General > General Technical Chat
Force multiplier
electrodacus:
--- Quote from: PlainName on February 02, 2023, 07:05:10 pm ---Wrong. Don't start this again, please. Just take your beliefs and believe them - you don't need converts to validate your belief if it's strong enough (and it surely is that, and then some).
--- End quote ---
I do not have beliefs I have good understanding of Newtonian physics.
I narrowed down to people not understanding Newton's 3'rd law.
The 3 equivalent diagrams above prove that most people have a wrong understanding of basic physics.
So if you want to say I'm wrong please point out the differences between the 3 equivalent examples or demonstrate in an experiment that F2 is larger than F1 in a non accelerating reference frame.
electrodacus:
--- Quote from: tom66 on February 02, 2023, 07:11:43 pm ---
Indeed. 'C' does nothing but leak some uA through the transistors. Definitely won't boost anything!
--- End quote ---
It is interesting that the more abstract example is better understood. I will say example B should be even simpler to understand for average people.
All 3 represent the same thing a floating ground and so they can not work (In case of A and B it means F2 can not be different from F1).
pcprogrammer:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 02, 2023, 06:14:34 pm ---No, not this again. |O
--- End quote ---
Was that not the veritasium versus electroboom thread that escalated or am I mistaken and was there yet another one. I knew I had seen example "a" before. :-DD
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 02, 2023, 06:14:34 pm ---Funnily enough, in the thread where this diagram first came up, I demonstrated an analogous vehicle (constructed of Lego) with sufficiently high gearing ratio does move. I even used a worm gear, to ensure there is no energy storage nor slip-stick effects. Didn't sway OP, because this is about belief and not physics for them.
The claimed diagram has very little to nothing to do with physics, it's just a drawing showing OP's beliefs. That's fine, but don't mistake them to have any relation to physical, observable and measurable reality.
--- End quote ---
I think the problem is that in real life there are many factors in play for example a, that don't come in to play in example b. But even example b is not free from additional factors depending on the force applied. Like for example leakage between the plunger and the wall.
I might build my own test for example "a" with FischerTechnik. I can use a chain drive to avoid slip in the drive of the two wheels, but there is no way to avoid slip between the wheels and the fixed block or the treadmill. Problem is the connection between the wheels and the axles though. Lego is probably better here because of the cross shaped drive shafts. I can use steel axles though.
Brings back memory of times at school. Used to love physics and mathematics :)
electrodacus:
--- Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 02, 2023, 08:25:12 pm ---Was that not the veritasium versus electroboom thread that escalated or am I mistaken and was there yet another one. I knew I had seen example "a" before. :-DD
--- End quote ---
You are likely thinking at electroboom vs Steve Mould and the chain fountain.
This is related to Veritasium video about vehicle driving downwind faster than wind.
While I was trying to explain that no vehicle powered only by wind can exceed wind speed directly downwind without energy storage (in that particular case pressure differential is what allows exceeding wind speed for a limited amount of time), I got to narrow down what people fail to understand and it is now narrowed down to this Newtown 3'rd law and thus this examples trying to explain that no force multiplication is possible with a floating body.
--- Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 02, 2023, 08:25:12 pm ---I think the problem is that in real life there are many factors in play for example a, that don't come in to play in example b. But even example b is not free from additional factors depending on the force applied. Like for example leakage between the plunger and the wall.
I might build my own test for example "a" with FischerTechnik. I can use a chain drive to avoid slip in the drive of the two wheels, but there is no way to avoid slip between the wheels and the fixed block or the treadmill. Problem is the connection between the wheels and the axles though. Lego is probably better here because of the cross shaped drive shafts. I can use steel axles though.
Brings back memory of times at school. Used to love physics and mathematics :)
--- End quote ---
The chain will not eliminate the energy storage part. It will be gravitational energy storage for chain but the type of energy storage is not relevant.
See this video I made slow motion again is needed when using gears around second 9 is when energy is discharged https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/120fps24:9
It is the close up of this and upside down https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/gear-slow30p2:9
In this case the two gears are the entire vehicle and it uses gravitational energy storage due to the shape of the gear tooth that allows the entire mechanism to be lifted when force is applied and the it will fall over as seen at around second 9 in the closeup upside down video.
PlainName:
--- Quote ---While I was trying to explain that no vehicle powered only by wind can exceed wind speed directly downwind without energy storage (in that particular case pressure differential is what allows exceeding wind speed for a limited amount of time), I got to narrow down what people fail to understand and it is now narrowed down to this Newtown 3'rd law...
--- End quote ---
Complete rubbish. What you got to narrow down was how to steer off into the weeds when you were being led through how it worked. You are a master at deflection and diversion, that's all.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version