Mess with your minds: A wind powered craft going faster than a tail wind speed.

[Alex Eisenhut]

Question: Do you agree with the red arrows I added to your diagram?

[bdunham7]

Wrong way of asking the question as there is not enough data to be able to answer that. The question that can easily be answered with the amount of data available is calculate the energy the vehicle acted against the wall and that is fairly simple since we know the vehicle speed and mass we can calculate the kinetic energy of the vehicle 9Ws and so since before hitting the wall vehicle had that and after the wall that will be zero (assuming non elastic collision) then it will be 9Ws

So I'm unclear here.  Are you saying the the wall provides 9Ws of energy to stop the car or are you saying that it is not possible to calculate the energy provided by the wall?

[electrodacus]

Wrong way of asking the question as there is not enough data to be able to answer that. The question that can easily be answered with the amount of data available is calculate the energy the vehicle acted against the wall and that is fairly simple since we know the vehicle speed and mass we can calculate the kinetic energy of the vehicle 9Ws and so since before hitting the wall vehicle had that and after the wall that will be zero (assuming non elastic collision) then it will be 9Ws

So I'm unclear here.  Are you saying the the wall provides 9Ws of energy to stop the car or are you saying that it is not possible to calculate the energy provided by the wall?

You asked about power not energy and that was the wrong thing to ask for as power is not the same with energy.
To answer the power question you will need to know much more about the vehicle shape and construction and you will also need to know at what exact moment you needed to know the power.

[bdunham7]

You asked about power not energy and that was the wrong thing to ask for as power is not the same with energy.
To answer the power question you will need to know much more about the vehicle shape and construction and you will also need to know at what exact moment you needed to know the power.

OK, a point for you.  I meant energy, and my followup is clear enough--are you saying the wall provides 9Ws of energy to stop the car or did you mean something else?

[Alex Eisenhut]

Question: Do you agree with the red arrows I added to your diagram?

(And JFC if someone could explain to me how the #%$#%$!! you get attachments to show up properly!!)

[electrodacus]

Question: Do you agree with the red arrows I added to your diagram?

(And JFC if someone could explain to me how the #%$#%$!! you get attachments to show up properly!!)

(Attachment Link)

Yes I agree with your red arrows but what is the point for that ?
The attachments appear as they should. You are probably asking why they are not the same as the ones I post and that is because I do not use attachments I insert a photo that is linked to my website so it shows as an inserted image at full size not as a small attachment icon. 

[Alex Eisenhut]

Excellent. How can the G wheel "see" or be influenced by the force/movement/energy/power indicated by the red arrows?

[electrodacus]

You asked about power not energy and that was the wrong thing to ask for as power is not the same with energy.
To answer the power question you will need to know much more about the vehicle shape and construction and you will also need to know at what exact moment you needed to know the power.

OK, a point for you.  I meant energy, and my followup is clear enough--are you saying the wall provides 9Ws of energy to stop the car or did you mean something else?

I did not meant something else wall needed to be able to absorb the 9Ws else it will no longer be called a wall after the impact.

But what about my other replays where I say power in and out of the system is a better/simpler way to predict if vehicle will slow down or accelerate. Looking at the balance of forces is not useful as those are forces at the wheel / propeller not the forces acting against the vehicle since vehicle is between two isolated mediums that have different speeds.

[electrodacus]

Excellent. How can the G wheel "see" or be influenced by the force/movement/energy/power indicated by the red arrows?

Not quite sure you know what you are asking.  Do you notice the two larger black triangles ? Those fix the treadmill to the ground and there will be forces acting against those when vehicle is pushed down from the treadmill.  I guess you can make an analogy with how pulleys work.
The important part is that treadmill is not moving relative to the ground.  If you turn off the treadmill rotation and push the treadmill then it will move relative to the ground and then you can reverse that movement and say that ground moves relative to the treadmill. So it is not the same thing.

[cbutlera]

You say since there is higher force it means vehicle will accelerate in a certain direction when that is wrong as the force you refer to is force acting against the propeller or against the wheel not against the body of the vehicle.
Force at the wheel is not the same with force on the body when the wheels are acting against two isolated mediums.

So you are saying that the rate of change of momentum of a body over time is not just proportional to the net external force.  It also depends on what that force or those forces are acting against.

Are there any of Newton's laws that you agree with?

[bdunham7]

I did not meant something else wall needed to be able to absorb the 9Ws else it will no longer be called a wall after the impact.

