Author Topic: Force multiplier  (Read 33937 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #325 on: February 14, 2023, 12:54:40 am »
I wonder how much room there is for further optimization to increase performance. Perhaps a flexible driveshaft to optimize the thrust angle would offset the mechanical losses added by the shaft? Variable pitch prop? The whole vehicle is an interesting concept that at a glance is not intuitive, but obviously it has been proven to work and after seeing it work the description of how it works does make sense.

There is not much that it can be optimized. The variable pitch is implemented on the large model (blackbird) but that only adds to number of variables like the wind speed variation is about 2x over the course of that record speed test and since the angle of the propeller blades are not in the available data the rest of the data is fairly useless.

But the treadmill model is a way better one to study and understand since there is no variable pitch and wind speed is zero as it is indoor while the treadmill speed is decently constant so not a problem to do a proper test with at least a quality high frame rate video from the side in order to be able to do measurements based on that video.

What will be observed there if measurement where to be done is that acceleration rate drops. That alone can predict when the vehicle will get to peak speed and start to slow down.
The treadmill is way to short but that can be fixed by increasing the weight of the vehicle so that vehicle will not be able to get to the end of the treadmill before it will start to slow down.
But to come up with all this you need to understand the mechanism through with that vehicle works.
And explaining air that is invisible and the fact that it is a compressible fluid it is way above the heads of people looking at this toy device.
There are people that understand what I say way better than me and can do a better job explaining all this but they have a carer and more valuable things to do that teach other physics.

You need to know the correct equation for power needed to overcome drag  https://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DragPower.html since internet is full of the wrong version of this equation.
And also here is the correct implementation https://www.electromotive.eu/?page_id=12&lang=en again plenti of other online calculators use the incorrect equation. The one in the link is the correct one.
That is just in the remote case you will want to look at this problem.

But the easier way will be to start by responding to my question (the one with 4 options).

Offline fourfathom

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2005
  • Country: us
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #326 on: February 14, 2023, 01:06:22 am »
Lying about what ?

Every time the vehicle body is touched in that video the energy storage is charged (no longer a floating body).

If the "spork" was touching the rear of the vehicle, preventing it from going backwards, you might have a point.
But it wasn't, and you don't.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2023, 02:22:35 am by fourfathom »
We'll search out every place a sick, twisted, solitary misfit might run to! -- I'll start with Radio Shack.
 

Offline HuronKing

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Country: us
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #327 on: February 14, 2023, 01:17:34 am »
You're a goddamn liar - and this is why spork/Rick Cavallaro told you to f*ck off.

Lying about what ?

Every time the vehicle body is touched in that video the energy storage is charged (no longer a floating body).
As long as the vehicle is restricted with hand or any other object touching the body it is nothing more than a treadmill powered fan.

If you take a video of that vehicle after you release from hand and measure in the video the acceleration rate you will see that acceleration rate drops as the energy storage is used up.
That means vehicle will get to a peak speed (point where stored energy can no longer accelerate the vehicle as pressure differential is converted in to vehicle kinetic energy) and then all friction losses will be powered by that stored kinetic energy meaning kinetic energy drops thus vehicle speed drops.


This is absolutely not what happens in this video:


And if this is still not satisfactory - how about a treadmill of infinite length so we don't have to worry about the cart flying off the end? Then we can see if the vehicle slows down and speeds back up. As shown in this video, your prediction is, again, absolutely not what happens:



And here the University of Berlin shows the same setup:


The cool part is these are all experiments you can do. Set it up and let it run for 5 minutes or whatever. Other people have, contrary to your lies, done these experiments and shown that stored kinetic energy has nothing to do with the propulsion of the vehicle beyond the wind speed.
https://dsimanek.vialattea.net/museum/DDWFTTW.htm

I'm not even that interested in this problem and I found these demos and evidence of Cavallaro's research in 2 minutes of Googling. Yet you sit there and claim neither he, nor anyone else, has tested these things to rule out your ad hoc explanation (that no one in the entire world, except you, subscribes to).

That is why you are lying.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2023, 01:28:35 am by HuronKing »
 

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #328 on: February 14, 2023, 01:20:53 am »
If the "spork" was touching the rear of the vehicle, preventing it from going backwards, you might have a point.
But it wasn't, and you don't.

It is irrelevant what part of the vehicle body is in contact with ground either through his hand or an object in his hand.
But you will need to understand why that vehicle works to understand why touching the vehicle in the way he did recharges the stored energy.

