Author Topic: Force multiplier  (Read 33949 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #275 on: February 12, 2023, 06:12:06 am »
The answers I here from people that answered here is gearbox so force multiplication or just completely ignoring forces and using kinematics only.

If that was to be true a 1:1 gear ratio will still have the wheels rotate and that is just not the case.
How about you stop lying, please?

The kinematics analysis shows without a doubt that a gear 1:1 ratio is a singular point: if there is a driven wheel on a treadmill, connected (via e.g. a belt) to a driving wheel of the same size with a 1:1 gearing, with driven and driving wheels rotating in the same direction, the vehicle does not work.
This has been told you time and time again, yet you somehow keep claiming that we claim that even in that case the vehicle would work.  That is a dirty rotten lie, and you should be ashamed.

The singular point at 1:1 gear ratio is also at the core of the explanation of exactly why the gear ratio matters, and how gear ratios like 4:1 and higher work much better for such a demonstration vehicle, as lower gear ratios involve high relative speeds, and for acceleration from standstill, require such forces that tend to twist and bend the vehicle instead of behaving as a rigid structure.  To repeat once again, here is a graph of how the ratio of the velocities with respect to ground, treadmill surface speed (left) : vehicle speed right, as a function of the gear ratio \$G\$ behaves:

At 1:1, the vehicle would need to move at plus or minus infinite speed, which is obviously unphysical and describes a nonfunctioning vehicle.
The graph describes the same information as the table in reply #240.

Take the vehicle in case (a) with 1:1 gear ratio have the treadmill freewheel (not powered) push on the vehicle body (force applied between ground and vehicle body) and the speed of the vehicle relative to ground will be the same as the treadmill surface speed relative to ground.

If the treadmill is powered as in case (a) and that is what applies the force between ground and input wheel then vehicle can not move as it is a locked gear same as for any gear ratio including 2:1 and 4:1.
As explained the reason it can move with 2:1 or 4:1 is because the moment the input wheel slips the stretched belt acts on the non symmetrical sized pulleys so it can convert that elastic stored energy in the belt in to vehicle kinetic energy.
At 1:1 gear ratio there is still energy storage the only problem is that there is no priority as both wheels will slip at about the same time if they are the same and same type of material like paper.  If there was different amount of grip at one of the wheels then vehicle will move as it will be dragged the same as it was for the 2:1 gear ratio in my video.

So I think we should be talking about the same vehicle and that is the case (a) not whatever you came up with with different size wheels and no clear relation between those wheels plus the asymmetry of higher treadmill.

Online Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7196
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #276 on: February 12, 2023, 06:13:54 am »
For 2:1
X = 1m (distance the vehicle body moved relative to ground).
Y = 2m (distance the treadmill surface moved relative to ground).
No.  You pulled that out of your arse, and it is incorrect.

With a 2:1 gearing, i.e. wheels of the same size, belt with driven side pulley half the size of the driver side pulley, the vehicle will travel at exactly the same speed right with respect to ground, as the treadmill surface moves left with respect to ground.

In other words, for 2:1 gearing, using a belt (treadmill side pulley half the diameter of the driver side pulley),
x = 1m (distance the vehicle body moved right relative to ground).
y = 1m (distance the treadmill surface moved left relative to ground)

This is because the driven wheel turned twice the amount the driver wheel turned.
In other words, the contact point on the driver wheel (between driver wheel and ground) rotated a distance of 1m, but the contact point on the driven wheel (between driven wheel and treadmill surface) rotated a distance of 2m.  This is necessary for the distance between the two wheels to stay constant.

Remember, while the treadmill surface moves left by 1m, the driven wheel moves right by 1m, and thus it must rotate enough for 2m of travel.
 

Online Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7196
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #277 on: February 12, 2023, 06:16:55 am »
Take the vehicle in case (a) with 1:1 gear ratio have the treadmill freewheel (not powered) push on the vehicle body (force applied between ground and vehicle body) and the speed of the vehicle relative to ground will be the same as the treadmill surface speed relative to ground.
So, instead of admitting you are wrong, you just switch the test setup, with now the treadmill freewheeling and a force pushing on the vehicle, instead of how you described your test setup earlier.

How very dodgy of you.
 

Online Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7196
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #278 on: February 12, 2023, 06:28:06 am »
Can we just end the thread here, please?
I think electrodacus' assertions have shifted so far into lying (about what others have claimed and what actually happens when you do the experiments), that it might be time to, yeah.

Straight out lying in a tech/science thread should be punishable by a (temporary) ban, in my opinion.
 

Offline cbutlera

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: gb
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #279 on: February 12, 2023, 10:11:16 am »

There is no Newton's law of the locked gearbox. There is no Newton's law of the slipping wheels.  You just keep quoting your own made-up laws of mechanics as if they represent some kind of proof.

Again, you haven't replied with any further Newton's third law force-pairs from the book resting on a table example.  So I can only assume from that that you don't know, and yet you claim to be an expert on that subject.  I'll give you a clue, gravity is involved.  Now can you list any more of the force-pairs?

Seems like you are changing the subject but fine.
...

Throughout this interminable argument, you have put Newton’s third law of motion right at the heart of your criticism of the kinematic analysis.  When asked to demonstrate that you understand that law you fail to do so, and you accuse me of changing the subject.  What could possibly be more pertinent to the subject than demonstrating that you know what you are talking about?

You seem to believe that understanding a law of physics is unnecessary, all you need to do is to memorize it and to quote it.  I will repeat what Nominal Animal has said to you.  That is not science, it is religion.

If you genuinely want to try and understand Newton’s third law, there are many on-line resources available.  Here is a video lecture that you might find helpful from an MIT course on classical mechanics

Can we just end the thread here, please?

Yeah, you are right.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2023, 10:17:05 am by cbutlera »
 

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #280 on: February 12, 2023, 04:35:15 pm »
No.  You pulled that out of your arse, and it is incorrect.

With a 2:1 gearing, i.e. wheels of the same size, belt with driven side pulley half the size of the driver side pulley, the vehicle will travel at exactly the same speed right with respect to ground, as the treadmill surface moves left with respect to ground.

In other words, for 2:1 gearing, using a belt (treadmill side pulley half the diameter of the driver side pulley),
x = 1m (distance the vehicle body moved right relative to ground).
y = 1m (distance the treadmill surface moved left relative to ground)

This is because the driven wheel turned twice the amount the driver wheel turned.
In other words, the contact point on the driver wheel (between driver wheel and ground) rotated a distance of 1m, but the contact point on the driven wheel (between driven wheel and treadmill surface) rotated a distance of 2m.  This is necessary for the distance between the two wheels to stay constant.

Remember, while the treadmill surface moves left by 1m, the driven wheel moves right by 1m, and thus it must rotate enough for 2m of travel.

Yes you are correct treadmill surface relative to ground moves 1m to the left while vehicle moves 1m to the right so relative to vehicle the treadmill moves 2m to the left.

The important point I try to make is that this can only happen if treadmill is free wheel and you push on the vehicle body relative to ground.
If you do not touch the vehicle body and the treadmill is powered the treadmill will not be able to rotate at all unless it can apply a force large enough for wheels to slip.
No wheel slip no vehicle motion relative to ground.


This bold part above is the only part I'm interested in making you understand. Or if you can prove to me that I'm wrong about this I'm ready to hear.

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #281 on: February 12, 2023, 04:44:37 pm »
Throughout this interminable argument, you have put Newton’s third law of motion right at the heart of your criticism of the kinematic analysis.  When asked to demonstrate that you understand that law you fail to do so, and you accuse me of changing the subject.  What could possibly be more pertinent to the subject than demonstrating that you know what you are talking about?


Please explain what forces act (all forces) against the vehicle in case (a) when treadmill is powered and nothing touches the vehicle body as drawn in case (a)
Because the kinematic model assume a force acts on the vehicle body and the treadmill is not powered but freewheel witch is a completely different case than (a).

Only by ignoring Newton's 3'rd law you can say that anything in case (a) can move and it is not locked assuming there is no slip.
The main claim I make and you have no argument is that without wheel slip vehicle in case (a) will not move.
I saw no proof either real world test or theoretical that vehicle can move without slip.
I explained bot the theory and shown the real world test where the slip is clearly visible both for case where left wheels slip and the case for the right wheels slip.

Offline fourfathom

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2005
  • Country: us
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #282 on: February 12, 2023, 06:46:48 pm »
Yes you are correct treadmill surface relative to ground moves 1m to the left while vehicle moves 1m to the right so relative to vehicle the treadmill moves 2m to the left.

The important point I try to make is that this can only happen if treadmill is free wheel and you push on the vehicle body relative to ground.
If you do not touch the vehicle body and the treadmill is powered the treadmill will not be able to rotate at all unless it can apply a force large enough for wheels to slip.
No wheel slip no vehicle motion relative to ground.

Insanity.

Where does this "stick-slip" energy come from?  If there is perfect traction where does this energy go?  I've asked you this many times with no straight answer.

Why does changing the reference plane change the behavior from "free-rolling" to "stick"?

I don't know why this is so fun...  It's kind of like those Dodgy Technology and Audiophool threads.  You know you'll never convince, but it's like a traffic accident, where you just have to slow down and look.
We'll search out every place a sick, twisted, solitary misfit might run to! -- I'll start with Radio Shack.
 

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #283 on: February 12, 2023, 07:12:26 pm »
Insanity.

Where does this "stick-slip" energy come from?  If there is perfect traction where does this energy go?  I've asked you this many times with no straight answer.

Why does changing the reference plane change the behavior from "free-rolling" to "stick"?

I don't know why this is so fun...  It's kind of like those Dodgy Technology and Audiophool threads.  You know you'll never convince, but it's like a traffic accident, where you just have to slow down and look.

There is no such thing as "stick-slip" energy.
There is elastic energy stored in the belt and the energy comes from the treadmill.
So when treadmill is started it will rotate the input wheel (the one on the right) but while wheel rotates the vehicle will not move at all so all energy delivered by the treadmill to the input wheel will be stored as elastic energy in the stretched belt.
As the belt is stretched more the force acting on the input wheel by the treadmill is so high that the wheel will slip on the treadmill surface that makes the force drop and this allows the stored energy in the belt to internally power the vehicle accelerating the vehicle in the opposite direction that the treadmill.

You can see exactly what I'm describing in this video  https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/wheel-cart-energy-storage-slow:8
Just set the player speed to 0.25x and watch what happens to the input and output wheels.
The stick slip are the triggers to charge and discharge the energy that is stored mostly in belt in this example.

Online IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12539
  • Country: us
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #284 on: February 12, 2023, 07:18:46 pm »
As the belt is stretched more the force acting on the input wheel by the treadmill is so high that the wheel will slip on the treadmill surface that makes the force drop and this allows the stored energy in the belt to internally power the vehicle accelerating the vehicle in the opposite direction that the treadmill.

This is clearly nonsense. If a wheel slips to release stored energy, the only thing that can happen is that the stored energy is wasted. Slipping is the enemy of energy conservation.

Quote
You can see exactly what I'm describing in this video  https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/wheel-cart-energy-storage-slow:8
Just set the player speed to 0.25x and watch what happens to the input and output wheels.
The stick slip are the triggers to charge and discharge the energy that is stored mostly in belt in this example.

You keep bringing up this video but nobody responds because it clearly does not do what you say it does. Your comments about it are delusional.
 

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #285 on: February 12, 2023, 10:18:06 pm »
This is clearly nonsense. If a wheel slips to release stored energy, the only thing that can happen is that the stored energy is wasted. Slipping is the enemy of energy conservation.

For a gear ratio different form 1:1 the energy is not wasted as the vehicle is able to move using that stored energy.
If the input wheel slips only then the output is able to take advantage of the energy stored in the belt.
Even when the output wheel slips there is still work done as the vehicle will be accelerated in the same direction as the belt and yes there is a lot of wasted energy because it is a locked gear.

You keep bringing up this video but nobody responds because it clearly does not do what you say it does. Your comments about it are delusional.

OK then you explain what you see in that video.

If you see the vehicle stationary the treadmill moves and the input rotates will this not mean that there is power available at the input and that power integrated over time is energy that it is stored ?  It is clear that belt is elastic and you need to apply a force to stretch it and since it is rubber it is elastic deformation not plastic deformation.
If the vehicle will have started to move and the belt remained stretched then yes there will be no energy discharge but it can be seen in the video that belt relaxes as the vehicle accelerates.

What if the gear ratio is 1:1. Why is the vehicle not moving and locked If this was not a lock gear configuration the gear ratio will not be relevant. It should work as 1:1, 1.5:1, 2:1 or 4:1
For the vehicle to move you need wheel slip else no movement no matter the gear ratio.
The kinematic only will show this vehicle has wheels rotate no matter the gear ratio but that can not predict what happens in reality as it ignores the forces acting on the vehicle.  And net force is always zero unless there is slip.

Online IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12539
  • Country: us
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #286 on: February 12, 2023, 10:31:30 pm »
The kinematic only will show this vehicle has wheels rotate no matter the gear ratio

But it doesn't show that, does it?

By saying this, you are only showing you are not able to read or understand the analysis provided by Nominal Animal, and if you are not able to read or comprehend such an analysis, you are not able or qualified to make any claims about anything under discussion.

This is why everyone thinks you are either a troll or a fool.

Under such circumstances there is no point trying to debate anything you say.
 

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #287 on: February 12, 2023, 10:32:23 pm »
Pardon me for asking the obvious, but why are you fixated on this slip business? Suppose we agree that you need this slip/release (energy storage in your parlance), you've then agree that using this the vehicle will go the other way to which the treadmill is moving. That's all that this is about - the slipping stuff is just something you've brought in to divert from the actual issue of the object moving towards the direction of the supplied force.

And, in fact, if we did accept this, you've even shown us a graph that, in your parlance, proves that it's a continuous process. That is, it will keep going as long as the treadmill rotates. So in the end you've agreed that even if it does need the energy storage it still works as expected over time because the store/release averages out yet the vehicle still move overall in the right direction.

The only way your stick/slip diversion could be meaningful (to the experiment rather than just you) is if the vehicle actually moved back and forth. But even your video shows that it doesn't - at worst, with your broken model that fakes stick/slip, it only halts before moving on again. The average of that is clearly a considerable movement in the right direction.

I hope you will take a few minutes to consider this properly, because I need a bit of time to get in the popcorn supplies.
 
The following users thanked this post: cbutlera

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #288 on: February 12, 2023, 11:45:21 pm »
Pardon me for asking the obvious, but why are you fixated on this slip business? Suppose we agree that you need this slip/release (energy storage in your parlance), you've then agree that using this the vehicle will go the other way to which the treadmill is moving. That's all that this is about - the slipping stuff is just something you've brought in to divert from the actual issue of the object moving towards the direction of the supplied force.

And, in fact, if we did accept this, you've even shown us a graph that, in your parlance, proves that it's a continuous process. That is, it will keep going as long as the treadmill rotates. So in the end you've agreed that even if it does need the energy storage it still works as expected over time because the store/release averages out yet the vehicle still move overall in the right direction.

The only way your stick/slip diversion could be meaningful (to the experiment rather than just you) is if the vehicle actually moved back and forth. But even your video shows that it doesn't - at worst, with your broken model that fakes stick/slip, it only halts before moving on again. The average of that is clearly a considerable movement in the right direction.

I hope you will take a few minutes to consider this properly, because I need a bit of time to get in the popcorn supplies.

It is impossible for a unpowered vehicle like vehicle (a) witch is basically a gearbox with floating body to move in the opposite direction of applied force unless as it is the case energy storage and stick slip hysteresis are involved.

It will be wrong to claim that slip is not required (mandatory) in order for this vehicle in case (a) to move in any direction.

And yes it will move as long as the treadmill moves but it will not be a perfectly continues motion. The average speed will be constant but there is variation in acceleration to maintain an average speed.  How large is the variation will depend on the internal friction losses as that leads to vehicle slowing down and then a charge discharge cycle will accelerate the vehicle back above average speed.

At higher speed the vehicle will never completely stop as shown in that video it will only slow down as the mass of the vehicle acts as a smoothing capacitor in an electrical circuit so there will still be a ripple as vehicle accelerates (due to stored energy) and decelerates (due to friction losses).

That is the big problem that even with the wrong model you get a similar result and will require accurate measurement to show that result is incorrect with your model.

Once I'm able to prove that energy storage and stick slip hysteresis is what really happens (what will fully convince you that this is correct?) then I can demonstrate that any wind powered vehicle driving directly upwind powered by the wind requires energy storage in order to do so.

The other one directly downwind will require an even more complex explanation so I need to have this simpler one done first.
While the direct upwind can travel indefinitely the direct downwind can only travel faster than wind for a limited amount of time and to recharge it will need to drop below wind speed.

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #289 on: February 12, 2023, 11:58:53 pm »
Quote
And yes it will move as long as the treadmill moves but it will not be a perfectly continues motion.

For the purpose of the actual problem, why does it need to be a 'perfectly continues motion'? So long as overall it is in the right direction surely that's all that counts.
 

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #290 on: February 13, 2023, 12:09:08 am »
But it doesn't show that, does it?

By saying this, you are only showing you are not able to read or understand the analysis provided by Nominal Animal, and if you are not able to read or comprehend such an analysis, you are not able or qualified to make any claims about anything under discussion.

This is why everyone thinks you are either a troll or a fool.

Under such circumstances there is no point trying to debate anything you say.

If you remember his kinematic only model treadmill moved the ground moved and vehicle moved. So set a 1:1 gear ratio in that model and you can show treadmill and ground moving same distance in same direction while vehicle remains in the same place and of course wheels rotate.
That is because the kinematic model does not care about forces and where they are applied.

Nothing ever in this universe as far as we know moves directly against the direction of applied force without using energy storage. Where will the net force come from if you can not have force multiplication ? Or did you found the proof that you can do force multiplication with just two points of contact.
In vehicle (a) F2 is only larger when F3 and F4 change direction (discharging energy stored in the belt) so in that moment vehicle is no longer powered by treadmill but by belt stored energy and due to offset of those applied forces F2 > F1 for that sort period of time during discharge.

But what I I build a higher quality vehicle get a high frame rate camera and I show you with say a 3:1 or 4:1 that front wheel slips intermittently while vehicle looks to drive smoothly at real time video but intermittent slip when video is slowed down. Will such a video convince you that energy storage is used ?
 

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #291 on: February 13, 2023, 12:19:49 am »

For the purpose of the actual problem, why does it need to be a 'perfectly continues motion'? So long as overall it is in the right direction surely that's all that counts.

Not it is not all that counts.

All that counts is the description of what happens. Correct theory so you can make accurate prediction.
If you use the wrong theory to make predictions and the result seems almost correct will you consider that to be fine ?

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #292 on: February 13, 2023, 12:32:11 am »
Quote
All that counts is the description of what happens. Correct theory so you can make accurate prediction.

Sounds good. When are you going to try that?
 

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #293 on: February 13, 2023, 12:59:06 am »
Quote
All that counts is the description of what happens. Correct theory so you can make accurate prediction.
Sounds good. When are you going to try that?

I already did that multiple times but here is the description.

Configuration (a) is locked so it can not move unless applied force is large enough for the wheel to slip on the surface it is in contact with.
I had a super lightweight plastic vehicle with some hard rubber wheels on paper thus nut much force is needed for the wheels to slip.
This can be measured if you are not convinced.
Before it slips some energy is stored if there is a force and the treadmill surface moved.
Potential elastic energy = Force * distance the treadmill moved before wheel slip.
The moment wheel slips force at the input wheel drops significantly allowing part of potential elastic energy to be converted to potential kinetic energy.
The belt will no longer be stretched as the wheel slips and so F3 and F4 change direction and pull on the two different size pulleys so F2 larger for a brief moment as the potential elastic energy is converted to potential kinetic energy.
At this point the input wheel sticks again and the cycle repeats.   

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #294 on: February 13, 2023, 07:28:50 am »
Quote
All that counts is the description of what happens. Correct theory so you can make accurate prediction.
Sounds good. When are you going to try that?

I already did that multiple times but here is the description.

You already made the prediction but the reality doesn't agree. Even your model, complete with your fantasy stick/slip, overall moves in the 'wrong' direction. And that's your prediction with 20/20 hindsight! Hope you're not involved with TV weather forecasts.
 

Offline HuronKing

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Country: us
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #295 on: February 13, 2023, 08:15:28 am »
Here's something amusing. The actual people who built the faster-than-wind device that bothers the OP so much told him he's full of crap on another forum:
https://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,24.4100.html

Quote
spork
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #4117 – July 03, 2021, 12:25:42 AM
Quote from: electrodacus on July 02, 2021, 11:06:15 PM
Quote
Please read my replay to Michael C and the one to Testy Calibrate.

Yup - I've read those.  They're wrong too.

Quote
Saying I'm wrong and not pointing where exactly is not helpful.

Fortunately I can explain that... I'm not trying to help.  Just telling your you're wrong - because... you're wrong.

If you wanted help, you'd be asking questions - not telling us how the thing works when we designed and built it, and drove it for two world records.
 
The following users thanked this post: PlainName, cbutlera

Offline cbutlera

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: gb
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #296 on: February 13, 2023, 09:36:30 am »
Here's something amusing. The actual people who built the faster-than-wind device that bothers the OP so much told him he's full of crap on another forum:
https://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,24.4100.html

Oh, thank you for finding that page of discussion, it was priceless.  The comment “I see. Thanks for explaining.” had me rolling on the floor laughing.
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #297 on: February 13, 2023, 10:46:22 am »
I stopped reading the posts at some point but do like to add one with a link to a video I made showing that vehicles with a different gear ratio travel different distances when getting the same force applied under the same circumstances.


Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #298 on: February 13, 2023, 03:38:41 pm »
You already made the prediction but the reality doesn't agree. Even your model, complete with your fantasy stick/slip, overall moves in the 'wrong' direction. And that's your prediction with 20/20 hindsight! Hope you're not involved with TV weather forecasts.

What prediction I made is not matching reality ?

And if we talk about predictions how about you (or anyone else) make a prediction about this situation.

Vehicle in case (a) has the output wheel (left wheel) on a slippery surface say ice while input wheel (right wheel) has excellent grip on the treadmill.
Vehicle start as stationary and the treadmill is turned ON

Question is what will happen with the vehicle ?

a) Will wheels just spin with vehicle not going anywhere.
b) Will wheels spin and vehicle will also be accelerated to the left.
c) Will wheels spin and vehicle will be accelerated to the right.
d) Will wheels not spin and vehicle be accelerated to the left.

Explain also why will wheel's spin or not speed depending on the prediction you made.

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #299 on: February 13, 2023, 03:45:12 pm »
I stopped reading the posts at some point but do like to add one with a link to a video I made showing that vehicles with a different gear ratio travel different distances when getting the same force applied under the same circumstances.



Thanks for making the video.

Of course that gear ratio is important. It will be relevant each time the stored energy is discharged as the belt or chain will pull on the pulley or sprockets asymmetrically based on the difference in size so gear ratio.

I ask you to make the same prediction as PlainName

Vehicle in case (a) has the output wheel (left wheel) on a slippery surface say ice while input wheel (right wheel) has excellent grip on the treadmill.
Vehicle start as stationary and the treadmill is turned ON

Question is what will happen with the vehicle ?

a) Will wheels just spin with vehicle not going anywhere.
b) Will wheels spin and vehicle will also be accelerated to the left.
c) Will wheels spin and vehicle will be accelerated to the right.
d) Will wheels not spin and vehicle be accelerated to the left.

Explain also why will wheel's spin or not speed depending on the prediction you made.
Try to first think of what will happens then you can do the experiment.
This should convince you that wheels can only rotate if there is energy involved and right wheel slip stick hysteresis.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf