So again, if I have this right, during the stick phase, the vehicle remains stationary, and the input wheel slips against the direction of the treadmill. During the slip phase, the vehicle moves forwards, the output wheel turns without slipping, and the input wheel slips with the direction of the treadmill, catching up to the point where it would have been had it not slipped.
Is this correct?
Maybe it was a typo but during the stick phase the input wheel will not slip will rotate and store elastic energy.
As soon as the front wheel slips the vehicle starts to move powered by that stored energy so it converts that elastic stored energy into kinetic energy and some is lost as heat due to slip.
Then that kinetic energy decreases as it is used up by the frictional losses thus as vehicle slows down the elastic energy is again charged until the moment the front wheel slips and so that elastic energy is in part lost to friction due to slip and the rest ends up as kinetic energy witch then power the other frictional losses.
What vaguely defined theories would those be?
I thought that you were supposed to be explaining your hypothesis to us. This isn’t a guessing game, we get to ask the questions. The rest of us are not pushing our own novel hypotheses, we already accept the explanation and experimental results published by the team that designed and built Blackbird, and broke two world records with it.
Everyone comes with some different explanations.
Most say that net force is not zero because the mechanism works as a gearbox so it directly converts the input F1 to an F2 larger by say 2x if the gear ratio is 2:1
Then others seems to think you do not even need forces to describe how vehicle works (that will be worse than first explanation even if both are wrong).
Unless you know the net force and direction you can not predict how vehicle will move and in this particular case all you need is to vary the grip or weight distribution and you get movement in the opposite direction and at different speed.
The first most popular explanation of force multiplication is not true as you can not do that with only two points of contact.Without a third leverage point you can not do force multiplication.
And the kinematic one can not describe the system as it takes no forces in to account.
My last problem can disprove both of this theories if understood and answered correctly as none of this can make the correct prediction.