I do not want to discuss the more complex direct downwind version and prefer to stay with the current discussion that is about the direct upwind version witch is what case (a) is the equivalent to.

Attempting to answer my last question (the one with 4 choices) should lead to understanding what I'm trying to explain and a good start to understand how both upwind and eventually more complex downwind faster than wind works.

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #329 on: February 14, 2023, 01:47:14 am »

This is absolutely not what happens in this video:

And if this is still not satisfactory - how about a treadmill of infinite length? Then we can see if the vehicle slows down and speeds back up. As shown in this video, your prediction is, again, absolutely not what happens:



And here the University of Berlin shows the same setup:


The cool part is these are all experiments you can do. Set it up and let it run for 5 minutes or whatever. Other people have, contrary to your lies, done these experiments and shown that stored kinetic energy has nothing to do with the propulsion of the vehicle beyond the wind speed.

I'm not even that interested in this problem and I found these demos and evidence of Cavallaro's research in 2 minutes of Googling. Yet you sit there and claim neither he, nor anyone else, has tested these things to rule out your ad hoc explanation (that no one in the entire world, except you, subscribes to).

That is why you are lying.

What you see in that treadmill video is a treadmill powered fan.
As long as vehicle body is constrained to ground in any way it is nothing else than a treadmill powered fan. The charged energy can not be used so it is charged and remains charged.

The circular setup is not equivalent and has nothing to do with the linear treadmill experiment that is a good equivalent of the faster than wind direct downwind version as long as the body is not constrained in any way as in both of those videos you linked.

It is not just me that understands how this vehicle's work and there are people that have a way deeper understanding than I do since this is not my area of expertise apart of energy and energy storage where I'm by definition an expert.
Thus the claim (indirect) of breaking the energy conservation that got my interest. I did learned quite a bit more while trying to explain how it works and also learned more what is that many people have problems with.
I narrowed down to Newton's 3'rd law and energy conservation.

The explanation Rick and his believers including Derek of how the direct down wind vehicle works is this.
Get energy from the wheel (not understanding that energy comes from vehicle kinetic energy) then use that energy to power the propeller.
This is the entire explanation and sound exactly like you get a generator connect that to a motor with some gear ratio may be and you have a perpetuum mobile in fact even overunity.

The only way wind (moving air particles) can power any vehicle is by colliding elastically with the vehicle body and so transferring kinetic energy.
When vehicle is above wind speed it can no longer be powered directly by wind power as no particles will be able to collide with the back of the vehicle as vehicle moves faster than the air particles in exactly the same direction.
But the part that is ignored is that air is a compressible fluid so air particles still hit the back of the vehicle because when vehicle was below wind speed it used wind energy not only to accelerate the vehicle but most of it it was diverted to propeller that created a pressure differential thus storing energy allowing vehicle to exceed wind speed for a limited amount of time proportional with the amount of stored energy.

I can build a vehicle without a propeller that can exceed wind speed directly downwind using another form of energy storage like say a supercapacitor.
All you need is a small ideally foldable sail spend some time below wind speed to charge the supercapacitor then use that energy to exceed wind speed.
It will be cheaper less dangerous than the 20m^2 swept area propeller and achieve the exact same thing witch is to say fairly useless thus the reason you do not see any commercial applications using this.


But I need to insist that we return to the question with 4 possible answers as that will provide the missing understanding and it will be a good point to start and understand why this wind powered vehicles are not what they appear to be and do not work as advertised.

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #330 on: February 14, 2023, 01:50:23 am »
 :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse:
 

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #331 on: February 14, 2023, 01:54:01 am »
:horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse:

Even this took more time that will have been need to answer my question.

Offline HuronKing

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Country: us
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #332 on: February 14, 2023, 02:14:39 am »
What you see in that treadmill video is a treadmill powered fan.
As long as vehicle body is constrained to ground in any way it is nothing else than a treadmill powered fan. The charged energy can not be used so it is charged and remains charged.

Ahh you're oh so, so, so close to getting it. The charged energy is NEVER used even when the vehicle is completely unrestrained - in which case the vehicle would just drive along forever beyond the wind speed, if we had a powered treadmill of infinite length. The people who invented the Blackbird told you about this and explained why in the other forum... until they lost patience with you and told you to f*ck off so now you're here to try deceiving a fresh audience of unsuspecting engineers.

Quote
The circular setup is not equivalent and has nothing to do with the linear treadmill experiment that is a good equivalent of the faster than wind direct downwind version as long as the body is not constrained in any way as in both of those videos you linked.

