General > General Technical Chat

Force multiplier

<< < (29/71) > >>

cbutlera:

--- Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 10:40:38 pm ---Newton's second law has no application in a non accelerating reference frame.

--- End quote ---
That is complete nonsense.  You can have accelerating objects in a non accelerating frame of reference.


--- Quote ---Videos I showed you multiple times show that F2 = F1 and there is no acceleration.
In order for vehicle to move relative to ground one of the wheels needs to slip.

1.  No wheel slip F2 = F1 according to Newton's 3'rd law.
...

--- End quote ---

Way back in this discussion, Nominal Animal posted a very detailed kinematic analysis of this system.  You dismissed his analysis out of hand by falsely claiming that it was contrary to Newton's third law, but this claim would only be true if Newton's third law did require that F1 and F2 were equal and opposite.  Then a few messages ago you identified the correct Newton's third law reaction forces to both F1 and F2. Now you have gone straight back to claiming that F2 is the Newton's third law reaction force to F1.  It isn't.  You are going around in circles.

IanB:

--- Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 11:04:39 pm ---You are going around in circles.

--- End quote ---
Not so much going around in circles, as carefully avoiding and dodging any deduction that might lead to a rational conclusion, artfully changing the story and backtracking when it looks like things are getting too close to the correct answer. In all the previous threads it has been the same.

Notice how the behavior is always to goad other people into responding and doing work in order to prolong the game?

electrodacus:

--- Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 11:04:39 pm ---
That is complete nonsense.  You can have accelerating objects in a non accelerating frame of reference.

--- End quote ---

There is only one object of interest here the vehicle and it is either accelerating in which case Newton's second law is involved or it is not accelerating in which case only Newton's 3'rd law is involved.



--- Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 11:04:39 pm ---Way back in this discussion, Nominal Animal posted a very detailed kinematic analysis of this system.  You dismissed his analysis out of hand by falsely claiming that it was contrary to Newton's third law, but this claim would only be true if Newton's third law did require that F1 and F2 were equal and opposite.  Then a few messages ago you identified the correct Newton's third law reaction forces to both F1 and F2. Now you have gone straight back to claiming that F2 is the Newton's third law reaction force to F1.  It isn't.  You are going around in circles.

--- End quote ---

Kinematics is not useful if you want to predict how the real world object moves as forces are not considered at all. Thus real world test show that veicle does not move the way it is shown by that Kinematics model.

Because F1 cannot exist without the equal and opposite F2 when no wheel slip is allowed.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you (same as others) claim that F2 = 2 * F1 for a 2:1 gear ratio.  No such thing is observed in any of the real world tests because you can not have force multiplication done by a device with only two points of contact.

electrodacus:

--- Quote from: IanB on February 08, 2023, 11:11:58 pm ---
--- Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 11:04:39 pm ---You are going around in circles.

--- End quote ---
Not so much going around in circles, as carefully avoiding and dodging any deduction that might lead to a rational conclusion, artfully changing the story and backtracking when it looks like things are getting too close to the correct answer. In all the previous threads it has been the same.

Notice how the behavior is always to goad other people into responding and doing work in order to prolong the game?

--- End quote ---

Do you agree that a theory is incorrect if it can not predict what happens in a real world experiment ?

If so show me where F2 = 2 * F1 for a 2:1 gear ratio since that is what you seem to claim.
I claim F2 = F1 and that is observed in my tests. Vehicle is either stationary or moving at constant speed dragged in the direction of applied force.

cbutlera:

--- Quote from: IanB on February 08, 2023, 11:11:58 pm ---
--- Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 11:04:39 pm ---You are going around in circles.

--- End quote ---
Not so much going around in circles, as carefully avoiding and dodging any deduction that might lead to a rational conclusion, artfully changing the story and backtracking when it looks like things are getting too close to the correct answer. In all the previous threads it has been the same.

Notice how the behavior is always to goad other people into responding and doing work in order to prolong the game?

--- End quote ---

Yes, I think that you are right and I have been wasting my time.  After finding that paper describing the surprisingly common "Newton’s Second Law – Net Force” (N2-NF) misconception, I thought that maybe I could help.  It looks like I was wrong about that.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod