor Newton's laws are relevant to the analysis. Do you need forces or acceleration to analyze the movement of the gears in a clock? So this argument can also be rejected.

In summary, you have no arguments, therefore there is nothing to debate.

The best thing is for us to leave you to your own thoughts and let the thread rest. We do not need to care what you believe, it is not our problem, and it ceases to be entertaining after a while.

Why do you keep creating these threads anyway? This is what, the third thread now?
electrodacus:

--- Quote from: IanB on February 08, 2023, 04:01:38 pm ---The requirement for 3 points of contact is not correct, so this argument can be rejected.

--- End quote ---
It is on you to prove that as there is no functional gearbox that can do force multiplication with just two points of contact.
Make a google search for "torque multiplier wrench" and if you can find one that only requires 2 points of contact (like a normal socket wrench one point hand and the other the bolt) then I will admit that I'm wrong.


--- Quote from: IanB on February 08, 2023, 04:01:38 pm ---With a kinematic structure neither forces nor Newton's laws are relevant to the analysis. Do you need forces or acceleration to analyze the movement of the gears in a clock? So this argument can also be rejected.

In summary, you have no arguments, therefore there is nothing to debate.

The best thing is for us to leave you to your own thoughts and let the thread rest. We do not need to care what you believe, it is not our problem, and it ceases to be entertaining after a while.

Why do you keep creating these threads anyway? This is what, the third thread now?

--- End quote ---

I offered video evidence that things work the way I say they work and you want to contradict a real experiment with kinematics only "the study of motion of a system of bodies without directly considering the forces or potential fields affecting the motion"
IanB:

--- Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 04:12:24 pm ---It is on you to prove that as there is no functional gearbox that can do force multiplication with just two points of contact.
--- End quote ---
It's not on me at all. You started the thread and are asking the questions. Neither I nor anyone else has any obligation to help you.


--- Quote ---I offered video evidence that things work the way I say they work and you want to contradict a real experiment with kinematics only "the study of motion of a system of bodies without directly considering the forces or potential fields affecting the motion"

--- End quote ---
You can believe whatever you wish. Since everyone else in this thread can make an apparatus that does what the diagrams show it will do, and you alone cannot do so, that is your problem and not our problem.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod