General > General Technical Chat

Force multiplier

<< < (46/71) > >>

electrodacus:

--- Quote from: fourfathom on February 11, 2023, 03:57:47 am ---
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.

--- End quote ---

The source is the treadmill.  Treadmill can only push the vehicle in the same direction that treadmill moves and you need an energy storage device if you want to move in the opposite direction.
I'm not a religious men and I do not accept anything based on faith. The experiment's I made fully confirm what I'm saying.

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 03:00:29 am ---The title of this thread is force multiplier as that is your explanation of how this vehicle could move to the right.
--- End quote ---
No, my explanation of how this vehicle moves to the right is described by simple kinematics, and requires no "force multiplier" or anything like that.


--- Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 03:00:29 am ---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).
--- End quote ---
No, that is a loaded question.

Either you admit your understanding is wrong because others have proven it to be wrong, or you are a troll who gets their rocks off by misleading people into magical thinking and idiocy.  Which one will you do?

electrodacus:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 11, 2023, 04:51:05 am ---No, my explanation of how this vehicle moves to the right is described by simple kinematics, and requires no "force multiplier" or anything like that.

No, that is a loaded question.

Either you admit your understanding is wrong because others have proven it to be wrong, or you are a troll who gets their rocks off by misleading people into magical thinking and idiocy.  Which one will you do?

--- End quote ---

It just seems to me that you are ignoring physics and reality.  Reality is not described by kinematics.
Kinematics definition from Oxford Languages
"the branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces which cause the motion."

To elaborate on the definition is that with kinematics you can understand the way an object can move if you can have any forces you want acting on all parts of that object.

This particular example has only one force acting on it and that force is applied between the ground (reference) and input wheel.
The output wheel is the only other contact point and that is also connected to ground.
So there is a force applied between the input and output of this object (basically a floating body gearbox).

There is no proof for your claims and all experiments are in accordance with my explanation. I see no deviation or thing that is not explained by energy storage plus stick slip hysteresis.

Others seem to disagree with you and insist on the force multiplier theory. I will say that that is wrong because of the floating body your kinematics only no force involved theory is much more ridiculous.
If there is no net force the vehicle will not move. How you get that net force is the main question and not what are the degrees of freedom for this vehicle.
I showed this same vehicle moving in both directions with the same applied force by only manipulating the amount of friction on the input and output wheels.
I also explained how it works in both cases. The fact that you can not understand will not make you true unless you provide a proper explanation for both cases and why movement is only possible if wheels are allowed to slide.

In your kinematic model there is no slip as you can assume forces will act against the vehicle body without the need to explain where those magic forces come from.

Nominal Animal:

--- 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 ---
Especially since some of us actually have done physics research for a living, applying Newtonian mechanics every day for years; and always with the core understanding that garbage fed into the models yields garbage results, so that the very first examination of any model or result set is always Does this make any sense?  How does this make sense, if it does?

I have a background in physics research, centered at materials physics, but because I particularly enjoy making tools for other researchers, actually extending to quite a various subfields of physics.  I've always been interested in mechanisms and how they work, and modeling their behaviour.  I could write a few self-aggrandizing but verifiably correct (and occasionally funny, because it all would start at childhood, almost half a century ago – I even built my first hut before puberty, with others laughing how ramshackle it looked, and laughing even more when they found out how sturdy it actually was!) paragraphs on exactly why the structures in my brain are actually quite well suited for physics and science and scientific analysis and analysing mechanisms, way more so than average physicist or engineer; but the simple truth is that I've done so quite a bit, successfully, in many subfields, in both the real world and when helping others with actual peer-reviewed physics research.  Tested and found reliable enough, in other words.

The proper understanding of this stuff is important to me.  There are situations when you need analogs and an intuitive understanding instead of exactly correct understanding, and situations when an exactly correct understanding and model are needed.  This is why I do not refer to authority or "laws" nearly as often as others do, because I don't care if people are exactly correct: it suffices their understanding is reliable and allows them to extrapolate and integrate additional information without getting confused.

(The cases where I've made errors do haunt me.  I could discuss the time when I realized I had confused chitin and keratin (former being a polysaccharide and the latter a protein), simply because they have very similar properties and similar names; or the time I realized I had remembered the typical geostationary orbit elevation wrong by a factor of 1000.  I do make errors, but it is important to me I admit them, because leading others astray does actual harm, whereas admitting making an error only feels bad and hurts ones ego.)

This is also why I strongly oppose incorrect modeling (picking a few random forces, and claiming they describe the system, when they clearly do not), and prefer to start at kinematics, which is much easier to understand, and harder to get wrong.  Understanding is not achieved by convincing others; it is achieved by making testable hypotheses, applying ones understanding, and comparing the results to the real world observed results.  Because of this, I find Popperian falsifiability a more valid approach to science than basic verifiability.  It is also exactly why instead of posting a video, I posted the exact description/recipe/model of a vehicle anyone can build and reproduce the findings: no need to take my word for truth, here is how you can find out for yourself.

I know now I cannot help electrodacus understand, no matter how much effort I spend, but I do hope I've helped anyone else reading this thread to not be convinced by electrodacus' physically daft but linquistically clever writings.  On the surface, it looks so reasonable; but if you examine the questions and answers, you can see the lack of logic, rationality, and any kind of scientific rigor: only the opposite, a religious stance on incorrect assertions that no proof will ever shake.

:horse:

SiliconWizard:
Oh, but does time slip when you're enjoying yourself! :-DD

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