If you want to compare hydraulics to a boost smps, look at hydraulic ram pump.
What I was trying to say is that no device can move against the direction of applied force unless it uses energy storage and stick slip hysteresis.
Not only I say that but it is clearly visible in the slow motion video I made.
Are animated diagrams now proof of something?
Oh, it's your animated diagram. Big difference, eh.
What I was trying to say is that no device can move against the direction of applied force unless it uses energy storage and stick slip hysteresis.
Not only I say that but it is clearly visible in the slow motion video I made.And the trike vehicle I made of Lego moves against the direction of applied force, without any energy storage, and no slip stick hysteresis either; the one-directional torque transfer of the worm gear ensures that.
You do realize that your single example device proves nothing except that that specific geometry cannot achieve it?
And that because my example device does achieve it, it disproves your assertion that it isn't possible?
Wait, I've asked you that before, and you sidestepped the questions then, too; just asserted something irrelevant as if that was an answer.
If one does a full mechanical analysis of my trike vehicle, they immediately see that the gearbox, the torque transfer, is what makes it possible to translate and redirect a linear force into another direction. In sailing vehicles, the mast acts like that gearbox. The direction change only requires something to push against, typically a static force (one that does no work). In sailing vehicles, that is provided by the keel, so that while it slices through the fluid smoothly and with very little friction in one direction, it provides a massive static force when one tries to push it sideways. In the trike, it is the contact friction between the driving wheels and the ground, the one preventing the wheels from slipping sideways and the vehicle rotating –– just like in a sailing vehicle.
I am immensely annoyed that you keep ignoring the trike vehicle, even though I explicitly provided you with a LeoCAD model (LeoCAD being free and available for Windows, Linux, and Mac OS), so that not only can you investigate exactly its components, you can replicate the vehicle and reproduce the results for yourself.
I could simplify the design so that Lego Technics set 42133 and at least two axle hubs (part 55982, available from Lego pick-and-build, and from Bricklink (55982) etc.) would suffice; or the very cheap Lego Technics set 30655 (released Jan 2023, ~ 5 USD) with at least two axle hubs (like part 93593), so the cost to build a copy of the vehicle would be less than $10 USD.
(I know your response is "I don't need to build that vehicle because my own example vehicle proves it is impossible for any other vehicle to work", which is a logical fallacy, but might convince feeble minds. Which is exactly why this is so infuriating: I'd love to help you understand, but no argument, logic, model, or explanation seems to change anything in your thinking.)
Your trike is more complex than the belt driven device I demonstrate.
It is not just a kinematic animation it takes into account the forces involved so that it reflects how it works in real life.
Where is the video of your trike working ?
Your trike is more complex than the belt driven device I demonstrate.
...
The left wheel of your trolley is a different object to the right wheel, the stationary block and the treadmill belt are also different objects. So your F1 and F2 cannot be viewed as the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other, and are therefore not the subject of Newton's third law as defined above.
...
While you may consider the left wheel a different object from the right wheel in this particular example they are not.
The way let and right wheel are connected to each other makes them act as a single object.
This equivalent diagram to (a) may make it more visible to you
You can als imagine having this in your hands right hand applies F1 and the left hand will apply the equal and opposite force F2 else there will be no F1 so Newton's 3'rd law pair.
All this pairs in the above diagram are newton's 3'rd law pairs so F1 = F2, F3 = F4 and F5 = F6
Your trike is more complex than the belt driven device I demonstrate.Can you stop the constant diversions?
How about you tell us exactly what kind of example vehicle and its behaviour would convince you.
If you want, I can buy and build the exact belt driven model, using a Lego link chain as the belt, since Lego sprockets mesh nicely with it. Would this convince you your understanding is incorrect, or would you find something that would let you ignore that also?
QuoteIt is not just a kinematic animation it takes into account the forces involved so that it reflects how it works in real life.
But someone elses animation that did the same was discounted in favour of your belief. You cannot have it both ways. No, you should not have it both ways - clearly, you are doing your best to achieve the former.
A pantograph is a very similar mechanism to your articulated table shown above (4 struts and 4 hinge joints), and it too is only anchored at two points. And yet it works, it is not locked. Why does your version of Newton's third law make the articulated table behave as a rigid object, but not the pantograph?
A pantograph is a very similar mechanism to your articulated table shown above (4 struts and 4 hinge joints), and it too is only anchored at two points. And yet it works, it is not locked. Why does your version of Newton's third law make the articulated table behave as a rigid object, but not the pantograph?
Please build this out of cardboard and test as likely you can not visualize what will happen. That Pantograph is very different in the way the connections are made and also the place where force is applied.
And I already shown that it can not move in this video https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/stick-slip-removed-from-front-wheels:0
Or are you accusing me of faking that video ? Or do you have an alternative explanation for that ?
First 15 seconds shows that mechanism is locked F2=F1
The last few seconds shows that allowing slip at input wheel results in movement against the direction of applied force using energy storage.
...
I see what your view was but this simple problem wrongly understood has huge implications in all fields of engineering and science.
I'm not a physicist and I'm not enjoying explaining this (not am I good at explaining) but I do not see anyone else offering to explain this and it looks like majority memorize "facts" instead of properly understanding.
...
How about you tell us exactly what kind of example vehicle and its behaviour would convince you.Yes this similar belt or even chain driven vehicle will convince me.
But are you assuming that I faked the videos?
I'm actually utterly surprised you say that! Okay, I'll start working on it.
I don't need to build a pantograph out of cardboard. I have a real one, I have used it, and it works just as shown on the Wikipedia page.
You seem to have taken on the mission of teaching the world how to understand Newton's third law. Well teach me! Please answer my question. Why does your version of Newton's third law make the articulated table behave as a rigid object, but not the pantograph?
...
Do you feel like this look the same ?
Remove one articulation so that pantograph looks like letter A then you will see that there is no longer andy independent movement same as there is no movement on the mechanism in discussion.
You think it will move because you imagine pushing on the green part (vehicle body) but that is not allowed as vehicle body is floating and nothing pushes against that the F5 = F6 so there is zero net force acting against the body.
There must be some brain difference that do not allow some people to imagine what happens when forces are applied on an object else I can not explain why it is not obvious that F1 = F2 and in order to move the mechanism needs to slide as shown in my video.
You claim that it is obvious and say that you can imagine it, but you can't actually explain it in plain language. I'm afraid that plain language and mathematics is the only thing that I understand. Plain language and mathematics explanations served me well at university when I was studying for my physics degree. They served me when I was studying classical mechanics, special relativity, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, electromagnetism, optics, solid state physics, quantum mechanics, electronics, etc. But somehow plain language and mathematics is not sufficient to explain Newton's third law to me, which for the last 50 years I thought that I understood.
Can you tell me, what is it about Newton's third law that makes it so very hard to understand?
I did better than just explain in plain language. I showed you a video of the real device being locked and dragged in the direction of applied force.
That video is a demonstration of something, but it is not an explanation of anything. Do you understand the difference between a demonstration and an explanation?
I've now also replicated the belt-driven mechanism, using Lego chains, as I happened to finally find where I stored my old Lego sets. I just need to simplify the model first.
Even electrodacus' own vehicle would work, if they just used a proper gear ratio. Their gearing is way too close to one (1:1). (That corresponds to \$\lambda = r/R\$, i.e. as shown in my math in my reply #97, when the movement is impossible. Simply put, electrodacus' picked exactly the worst possible gear ratio for their demonstration vehicle.)
As shown in the video linked to most recently by IanB, the driven wheel must turn multiple times for each turn of the driving wheel, and the wheels rotating in the same direction. (For soft rubbery tires, a ratio of 1:2 to 1:5 works well.)
The closer the ratio is to 1:1, the better traction you need. If you use a very small ratio, say 1:20 to 1:40 (i.e. for one turn of the driving wheels, the driven/belt wheel turns 20 to 40 times for wheels of same size), the movement is absolutely smooth and traction is not an issue.
As far as I'm aware the convention for gear ratio is driver wheel divided by driven wheel
This gear ratio of 2:1 is plenty and using a higher gear ratio will make no difference in the way the vehicle works. The amount of internal friction was fairly low for my model so even a 1.5:1 gear ratio will still have worked just fine.
even with that bad quality video and low frame rate I can see the same charge discharge cycles in his video is just not as evident as in my slowed down video.
In fact a 1:1 gear ratio and twisted belt will be the ideal combination that will allow no wheel slip and vehicle driving smoothly in the direction of the applied force.