General > General Technical Chat
Force multiplier
electrodacus:
--- Quote from: PlainName on February 08, 2023, 07:34:26 pm ---So, after all that, do you agree or not that each of the statements 1..3 in the context shown with the HoG, etc? If not, specifically which one are you stating is false?
Just for the moment, if you can manage to control yourself, don't relate this to your problem. Just answer the question honestly, without distractions or diversions, and we can move on.
--- End quote ---
I already answered your question but likely you are not reading what I write.
All statements are correct but are for a completely different setup than the one disused here.
You statement has 3 points of contact due to HoG in contact with vehicle body while in my examples there are only two points of contact and the body is floating so no HoG involvement.
You can only do force amplification when you have 3 points of contact not possible with only two.
PlainName:
--- Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 07:46:51 pm ---
--- Quote from: PlainName on February 08, 2023, 07:34:26 pm ---So, after all that, do you agree or not that each of the statements 1..3 in the context shown with the HoG, etc? If not, specifically which one are you stating is false?
Just for the moment, if you can manage to control yourself, don't relate this to your problem. Just answer the question honestly, without distractions or diversions, and we can move on.
--- End quote ---
I already answered your question but likely you are not reading what I write.
--- End quote ---
OK, thank you.
--- Quote ---All statements are correct but are for a completely different setup than the one disused here.
You statement has 3 points of contact due to HoG in contact with vehicle body
--- End quote ---
Well, let's fix that then. Let's remove the HoG from the vehicle and instead get him to turn the treadmill. Now, why won't the treadmill moving cause the wheels to turn?
--- Quote --- while in my examples there are only two points of contact and the body is floating so no HoG involvement.
--- End quote ---
Hate to break this to you, but your example does actually have three points of contact. The are:
1. Left wheel on block
2. Right wheel on treadmill
3. Driving force of treadmill. <--- your Hand of God
But back to the new setup. Remove the HoG from the vehicle, turn the treadmill, wheels turn and vehicle moves. I think that's the proof you were trying not to recognise.
electrodacus:
--- Quote from: PlainName on February 08, 2023, 08:05:23 pm ---Well, let's fix that then. Let's remove the HoG from the vehicle and instead get him to turn the treadmill. Now, why won't the treadmill moving cause the wheels to turn?
--- End quote ---
The treadmill itself can not move as when the treadmill starts to apply a force F1 that will be matched by F2 equal and opposite so nothing can move unless one of the wheels is allowed to slip.
--- Quote from: PlainName on February 08, 2023, 08:05:23 pm ---Hate to break this to you, but your example does actually have three points of contact. The are:
1. Left wheel on block
2. Right wheel on treadmill
3. Driving force of treadmill. <--- your Hand of God
But back to the new setup. Remove the HoG from the vehicle, turn the treadmill, wheels turn and vehicle moves. I think that's the proof you were trying not to recognise.
--- End quote ---
There are only two points of contact if you understand what that means.
1. Left wheel on the red block.
2. Right wheel on the treadmill.
cbutlera:
--- Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 06:28:48 pm ---While you may consider the left wheel a different object from the right wheel in this particular example they are not.
The way let and right wheel are connected to each other makes them act as a single object.
This equivalent diagram to (a) may make it more visible to you
You can als imagine having this in your hands right hand applies F1 and the left hand will apply the equal and opposite force F2 else there will be no F1 so Newton's 3'rd law pair.
All this pairs in the above diagram are newton's 3'rd law pairs so F1 = F2, F3 = F4 and F5 = F6
--- End quote ---
Let’s for a moment accept your absurd mental gymnastics, and view the table with articulated legs as one rigid object, and the ground, the stationary block, and treadmill as a second rigid object. F1 and F2 would still not constitute a Newton’s third law force pair.
The total horizontal force exerted by the ground on the table would be the vector sum of F1 and F2. The total horizontal force exerted by the table on the ground would be of equal magnitude to this vector sum, but directed in the opposite direction. Those two combined forces do constitute a Newton’s third law force pair.
If F1 did somehow represent the total horizontal force exerted by the ground on the table, and F2 did somehow represent the total horizontal force exerted by the table on the ground, then the table would accelerate in the direction of F1. F1 would be the only horizontal force acting on the table. F2 would be acting on the ground (if you are going to treat it as the Newton's third law reaction force to F1) and so would not restrain this acceleration. This is obviously wrong.
electrodacus:
--- Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 08:21:12 pm ---
Let’s for a moment accept your absurd mental gymnastics, and view the table with articulated legs as one rigid object, and the ground, the stationary block, and treadmill as a second rigid object. F1 and F2 would still not constitute a Newton’s third law force pair.
--- End quote ---
The "table" is a rigid object due to the configuration and the forces acting on it.
Can you have F1 different from zero in a non accelerating frame of reference without the equal and opposite F2 ?
If not then that is newton's 3'rd law.
But whatever you consider or not that to be 3'rd law you can not show F2 to be twice as large as the apply F1 as you can not have a working gearbox (force multiplication) with only two points of contact (the two legs).
--- Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 08:21:12 pm ---The total horizontal force exerted by the ground on the table would be the vector sum of F1 and F2. The total horizontal force exerted by the table on the ground would be of equal magnitude to this vector sum, but directed in the opposite direction. Those two combined forces do constitute a Newton’s third law force pair.
If F1 did somehow represent the total horizontal force exerted by the ground on the table, and F2 did somehow represent the total horizontal force exerted by the table on the ground, then the table would accelerate in the direction of F1. F1 would be the only horizontal force acting on the table. F2 would be acting on the ground (if you are going to treat it as the Newton's third law reaction force to F1) and so would not restrain this acceleration. This is obviously wrong.
--- End quote ---
What is the net horizontal force acting on the vehicle ?
Fnet = F1 - F2 = 0 is my answer. I'm curious to see what your answer is since whatever you wanted to say in the above comment makes no sense.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version