Again, your arguments and suppositions easily reduce to absurdities, but for some reason you don't see it.  An inflexible wall cannot absorb or provide any energy.  It can provide a reaction force sufficient to stop the car, but no energy is exchanged between the wall and the car.  Now if you try to bob and weave by saying the wall is not infinitely rigid, then you need to do more calculations.  If you do, you will find that any actual energy exchange is miniscule.

Edit: And reflecting, I think the reason my mind allowed me to type 'power' when I meant 'energy' is that there actually is enough data to calculate the power provided by the wall--zero, the same as the energy.  So I'll take back my point.

But what about my other replays where I say power in and out of the system is a better/simpler way to predict if vehicle will slow down or accelerate. Looking at the balance of forces is not useful as those are forces at the wheel / propeller not the forces acting against the vehicle since vehicle is between two isolated mediums that have different speeds.

That's just nonsense.  If the wheel and propeller are fixed to the vehicle, as they are at least on the x-axis, then forces acting on them along that axis will act on the vehicle through reaction forces.  Perhaps you don't understand what a 'force' is? 

[bdunham7]

Are there any of Newton's laws that you agree with?

That Newton guy was just another idiot professor who made a lot of mistakes.  Principia Mathematica is a hoax!

[electrodacus]

So you are saying that the rate of change of momentum of a body over time is not just proportional to the net external force.  It also depends on what that force or those forces are acting against.

Are there any of Newton's laws that you agree with?

You are used with a single medium but this vehicle is between two mediums. So if you take 10W from one medium and use that to push against the same medium there is nothing to gain but you think that pushing on another medium that is at different speed gives you some extra and that is not the case.
10W put in to propeller will provide you 7W of thrust to vehicle (assuming that 70% efficiency) so vehicle will slow down if there is nothing else to help.

Ideal case taking 10W from the wheel for 1 second results in vehicle kinetic energy being 10Ws less.  So if you take all this 10Ws and put it in to ideal propulsion pushing against another medium you get back what you lost in kinetic energy nothing more.
So now you can look at speeds and say wheel speed is 5m/s it means breaking force was 2N
And if say the other medium you pushed against only had 2.5m/s you will have needed 4N to be able to push with 10W for 1 second and get the vehicle kinetic energy back to where it was.
You see the 4N is higher than 2N and you think vehicle will gain speed but that is not the case and in ideal case the vehicle will just be able to maintain speed.
The problem is you are confusing the force at the wheel with forces acting against the vehicle.
Using Power only or Force and speed needs to provide you the same exact result if you interpret what happens correctly.
The Power equation is hard to mess up so is clear you wrongly understood what force at the wheel or propeller means in this case and that is different from force acting on the vehicle as vehicle travels on one medium takes energy from there and pushes using that energy against another isolated medium.

[IanB]

The Power equation is hard to mess up

Apparently it is really easy to mess up, as you keep doing so with your treadmill example and the nonsense conclusion that the cart cannot move from left to right when powered by the treadmill.

It is clear that if the G wheel can pick up power then the M wheel can receive power. If the M wheel can receive power, then it can equally well be made to turn clockwise or anti-clockwise (it just depends on the gearing). If the M wheel turns clockwise the cart will move from left to right.

There is nothing at all preventing the M wheel from turning clockwise. If it receives power, it can turn.

[electrodacus]

Again, your arguments and suppositions easily reduce to absurdities, but for some reason you don't see it.  An inflexible wall cannot absorb or provide any energy.  It can provide a reaction force sufficient to stop the car, but no energy is exchanged between the wall and the car.  Now if you try to bob and weave by saying the wall is not infinitely rigid, then you need to do more calculations.  If you do, you will find that any actual energy exchange is miniscule.

Edit: And reflecting, I think the reason my mind allowed me to type 'power' when I meant 'energy' is that there actually is enough data to calculate the power provided by the wall--zero, the same as the energy.  So I'll take back my point.

Wall is fixed to the ground so that energy is transferred to earth. When vehicle accelerated it has pushed against earth accelerating the earth in opposite direction then when vehicle hit the wall all that energy was put back in to earth in opposite direction to initial acceleration.
Vehicle had 9Ws of kinetic energy before hitting the wall and 0Ws after. So where do you think that 9Ws disappeared ?

That's just nonsense.  If the wheel and propeller are fixed to the vehicle, as they are at least on the x-axis, then forces acting on them along that axis will act on the vehicle through reaction forces.  Perhaps you don't understand what a 'force' is?

You seems to be the one not understanding that force at the wheel (or propeller) is not the same with force against the body of the vehicle.
Think about a gearbox only that is 2:1 ideal so no friction.
I'm on the input side putting 1N and you are at the output side and will need to put 2N so that gearbox is in equilibrium no movement.
have you got the equilibrium part ? There is a huge difference in forces but no movement in any direction.

[electrodacus]

The Power equation is hard to mess up

Apparently it is really easy to mess up, as you keep doing so with your treadmill example and the nonsense conclusion that the cart cannot move from left to right when powered by the treadmill.

It is clear that if the G wheel can pick up power then the M wheel can receive power. If the M wheel can receive power, then it can equally well be made to turn clockwise or anti-clockwise (it just depends on the gearing). If the M wheel turns clockwise the cart will move from left to right.

There is nothing at all preventing the M wheel from turning clockwise. If it receives power, it can turn.

Please provide the correct power equation so I can see where I did the mistake.
To get any energy from G wheel the vehicle will need to move backwards (right to left) and putting that generated energy back in to M wheel will be enough in ideal case to bring the vehicle back to original position thus not possible for vehicle to move from left to right.

[cbutlera]

Are there any of Newton's laws that you agree with?

So now you can look at speeds and say wheel speed is 5m/s it means breaking force was 2N
And if say the other medium you pushed against only had 2.5m/s you will have needed 4N to be able to push with 10W for 1 second and get the vehicle kinetic energy back to where it was.
You see the 4N is higher than 2N and you think vehicle will gain speed but that is not the case and in ideal case the vehicle will just be able to maintain speed.
The problem is you are confusing the force at the wheel with forces acting against the vehicle.

Thanks, I'll take that as a no.

[electrodacus]

Thanks, I'll take that as a no.

You did not read my answer if that is your conclusion. Newton laws are correct you just do not know how to apply them when vehicle acts against two separate mediums.

[bdunham7]

Wall is fixed to the ground so that energy is transferred to earth. When vehicle accelerated it has pushed against earth accelerating the earth in opposite direction then when vehicle hit the wall all that energy was put back in to earth in opposite direction to initial acceleration.
Vehicle had 9Ws of kinetic energy before hitting the wall and 0Ws after. So where do you think that 9Ws disappeared ?

Nope!  If you do the math properly, you'll find that the energy transferred to that much larger system is absolutely miniscule.  This is a variant on a standard high-school level physics question that is often initially answered wrongly because the wrong law (conservation of energy) is applied when the correct result is obtained by using the law (conservation of momentum).  So yes, the 9Ws 'disappears', why don't you figure out where it goes.  Or, reflect on the fact that you apparently don't know where it goes.  It's a very basic question.

You seems to be the one not understanding that force at the wheel (or propeller) is not the same with force against the body of the vehicle.
Think about a gearbox only that is 2:1 ideal so no friction.
I'm on the input side putting 1N and you are at the output side and will need to put 2N so that gearbox is in equilibrium no movement.
have you got the equilibrium part ? There is a huge difference in forces but no movement in any direction.

Since you said gearbox, I'll assume you mean newton-meter (torque).  Or you could use a lever example if you like.  In any case, the only reason you imagine that works is because you do not understand the laws of motion.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.   And 'action' means force.

Now for your gearbox example, indeed the lever-action of the gears will result in no movement, provided the gearbox body is held in place.  Whatever is holding it in place will have to provide 1N/m of torque as a reaction, otherwise the body of the gearbox will just rotate.  If you see an example of unequal forces but no movement, it is because you have not properly accounted for all of the forces.

[bdunham7]

You did not read my answer if that is your conclusion. Newton laws are correct you just do not know how to apply them when vehicle acts against two separate mediums.

F = ma.

That's the whole thing.  Explain how 'different mediums' is accounted for in that law or 'how you apply it'.  F means force, m means mass, a means acceleration.  There's no mysterious correction factor for 'separate mediums' or anything else.

[electrodacus]

Wall is fixed to the ground so that energy is transferred to earth. When vehicle accelerated it has pushed against earth accelerating the earth in opposite direction then when vehicle hit the wall all that energy was put back in to earth in opposite direction to initial acceleration.
Vehicle had 9Ws of kinetic energy before hitting the wall and 0Ws after. So where do you think that 9Ws disappeared ?

Nope!  If you do the math properly, you'll find that the energy transferred to that much larger system is absolutely miniscule.  This is a variant on a standard high-school level physics question that is often initially answered wrongly because the wrong law (conservation of energy) is applied when the correct result is obtained by using the law (conservation of momentum).  So yes, the 9Ws 'disappears', why don't you figure out where it goes.  Or, reflect on the fact that you apparently don't know where it goes.  It's a very basic question.

You seems to be the one not understanding that force at the wheel (or propeller) is not the same with force against the body of the vehicle.
Think about a gearbox only that is 2:1 ideal so no friction.
I'm on the input side putting 1N and you are at the output side and will need to put 2N so that gearbox is in equilibrium no movement.
have you got the equilibrium part ? There is a huge difference in forces but no movement in any direction.

Since you said gearbox, I'll assume you mean newton-meter (torque).  Or you could use a lever example if you like.  In any case, the only reason you imagine that works is because you do not understand the laws of motion.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Now for your gearbox example, indeed the lever-action of the gears will result in no movement, provided the gearbox body is held in place.  Whatever is holding it in place will have to provide 1N/m of torque as a reaction, otherwise the body of the gearbox will just rotate.  If you see an example of unequal forces but no movement, it is because you have not properly accounted for all of the forces.

You are hopeless
First part with the wall you probably think all of that ends as heat and that is not the case. I get that earth is so large that 9Ws means nothing but you can say that vehicle moved or the wall (entire earth moved).
Think of a very heavy wall but on wheels then you can understand that while wall moved very little because is so much heavier than the vehicle it did moved.

You can imagine any sort of gearbox you want the fact remains the same.  On the vehicle like say the one in my treadmill drawing if that will have had a 2:1 gear box the force at the wheels is not the same with forces acting against the vehicle.
Force you apply to the wheel if wheels are connected trough a chain will be transferred to the chain and not the vehicle body.
Think about those swing-balance you find on playground but imagine one that has an arm longer than the other. To keep that from moving you will need to apply different forces at the end.
The same happens between two wheels connected trough a chain with different gear ration than 1:1  Forces will be different but no motion. 

[bdunham7]

First part with the wall you probably think all of that ends as heat and that is not the case. I get that earth is so large that 9Ws means nothing but you can say that vehicle moved or the wall (entire earth moved).
Think of a very heavy wall but on wheels then you can understand that while wall moved very little because is so much heavier than the vehicle it did moved.

Well, it could be heat or some other change in the potential energy of the wreckage of the car.  Anyhow, lets say the wall is in fact on frictionless rollers and is very heavy (say 100,000kg).  And presume a completely non-elastic collision. Are you saying that after the collision the 9Ws energy will be found as kinetic energy of the now very slowly moving wall?   

Think about those swing-balance you find on playground but imagine one that has an arm longer than the other. To keep that from moving you will need to apply different forces at the end.
The same happens between two wheels connected trough a chain with different gear ration than 1:1  Forces will be different but no motion.

And the fulcrum will supply a reaction force equal to the sum of both forces.  Same for the wheels.  You really are refuting Newton's laws!   

[cgroen]

.
If you think you are frustrated try to be in my place where almost nobody understand how basic physics works including people teaching others.
.

And that, my dear, is exactly why you should start to question yourself if you in fact are such a supreme person that knows everything MUCH better than ALL OTHER, or, maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong ?

[IanB]

Please provide the correct power equation so I can see where I did the mistake.
To get any energy from G wheel the vehicle will need to move backwards (right to left) and putting that generated energy back in to M wheel will be enough in ideal case to bring the vehicle back to original position thus not possible for vehicle to move from left to right.

The G wheel is a generator. It only needs to turn on its axle to generate power, it doesn't need to move. Since the belt is moving it can turn the G wheel to generate power without the cart needing to move left or right. The power generated by the G wheel can be transferred to the M wheel, and as noted before, the M wheel can turn clockwise or anti-clockwise at any speed according to gearing. If we gear it to turn clockwise it can move the cart from left to right. With low gearing it can move the cart slowly, and this slow movement will require less power than was generated in the G wheel.

[Alex Eisenhut]

Excellent. How can the G wheel "see" or be influenced by the force/movement/energy/power indicated by the red arrows?

Not quite sure you know what you are asking.  Do you notice the two larger black triangles ? Those fix the treadmill to the ground and there will be forces acting against those when vehicle is pushed down from the treadmill.  I guess you can make an analogy with how pulleys work.
The important part is that treadmill is not moving relative to the ground.  If you turn off the treadmill rotation and push the treadmill then it will move relative to the ground and then you can reverse that movement and say that ground moves relative to the treadmill. So it is not the same thing.

Don't presume what I know or don't know, you arrogant ass. It was a simple question. Either wheel can or can't "see".

Your prolix responses are quite exhausting to plow through.

Can't you just stick to the question as asked, instead of trailing off on tangents?

Again: How can the G wheel "see" or be influenced by the force/movement/energy/power indicated by the red arrows?

Either it can, so explain the how, or it can't.