Of course you'd say this - because it utterly destroys your prediction that the vehicle should speed up/slow down/speed up/slow down.

For some inexplicable reason your made-up theory of stick-slip hysteresis and "energy storage" doesn't apply to the experiment that obliterates everything you've claimed but, instead, you are relying on thought experiments with flawed premises which, essentially, become untestable hypotheses. That makes your whole approach unscientific.

No one has a linear treadmill of infinite length - and you haven't bothered to actually prove your claim that the vehicles should speed up/slow down/speed up/slow down. We do have treadmills of infinite length - they're called turntables. And they do NOT exhibit any of the behavior you predict. They exceed windspeed and do not slow down once they reach steady-state. And you can't explain why.

So, we can safely dismiss you as an ignorant crackpot.
 

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #333 on: February 14, 2023, 02:27:20 am »

Ahh you're oh so, so, so close to getting it. The charged energy is NEVER used even when the vehicle is completely unrestrained - in which case the vehicle would just drive along forever beyond the wind speed, if we had a powered treadmill of infinite length. The people who invented the Blackbird told you about this and explained why in the other forum... until they lost patience with you and told you to f*ck off so now you're here to try deceiving a fresh audience of unsuspecting engineers.

So what powers the vehicle when above wind speed direct downwind if not stored energy ?
Wind can no longer power a vehicle at or above wind speed directly downwind

The answer I get to this is that is powered by the wheel on the ground.
My reply to that is any energy taken at the wheel will be from vehicle kinetic energy which means vehicle speed will decrease.
And putting all that energy from the wheel in to another wheel (more efficient) or a propeller will still reduce the speed as you can not output more power at propeller than you take out from the wheel since that will violate the law of conservation of energy.


Of course you'd say this - because it utterly destroys your prediction that the vehicle should speed up/slow down/speed up/slow down.

For some inexplicable reason your made-up theory of stick-slip hysteresis and "energy storage" doesn't apply to the experiment that obliterates everything you've claimed but, instead, you are relying on thought experiments with flawed premises which, essentially, become untestable hypotheses. That makes your whole approach unscientific.

No one has a linear treadmill of infinite length - and you haven't bothered to actually prove your claim that the vehicles should speed up/slow down/speed up/slow down. We do have treadmills of infinite length - they're called turntables. And they do NOT exhibit any of the behavior you predict. They exceed windspeed and do not slow down once they reach steady-state. And you can't explain why.

So, we can safely dismiss you as an ignorant crackpot.

Treadmill will not need to be longer just add weight to vehicle since the stored energy is finite and will cover friction losses plus it will increase vehicle kinetic energy. So a heavier vehicle means the vehicle max speed will be lower for same amount of kinetic energy.

Again I need to insist you look up my last question the one with 4 options as that is testable in fact I will provide the proof instantly not even need to wait for an experiment.   

Online IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12538
  • Country: us
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #334 on: February 14, 2023, 02:27:58 am »
so now you're here to try deceiving a fresh audience of unsuspecting engineers

You do realize this is about the third thread electrodacus has created on this subject? He has been told to go forth and multiply by this forum twice before.

Do not feed the troll.

 
The following users thanked this post: james_s

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #335 on: February 14, 2023, 02:33:39 am »
You do realize this is about the third thread electrodacus has created on this subject? He has been told to go forth and multiply by this forum twice before.

Do not feed the troll.

It shows to things. I'm bad a explaining things and you (all reading my comments) have lack in knowledge and understanding of the system.
I was sure the 3 equivalent examples will be easy to understand. Once again I was wrong as you can not even understand the electrical setup with the floating ground.

But answer the question with 4 options. Else I may think that I'm being trolled.
The issue is likely not trolling but the fact that by answering that question you will corner yourself in accepting I'm right about how case (a) example works.

Offline HuronKing

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Country: us
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #336 on: February 14, 2023, 02:35:50 am »
so now you're here to try deceiving a fresh audience of unsuspecting engineers

You do realize this is about the third thread electrodacus has created on this subject? He has been told to go forth and multiply by this forum twice before.

Do not feed the troll.

Oh yes I'm aware. My purposes in posting are similar to Nominal Animal. This and other threads show up in Google searches about this subject. I'm making it known that not only has electrodacus started numerous threads here but ALSO that he's tried arguing this with the actual inventors of the wind-powered craft and they told him to f*ck off and his assertions have been roundly disproven by actual experiments.

And confronted with the circular treadmill that absolutely does not behave the way he says it should, his latest post is just floundering hemming and hawing and refusal to perform experiment.

That satisfies me.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #337 on: February 14, 2023, 02:56:22 am »
None of that matters. It's classic Usenet troll behavior, make some absurd claim, then deflect, distract and move the goalposts. Wash, rinse, repeat. It can go on forever as long as people keep getting baited into replying. I blocked him after this behavior pattern became obvious in the first thread and it makes it easier to not engage. It's hard to resist seeing everyone that does engage beating their heads against a wall though trying to explain something to someone that is unteachable because learning was never their goal in the first place.
 

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #338 on: February 14, 2023, 03:01:32 am »
None of that matters. It's classic Usenet troll behavior, make some absurd claim, then deflect, distract and move the goalposts. Wash, rinse, repeat. It can go on forever as long as people keep getting baited into replying. I blocked him after this behavior pattern became obvious in the first thread and it makes it easier to not engage. It's hard to resist seeing everyone that does engage beating their heads against a wall though trying to explain something to someone that is unteachable because learning was never their goal in the first place.

What will I have to gain wasting time explaining how things work ? Why anyone will do that as a troll ?
This sort of discussion seems to come up every time people no longer have a good answer to a question.

Not only will it be a simple question to answer but it is even multiple choice so all you need to write is a letter.
Admitting to be wrong seems to be to much for some people to handle.

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #339 on: February 14, 2023, 06:58:17 am »
What will I have to gain wasting time explaining how things work ? Why anyone will do that as a troll ?

That is a very good question, to which we all, the sane and normal people, would like to know the answer to.

To some extend it is fun to play along in these meaningless threads that are created for whatever reason. Maybe we have a new incarnation of treez/faringdon on our hands, because the latter seems to have calmed down.

Admitting to be wrong seems to be to much for some people to handle.

I would say get yourself a mirror and take a good look. You will see a person that is afflicted with that condition, you know, unable to admit he/she is wrong.

Online Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7195
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #340 on: February 14, 2023, 08:31:30 am »
[Edited to add the illustration.]
Can I ask you a simple question, electrodacus?  I believe this would be illuminating for us both.

Let's assume we have a vehicle much like your front-wheel-on-treadmill, rear-wheel-on-ground, but with a busted gearbox so that all wheels just turn independently and freely, without slipping at all.  Say, it is being towed by something else.


The radius of both wheels is \$1/(2\pi)\ \approx 0.159\$ length units (diameter \$1/\pi \approx 0.318\$ length units), so that their circumference is exactly one length unit.

In one time unit, the vehicle travels one length unit with respect to ground, the rear (red, left) wheel making exactly one rotation. 
At the same time, the treadmill surface moves one length unit in the opposite direction with respect to ground.

(The yellow arrows indicate the directions of the movement; their lengths are not to scale.  The hatching indicates ground.  The treadmill is stationary with respect to ground; it does not move.)

The question is, how many rotations does the front (right, blue) wheel on the treadmill do, in the same time unit?

  A) It does not rotate/it slips
  B) One turn
  C) Two turns
  D) Three turns

(I would have made this a poll, but I don't have the rights to create one within an existing thread, only if I start a new thread.)
To repeat, this is not a trick question; it is a straightforward mechanical detail of the model being discussed.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2023, 11:28:22 am by Nominal Animal »
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #341 on: February 14, 2023, 09:48:33 am »
One more video to proof that slip is not an issue, and there is no energy storage involved. It is just my hand pushing and pulling the center track that provides the needed energy. It is semi constant. The idea originates from Nominal Animal and I just build it to see for myself how it behaves. Instead of a chain I'm using a rigid track to drive the input sprocket. This to eliminate as much of elasticity as possible.



It works as expected, just like the other vehicles with normal wheels.

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #342 on: February 14, 2023, 11:19:39 am »
Quote
One more video to proof that slip is not an issue

Above and beyond!  :-+
 

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #343 on: February 14, 2023, 11:24:18 am »
since this is not my area of expertise

You ain't kidding there. It's not your area of study either.

Quote
and energy storage where I'm by definition an expert.

Nope, it's absolutely clear that you're not. You may know a bit but you don't know how to apply that presumed knowledge here.
 

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #344 on: February 14, 2023, 02:59:02 pm »
I would say get yourself a mirror and take a good look. You will see a person that is afflicted with that condition, you know, unable to admit he/she is wrong.

I'm happy to do so but for that you need to provide a correct theory of how this machine works.

If you have a good understanding of how this works then it should be no problem answering this simple question
 "
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.
"


In regards to your last video (I truly appreciate that you want to understand the mechanism and put in all the effort). The slip stick hysteresis is not eliminated due to the shape of the tooth.
You have basically an upside down triangle climbing at an angle on another triangle. The only way to really see what happens is to watch the mechanism from the side seeing how that single input wheel rotates storing energy and when it slips the back two wheels/sprockets will push the input wheel/sprocket over the tooth.
If mechanism had no flexibility (very hard to do unless you reduce the gear ratio) then entire mechanism will lift up (again due to the triangular tooth shape) but if you had special shape tooths to prevent lifting the vehicle then the entire mechanism will be just locked unless you push hard enough to break the tooth.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2023, 03:20:44 pm by electrodacus »
 

Offline fourfathom

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2005
  • Country: us
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #345 on: February 14, 2023, 03:19:54 pm »
Explain also why will wheel's spin or not speed depending on the prediction you made.

Before we can do that you have to specify if the vehicle is massless, the gears/belts/axles/wheels are frictionless, and if the ice is truly frictionless.  Without this information it's impossible to say.

Or why don't you tell us?  What point are you trying to make?  Why don't you simplify, rather than complicate your experiment?
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 #346 on: February 14, 2023, 03:28:50 pm »
[Edited to add the illustration.]
Can I ask you a simple question, electrodacus?  I believe this would be illuminating for us both.

Let's assume we have a vehicle much like your front-wheel-on-treadmill, rear-wheel-on-ground, but with a busted gearbox so that all wheels just turn independently and freely, without slipping at all.  Say, it is being towed by something else.

The radius of both wheels is \$1/(2\pi)\ \approx 0.159\$ length units (diameter \$1/\pi \approx 0.318\$ length units), so that their circumference is exactly one length unit.

In one time unit, the vehicle travels one length unit with respect to ground, the rear (red, left) wheel making exactly one rotation. 
At the same time, the treadmill surface moves one length unit in the opposite direction with respect to ground.

(The yellow arrows indicate the directions of the movement; their lengths are not to scale.  The hatching indicates ground.  The treadmill is stationary with respect to ground; it does not move.)

The question is, how many rotations does the front (right, blue) wheel on the treadmill do, in the same time unit?

  A) It does not rotate/it slips
  B) One turn
  C) Two turns
  D) Three turns

(I would have made this a poll, but I don't have the rights to create one within an existing thread, only if I start a new thread.)
To repeat, this is not a trick question; it is a straightforward mechanical detail of the model being discussed.

This is basically just a kinematics question as there are no forces with free spinning wheels.
C) Two turns.

Can you do the same and answer my multiple choice question.

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #347 on: February 14, 2023, 03:34:58 pm »

Before we can do that you have to specify if the vehicle is massless, the gears/belts/axles/wheels are frictionless, and if the ice is truly frictionless.  Without this information it's impossible to say.

Or why don't you tell us?  What point are you trying to make?  Why don't you simplify, rather than complicate your experiment?

It is a real vehicle so there is friction everywhere.
The experiment is setup so that output wheel on ice has much less traction than the input wheel on treadmill so the wheel on treadmill will not slip but the wheel on ice while it still has some friction will be the first to slip of there are forces involved.
If it was a frictionless theoretical problem I will have mentioned frictionless surface instead of mentioning ice.

Online PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #348 on: February 14, 2023, 03:47:22 pm »
Quote
Can you do the same and answer my multiple choice question

What would be the point? If it's not the answer you want you'll just argue the toss about things, and since it's your thought experiment there will be no way to show you are wrong. Even if someone built an actual model of it, you'd still say that something about it is not the same, or you'd 'adjust' your question or even pick a different question entirely. You have form in doing all of those things.
 

Offline electrodacusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1862
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Re: Force multiplier
« Reply #349 on: February 14, 2023, 03:53:30 pm »
Quote
Can you do the same and answer my multiple choice question

What would be the point? If it's not the answer you want you'll just argue the toss about things, and since it's your thought experiment there will be no way to show you are wrong. Even if someone built an actual model of it, you'd still say that something about it is not the same, or you'd 'adjust' your question or even pick a different question entirely. You have form in doing all of those things.

It is a testable question. So there can not be any arguments about the correct answer.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf