| General > General Technical Chat |
| Force multiplier |
| << < (45/71) > >> |
| electrodacus:
--- Quote from: cbutlera on February 11, 2023, 01:53:24 am --- I can see that now. Your lever and fulcum example clarifies your understanding of Newton's third law to me quite well. Would you agree that my statement 5) is always true in a non-accelerating frame of reference? Again, as a general statement about non-accelerating frames of reference, not just with regard to this specific example. --- End quote --- Can you clarify where your think understanding of Newton's third law differs from mine ? Do you understand that example (a) (actually all but I'm most interested in example (a)) will be equivalent with the above diagram if the fulcrum was not in contact with ground so could not transfer any force to ground (floating fulcrum) ? To make the case (a) equivalent with the above the vehicle body (blue color part) will need to be connected rigidly to ground. There is no good analogy to make because gravity is involved here and fulcrum not touching the ground (floating fulcrum) will be ridiculous but that is what device in case (a) is a gearbox with floating body thus is incapable of force multiplication same as this with floating fulcrum can not do force multiplication. Regarding accelerating vs non accelerating reference frames. For case (a) it is irrelevant as you have a locked gearbox that can not move so for any force F1 the F2 will be equal and opposite. There is no specification of wheel friction or material elasticity in case (a) But if you consider a real case instead of the theoretical case then there is both elasticity (no material is perfectly rigid) and there is also friction. The other important aspect in a real setup is the fact that there is a stationary friction coefficient and a kinetic one and they are different. Because of elasticity when treadmill is started / turn ON there will be movement but because the mechanism (vehicle/gearbox) acts as a solid object unless the treadmill can provide a force large enough to exceed the stationary friction the input wheel will rotate a bit stretching the belt and then stop in that condition will net force on vehicle always zero. The instant the force F1 exceeds stationary friction the net force will no longer be zero but the direction of this net force and the source will depend on which wheel slips. If is the output wheel that slips then net force will point to the left and be provided by treadmill and if the input wheel slips the net force will point to the right and be provided by the stored elastic energy. I think this is as good and complete example of what happens and also demonstrated in real experiments. It seems to me that your explanation for vehicle moving to the right is force multiplication from a functional gearbox. In order for this to be the explanation you will need to prove me that a gearbox with only two points of contact can do force multiplication. There is to my knowledge no force multiplication device that can work with just two points of contact (the input and the output) and no third point the "body/case" against which it can reference the input and output. |
| electrodacus:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 11, 2023, 02:49:14 am ---I don't care about your games one way or another, but I do care about the fact that other people, especially youngsters lacking the education yet, can find these threads by doing a web search using suitable search terms, and may be swayed by your convincing-sounding writing, even though there is no logic, science, or rational thought behind your language. It's exactly the same mechanism charismatic movements and cult leaders gather following, by manipulating others. And I hate that, because it wastes those peoples' time and honest efforts; those youngsters doing the web searches are really trying to learn, and you're deliberately fucking that up for them. I despise your behaviour here for that reason, just like I despise people who smear human excrement on the walls, even if they do it to a building I myself will never visit. All my efforts in this thread are not for you, electrodacus, even though I don't consider you an enemy, and only want you too to learn. My efforts have been to minimise the long-term negative efforts your language games here are making to others' efforts to learn. Regardless of what do you here to "win" or bolster your ego, you need to remember we're spending our time and effort in this thread, only to minimize the negative effects of your illogical and irrational babble has on others reading these texts. It is quite sad, really. --- End quote --- I can echo exactly what you have mentioned here except for the part about cults and human excrements. I just think there is some brain limitation that makes you unable to understand the correct explanation of how this sort of vehicle works. The title of this thread is force multiplier as that is your explanation of how this vehicle could move to the right. My simplest debunk is that you can not have force multiplication while having just two points of contact and that will require 3 points. So you either disagree that 3 points are needed and then provide a real world device that I can buy that will do that (like a force multiplier wrench) or you specify what is the third point since I do not see one in diagram (a). |
| IanB:
--- Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 03:00:29 am ---I just think there is some brain limitation that makes you unable to understand the correct explanation of how this sort of vehicle works. --- End quote --- Anyone reading this thread now or in the future needs to understand that the "you" highlighted in the above sentence refers to the whole world of physicists and engineers other than electrodacus. That somehow electrodacus has a unique understanding that the whole rest of the world lacks, and that the whole rest of the world has some kind of brain limitation that prevents them understanding what only electrodacus can see. Anyone reading this thread then has to consider how likely is it that the above situation is true? |
| electrodacus:
--- Quote from: IanB on February 11, 2023, 03:10:13 am --- --- Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 03:00:29 am ---I just think there is some brain limitation that makes you unable to understand the correct explanation of how this sort of vehicle works. --- End quote --- Anyone reading this thread now or in the future needs to understand that the "you" highlighted in the above sentence refers to the whole world of physicists and engineers other than electrodacus. That somehow electrodacus has a unique understanding that the whole rest of the world lacks, and that the whole rest of the world has some kind of brain limitation that prevents them understanding what only electrodacus can see. Anyone reading this thread then has to consider how likely is it that the above situation is true? --- End quote --- No not the whole world just a very limited number that I interacted with. Keep in mind that we (all humans) have a lot of quite significant brain limitations and we see thing that are not there or do not see things that are there. Here is a good example of what I'm saying. A and B squares (the background) are the exact same shade on gray Drawing a line makes it evident |
| fourfathom:
--- Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 12:35:37 am --- --- Quote from: fourfathom on February 11, 2023, 12:30:52 am --- --- Quote from: electrodacus on February 10, 2023, 11:54:19 pm ---some other energy source is present like in this case a small energy storage device. --- End quote --- This is *NOT* an energy source. --- End quote --- It is a charged energy storage device. How will you call that if not an energy source ? --- End quote --- And what is the source of this stored energy? Please explain why this source cannot be used directly, without the intermediate energy storage / discharge (stick / slip). This is a critical point which you persist in ignoring. This sounds like a religious axiom for you: unprovable and must be accepted on faith. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |