Force multiplier - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 04:52:19 am
content: I have 3 examples a) mechanical , b) hydraulic and c) electricalAll of them have floating body/cylinder/GND and thus F2 can not be different from F1 or in case of electric version output current will be the same as input.Curious if you think any of this examples are not a good analog or if you think F2 will be different than F1. I was trying to explain just the case a) but for some reason when I say floating body is the reason F2 = F1 people do not understand that and thing F2 can be 2x F1 or whatever the gear ratio is.Only when the body of the vehicle (with blue) is connected to ground you can have force multiplication else F2 will be equal with F1.

author: Miyuki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 01:53:16 pm
content: People do think that they can connect the heat pump to another heat pump and get extra free energy, even to run a heat engine with the output.Or to close it in a box to not accumulate iceThere are some major flaws in elementary science/physics teaching in almost all educational systems.Or it is just too foreign a concept for people's brains, I don't know.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 02:49:37 pm
content: In simple mechanics, a lever works to conserve energy/work by this multiplication:W=F1xS1=F2xS2whereFis the force on each end andSis the distance traveled on each end.If you replace the distanceSwith speedv= dS/dtat each end, then you have the conservation of powerFxv.An obvious analog in electrical systems is a transformer, where the product of voltage and current (power) is the same at primary and secondary.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 03:26:27 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 02, 2023, 04:52:19 amI'm assuming by F that you mean Force. If so then F1 can be equal, greater or less than F2 in any system*. But the Input and Output POWER will be same in all systems (minus internal losses such as friction or resistance in electrical systems).Power and Force are not the same thing.* in electrical system examples could be a 1 to 1 transformer, a step up transformer, or a step down transformer. You can do exactly the same in hydraulic or pneumatic systems by varying the size of the cylinders relative to one another (look at the brake system in any vehicle). In a mechanical system, you can vary the length of the levers relative to each other. Or you can vary gear rations, or pulley sizes.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 04:57:25 pm
content: Quote from: Miyuki on February 02, 2023, 01:53:16 pmI think is a combination of both. It is probably to abstract for most people and the educational system is not helping.There are setups with two heat pumps in series in order to be able to achieve higher delta in temperature than it can be achieved with a single one but there is no energy advantage.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 05:10:45 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on February 02, 2023, 02:49:37 pmForce and distance traveled is the same on both ends and so there is no force multiplication in all this particular cases.If body of the vehicle (blue), and cylinder for case b are connected to ground then there will be force multiplication but with the floating body/cylinder forces and displacements will remain equal on both sides.Same as with electrical equivalent example where output current can not be different from input current due to floating ground. If that blue wire is connected to battery negative then all will work correctly and you can have higher voltage on output than input.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 05:13:14 pm
content: Quote from: bigfoot22 on February 02, 2023, 05:06:11 pmYes the DC-DC converter can not work without the ground (blue wire) being connected to battery negative. This will be called floating ground and is the equivalent to a) and b)

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 05:18:27 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on February 02, 2023, 03:26:27 pmYou are missing the main point in all of this examples.They all have a floating body/cylinder/GND thus they can not do Force/Voltage multiplication.If I connect the body (blue) to ground in case a then F2 can be 2xF1 or whatever the gear ratio is but else it will not work and F2=F1Same thing for case b) where cylinder body is floating and needs to be attached to ground in order to work as intended else F2=F1And case c) the boost converter can not work unless the blue wire is connected to battery negative.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 05:32:04 pm
content: I don't know if you posted pictures of not but if you did then I don't see them so your "blue wire" comments means nothing to me. But to your point, without an electrical ground or a mechanical "ground" or some other frame of reference, then there is no such thing as voltage (Force) or mechanical Force so your whole question is meaningless.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 05:38:42 pm
content: Quote from: bigfoot22 on February 02, 2023, 05:27:31 pmI don't even know how to replay. I was trying for months to explain why F2 = F1 in example A) and I was not able to convince anyone.The reason was likely because people have seen the real equivalent of A) moving to the right but did not understood why and preferred to think is just due to gear ratio and ignored my more complex explanation and even video proof.Understanding this is the key to understand how direct upwind powered by wind vehicle works.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 05:39:12 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 02, 2023, 04:57:25 pmSince you have to have two compressors running you use more electrical power to get the higher output temperature, so it should not be that difficult to understand that there is no energy advantage.Quote from: bigfoot22 on February 02, 2023, 05:06:11 pmI was wondering about this too. What type of circuit can raise the voltage without having a ground reference?The example in b I can easily grasp. For a hydraulic system to work as a force multiplier the cylinder has to be fixed to some medium to allow displacement of the fluid within it.Example a depends a bit on the properties the red block. Can it move. If not then the forces should be the same since the blue construct will remain stationary even if both the wheels spin. If the red block can move the force will be different due to the differences in speed, but will also lead to the blue construct to move.Wow my brain has not been bothered with this kind of material since agesP.S. While typing and thinking other posts where written, which I did not check on their content.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 05:40:00 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on February 02, 2023, 05:32:04 pmNot sure why you do not see the image but here is a direct link if it helpshttp://electrodacus.com/temp/Forcem.png

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 05:46:32 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 02, 2023, 05:39:12 pmThere is no energy advantage. But you can obtain a higher temperature delta if that is needed. Heat pumps have a limit on the max temperature delta they can achieve so uning multiple stages you can get to lower temperatures. That will be needed in some applications like say cooling image sensors using 2 or 3 peltier stages.Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 02, 2023, 05:39:12 pmNo circuit can rise the voltage with a floating ground and that is the point of the example. All 3 examples shows that they can not work as intended so they can not do force or voltage multiplication.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 05:56:47 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 02, 2023, 05:46:32 pmYeah, that is what I tried to express. I know it is also used in house heating systems where there is a need for >60 degrees of water temperature due to the used radiators.Quote from: electrodacus on February 02, 2023, 05:46:32 pmSince you only mentioned thatcurrentbeing equal in example c I was thrown of a bit. It makes more sense knowing that the voltage is the same to understand it as intended.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 05:59:37 pm
content: Quote from: bigfoot22 on February 02, 2023, 05:50:08 pmThat is why I questioned the red box. It only is valid if it can't move, and the system is in equilibrium.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 06:10:05 pm
content: Quote from: bigfoot22 on February 02, 2023, 05:50:08 pmNow prepare to be shockedas the vehicle in case a moves to the right so in the opposite direction of the applied force.https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/wheel-cart-energy-storage-slow:8It uses a combination of energy storage (belt is elastic) and stick slip histeresis. There is a minimum force needed for the front wheel to start to slip and once that happens force need to drop quite a bit for the wheel to stick again.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 06:14:34 pm
content: No, not this again.Quote from: bigfoot22 on February 02, 2023, 05:50:08 pmFunnily enough, in the thread where this diagram first came up, I demonstrated an analogous vehicle (constructed of Lego) with sufficiently high gearing ratio does move. I even used a worm gear, to ensure there is no energy storage nor slip-stick effects. Didn't sway OP, because this is aboutbeliefand not physics for them.The claimed diagram has very little to nothing to do with physics, it's just a drawing showing OP's beliefs. That's fine, but don't mistake them to have any relation to physical, observable and measurable reality.The exact Lego model I have, uses a worm gear to a vertical axis, with a pull string connected to that vertical axis. (Rotating the vertical axis makes its wheels turn, but because of the worm gear, the wheels cannot rotate the vertical axis.)Regardless of the horizontal direction you pull, if the model has sufficient traction, it will go forwards. It travels just fine in the opposite direction compared to the direction you pull the string, for example; and just as well in the same direction you pull, and if sufficiently heavy (good traction), can travel faster in the direction you pull than you pull the string. Last time, OP claimed was impossible, pivoting to 'possible only due to "slip-stick hysteresis"'. There's nothing like that; basic proper Newtonian mechanics describes this perfectly, even if feels "weird" or unintuitive to most people.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 06:27:25 pm
content: I forget who first described having done it in that other thread, but they tried basically the same thing with a heavy spool of soldering wire, with the wire coming off the spool at the bottom. If the spool has sufficient traction (doesn't slip), pulling on the wire causes the spool to roll faster towards you than you pull the wire, re-spooling the wire back onto the spool! Funky, eh? But quite expected, physically speaking.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 06:28:40 pm
content: Quote from: bigfoot22 on February 02, 2023, 06:19:14 pmYes the original image has no mention of energy storage or stick slip hysteresis. The vehicle in the video can only work because it uses both energy storage and stick slip hysteresis. Removing either energy storage (harder to do) or stick slip hysteresis and vehicle will not move or move in the direction of the forced applied if back/left wheel can slipHere is a video demonstrating thathttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/stick-slip-removed-from-front-wheels:0So the diagram A) as it is is interpreted correctly as F2 can not be larger than F1. In real world there are other effects not considered in the simple theoretical model.What I try to demonstrate is that a wind only powered vehicle can not move directly upwind without energy storage. And the same is true for any wind powered vehicle that moves directly downwind faster than wind.A vehicle can only move faster than wind direct downwind for a limited amount of time based on the amount of stored energy.But I could not explain how wind powered vehicle works since people did not understood what I call floating body on this vehicle.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 06:31:20 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 02, 2023, 06:27:25 pmGlad to see you back.Please explain how F2 can be larger than F1 without involving energy storage.Also do you see any difference between A, B and C ? Cand F2 be different from F1 in case B for example ? It seems case B is simpler to understand for most than case A even if they are equivalent.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 06:39:13 pm
content: No, I will not be sucked back to discussing your understanding of oversimplified models that only consider a couple of linear forces involved, and ignore the important things like the rotary forces (torque).Your question here is the physics equivalent of "Have you stopped raping women yet?"The entire premise of the diagrams modeling something is incorrect, thus all related questions are ill-posed, and trying to answer them correctly starts from correcting the model, which you flatly refuse.Until you model the situation correctly, there is as much sense in trying to discuss/analyse/explain its details to you, as there would be discussing what the exact mechanism is that makes razor blades sharpen by themselves when placed inside a pyramid.I do wish you well, electrodacus, but I do not believe I have the inner strength to help youunderstand; you're too convinced of your own beliefs.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 06:57:05 pm
content: Quote from: bigfoot22 on February 02, 2023, 06:37:47 pmLet me explain what happens in that first video I linked.Watch that at 0.25x speed to see the details.When the paper starts to move it can only move because the belt is elastic so F1 is equal F2 vehicle is not moving but the input wheel rotates meaning energy is being stored as elastic energy.F1 and F2 will still be equal and continue to increase until input wheel slips. At this point there is stored energy in the belt so inside the vehicle and that is what allows vehicle to be accelerated forward for a small amount of time until the front wheel sticks again and the process repeats.So there is an energy storage device and F1=F2 until that stored energy is used to increase F2 as the front wheel slips.This will not work if there was no energy storage and also if there was no stick slip hysteresis to allow triggering or charge and discharge cycles.So all 3 cases A,B and C are equivalent as defined in the diagram and if I were to add the energy storage and stick slip hysteresis to A as definition then vehicle will work as seen in the video but F2 still equals F2 until the combination of slip at input wheel and stored energy is involved.energy in still equals energy out is only that you have some power in and no power out when charging then you have power out when discharging and also power in but less power in while discharging thus the vehicle moves to the right.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 06:59:19 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 02, 2023, 06:39:13 pmYou said nothing with your comment. What is it missing in the diagram A ? Energy storage and stick slip hysteresis ?

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 07:05:10 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 02, 2023, 06:28:40 pmWrong. Don't start this again, please. Just take your beliefs and believe them - you don't need converts to validate your belief if it's strong enough (and it surely is that, and then some).

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 07:11:43 pm
content: Quote from: bigfoot22 on February 02, 2023, 05:06:11 pmIndeed. 'C' does nothing but leak some uA through the transistors. Definitely won't boost anything!

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 07:15:23 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 02, 2023, 07:05:10 pmI do not have beliefs I have good understanding of Newtonian physics.I narrowed down to people not understanding Newton's 3'rd law.The 3 equivalent diagrams above prove that most people have a wrong understanding of basic physics.So if you want to say I'm wrong please point out the differences between the 3 equivalent examples or demonstrate in an experiment that F2 is larger than F1 in a non accelerating reference frame.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 07:19:10 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on February 02, 2023, 07:11:43 pmIt is interesting that the more abstract example is better understood. I will say example B should be even simpler to understand for average people.All 3 represent the same thing a floating ground and so they can not work (In case of A and B it means F2 can not be different from F1).

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 08:25:12 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 02, 2023, 06:14:34 pmWas that not the veritasium versus electroboom thread that escalated or am I mistaken and was there yet another one. I knew I had seen example "a" before.Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 02, 2023, 06:14:34 pmI think the problem is that in real life there are many factors in play for example a, that don't come in to play in example b. But even example b is not free from additional factors depending on the force applied. Like for example leakage between the plunger and the wall.I might build my own test for example "a" with FischerTechnik. I can use a chain drive to avoid slip in the drive of the two wheels, but there is no way to avoid slip between the wheels and the fixed block or the treadmill. Problem is the connection between the wheels and the axles though. Lego is probably better here because of the cross shaped drive shafts. I can use steel axles though.Brings back memory of times at school. Used to love physics and mathematics

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 08:42:33 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 02, 2023, 08:25:12 pmYou are likely thinking at electroboom vs Steve Mould and the chain fountain.This is related to Veritasium video about vehicle driving downwind faster than wind.While I was trying to explain that no vehicle powered only by wind can exceed wind speed directly downwind without energy storage (in that particular case pressure differential is what allows exceeding wind speed for a limited amount of time), I got to narrow down what people fail to understand and it is now narrowed down to this Newtown 3'rd law and thus this examples trying to explain that no force multiplication is possible with a floating body.Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 02, 2023, 08:25:12 pmThe chain will not eliminate the energy storage part. It will be gravitational energy storage for chain but the type of energy storage is not relevant.See this video I made slow motion again is needed when using gears around second 9 is when energy is dischargedhttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/120fps24:9It is the close up of this and upside downhttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/gear-slow30p2:9In this case the two gears are the entire vehicle and it uses gravitational energy storage due to the shape of the gear tooth that allows the entire mechanism to be lifted when force is applied and the it will fall over as seen at around second 9 in the closeup upside down video.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 09:43:45 pm
content: QuoteComplete rubbish. What you got to narrow down was how to steer off into the weeds when you were being led through how it worked. You are a master at deflection and diversion, that's all.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2023, 10:04:36 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 02, 2023, 09:43:45 pmProve that you understand Newton's 3'rd law.Show how F2 can be different from F1 in diagram A or B, or how V2 can be larger than V1 in C.Or show me a torque multiplier wrench that only has an input and an output with no requirement for the case to be reference/attached to something the third contact point.In A, B and C there are only two points of contact and that is not sufficient to do any force multiplication. They all need a third point to work as force multipliers.Or if you think B and C is correct but A is a diffrent thing show what the difference is.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2023, 01:04:59 am
content: e-dac:(silly nickname, sorry). I get the 2nd. example, right away, with that piston size difference between the left side and right side pistons.The other two would / will take a bit, but I'm easily confused.My first problem was that your question itself didn't have enough detail, of what issue is.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2023, 01:31:34 am
content: Quote from: RJHayward on February 03, 2023, 01:04:59 amWhat do you mean by getting the 2nd example right away ?Do you understand that F2=F1 ?If so that is great and the same applies to the other two examples even if they may be harder to get.All 3 examples have only two points of contact an input F1 and output F2.In order to do force multiplication so to have F2 larger than F1 you also need athird pointof contact so the body of the vehicle at a) blue part will need to be connected to ground same as for b) the piston body will need to be connected to ground to work and for c) the blue wire needs to be connected to battery negative.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2023, 04:48:22 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 02, 2023, 06:27:25 pmThat's also a trick that anyone who has played with a yoyo for more than a few minutes knows how to do.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2023, 05:05:18 am
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on February 03, 2023, 04:48:22 amThis is a discussion about physics. No device can do force multiplication if it has only two connection points as those in my examples.3 points are needed to be able to do force multiplication.If you think otherwise give me a link to a Torque multiplier that works with less than 3 contact points.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2023, 06:23:59 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 02, 2023, 08:42:33 pmNope the thread I had in mind was indeed the electroboom versus veritasium about the flow of electrons.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/electroboom-how-right-is-veritasium!-dont-electrons-push-each-other/msg4310218/#msg4310218This is where you went on and on about whatever, purely for the trolling fun of it. So like Nominal Animal, I'm out of here.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2023, 06:40:23 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 03, 2023, 06:23:59 amDerek from Veritasium has less than basic understanding of physics and yes he is also wrong about the way energy is delivered from battery to load and it is through wires not outside the wires.But I'm much more interested in debunking this simpler physics problem. If I can not explain this what are my chances in explaining how electrical energy is transferred from source to a load.I think that the 3 examples illustrate best the problem. There can not be force multiplication in any of the 3 examples and all of them are equivalent. Example C should be best understood by people here and if anyone thinks that DC-DC boost converter can work with a floating ground is free to demonstrate.Or if anyone things the 3 examples are not equivalent then again feel free to point the difference.All of them have an input connection and an output and nothing else thus they can not work the way people may think they should work.Adding a connection to ground from body / cylinder / GND will fix the problem and they will work as anyone will expect them to work as force multipliers A and B and step up DC-DC converter C.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 10:40:05 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 02, 2023, 08:42:33 pm"A book lies at rest on a table. The table is at rest on the surface of the Earth. ByNewton’s Third Law, the reaction force to the weight of the book is:"the gravitational force of the Earth on the book.the normal force exerted by the table on the book.the gravitational force of the table on the book.the normal force exerted by the Earth on the table.the gravitational force of the book on the Earth.As you are obviously interested in the teaching of physics and in particular correcting common misunderstandings of Newton's third law, I thought that this paper fromTeaching Science: the Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Associationwould be of interest to you. The question posed above, and the abstract below both come from this paper, the emphasis is my own. I think it sheds considerable light on the misunderstandings that have been displayed in this thread, and in a number of earlier threads on the same subject.ABSTRACT"On entry to university, high achieving physics students from all across Australia struggle to identify Newton’s Third Law force pairs.In particular, less than one in ten can correctly identify the Newton’s Third Law reaction pair to the weight of (gravitational force acting on) an object. Most students incorrectly identify the normal force on the object as the Third Law force-pair to weight, rather than the gravitational force of the object on the Earth.This misconception may be constructed by students during instruction on Newton’s Second Law, and hence forms a logical, connected part of their knowledge structures, making it highly resistant to both traditional and more interactive instruction.The use of operational definitions of weight may contribute to this problem. We have addressed this issue by using a consistent and explicit definition of weight, and having students work through a short hands-on group activity using a bathroom scale and drawing free body diagrams. As a result, the majority of students, post instruction, can correctly answer this question (and similar ones); and they retain this learning beyond the end of semester. This teaching strategy and activity could easily be used in high schools, so that students develop consistent knowledge frameworks when first introduced to Newton’s laws."Also of interest I think is this blogMaking sense of Newton’s Laws. Written by science teacher Dr. Helen Skelton, describing her own journey from misunderstanding to enlightenment. I particularly like Dr. Skelton's opening sentence."You know those moments when something suddenly makes sense, but you’d never known it didn’t until you got it?"For anyone who is unsure, the answer to the question above is E. SeeDr. Skelton's blogfor an explanation.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 04:38:08 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 06, 2023, 10:40:05 amThe book on the table example while good still has to do with gravity and I think that is not enough as people will maybe think Newtons 3'rd law only applies in those cases.The other examples in the blog (second link) are much better but I feel any engineer or especially physics teacher will be offended if I were to provide that link.I was thinking that you did not even needed to know Newton's 3'rd law to understand how those mechanisms in my drawing will react.At first I was thinking people do not understand what air is and I concentrated on that and it took me quite some time to narrow down to Newton's 3'rd law.People explaining those faster than wind vehicles as taking energy from the wheel to power the propeller not considering what taking energy from the wheel means (reducing vehicle kinetic energy).I'm terrible at explaining things and I feel people only trust an experiment but even when I provided video of an experiment they blamed what they seen in the experiment on a bad setup to much friction or anything other that accepting that is the only way the experiment could work.Why I'm almost the only one trying to correct this ? Especially after that video where the University Physics professor lost as it was unable to explain how vehicle works. I even seen some other University physics professors trying to invent fake math to explain how it worksThe experiment is a big problem because it is incomplete and so wrong conclusions are drawn from that. Both the treadmill and the large model stopped the experiment before they got to peak speed. People just think that one it gets to peak speed it will stay at that speed but what will actually happen is that vehicle will start to slow down and will do so until is well below wind speed.If they could see the full experiment they will realize that some sort of energy storage is involved even if they still do not understand air and that it is a compressible fluid.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 07:29:21 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 06, 2023, 04:38:08 pmSo what is it that you think that people don’t understand about Newton’s third law? The paper describes the failure of many students to correctly identify Newton’s third law force pairs. Do you agree with this, or have you identified some other common misunderstanding?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 07:44:50 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 06, 2023, 07:29:21 pmI think my conclusion is the same as that of the paper but is valid for those that graduated from university.Even in the paper it seems there is a lot of emphasis on gravity but Newton's 3'rd law has nothing to do with gravity and that is just one special case where it also applies.In my 3 examples gravity is not involved as forces are horizontal. I was sure that example B is so simple that nobody can get that wrong and once again I was surprised.Even those very few that understand how B works still get confused by A and think that is different especially after they see real world examples where that device moves to the right.I will assume you claim to understand Newton's third law. Can you explain why this moves to the right (is the setup A but in real world test where more things than defined at A are in play).https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/wheel-cart-energy-storage-slow:8

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 08:07:12 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 06, 2023, 07:44:50 pmI’m glad to hear that you agree with the findings in the paper.Thepaperaddresses the class of problem shown in your examples a) and b) with it’s discussion on objects in static equilibrium under the influence of just two forces. Here is the relevant paragraph from the bottom of page 5 of thepaper.“Consider an object in static equilibrium, under the influence of just two forces. In the Newton’s Second Law – Net Force” (N2-NF) misconception,students note that the two forces must sum to zero (a correct application of the Second Law) and hence the two forces must be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction (also correct, as a direct mathematical result of the first statement), and thus are a Third Law force-pair (incorrect). This reasoning is similar to the (il)logical sequence, “All cats have four legs; my dog has four legs; therefore, my dog is a cat”. While a Third Law force-pair are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, not all forces which are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction are a Third Law pair. This subtlety is often lost onnovice students; but the mental model which arises from the flawed sequence of reasoning is strong and resistant to instruction (Wilson & Low, 2015).”

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 09:00:38 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 06, 2023, 08:07:12 pmCan you please elaborate on this ?In my diagrams (A and B) F1 can not exist without the equal and opposite F2. We are discussing non accelerating reference frames.The way both mechanism A and B are set up makes them no different from a single solid object that is compressed by the second object earth.So yes you can say F1 has a say F1' equal and opposite force provided by the treadmill with is reference do ground and then F2 has an equal and opposite F2' pusing on the red box that is also referenced to ground.But F1' and F2' can be eliminated as the interaction can be simplified as the interaction of just two objects the gearbox(A) or cylinder (B) and ground/earth.You can simplify everything as a hot cubic box with the top surface missing where you introduce a solid object like a cylinder almost touching the two opposite sides inside the cube and you wait until the cubes cools down a bit so cylinder is stuck with forces F1 and F2 pusing on the opposite ends of the cylinder. You remove your hand and all that is left are two solid objects cylinder inside the cube and cube as it cools applying an increasing force on the cylinder with F1 always equal and opposite to F2. Are this F1=F2 Newton's 3'rd law forces or something else.Keep in mind that the cube is a single object and you can not call one face of the cube one object and the other face another object.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 09:25:55 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 06, 2023, 09:00:38 pmThe point that they are making onpage 5 of the paperis that the two forces acting on the object in the N2-NF misconception are equal and opposite when the object is in static equilibrium, but they are not Newton’s third law force pairs, and so do not have to be equal and opposite in every circumstance.Under another circumstance, such as when the object is accelerating, the two forces can and will be different (not equal and opposite). In that case, the vector sum of the two forces would be equal to the rate of change of momentum of the object.So if the the object is accelerating then the two forces must be different (not equal and opposite), or equivalently, if the two forces are different (not equal and opposite), then the object must be accelerating.Edit: added some equal and opposites for clarity.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 09:52:12 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 06, 2023, 09:25:55 pmFair point but in my examples as they are presented acceleration is not possible unless slip is allowed to occur and even then for case A if slip happens at right wheel (input wheel) then object of interest will still not move to the surface of the treadmill will be allowed to move.And in case output wheel (left one) is allowed to slip then vehicle will accelerate in the same direction as F1 (to the left) so for some small amount of time F1 will be larger if the object has mass as that will be converted to kinetic energy but once the speed of the readmill is equal with the speed of the object the forces will again be opposite and equal.None of the above explain what happens in the video I showed where vehicle moves in the opposite direction of the applied force so to the right.People just assume that F2 can be larger than F1 based on the experimental result not understanding that you can not have force amplification with just two points of contact.What actually happens should be easily spotted in the slow motion videohttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/wheel-cart-energy-storage-slow:8It is a combination of energy storage and stick slip hysteresis as the trigger for charge and discharge and not force amplification which is impossible in this case.I don't even care if somebody ever heard of Newton. As long as they can understand why this vehicle moves the way it moves in the video and it is not due to force amplification or force multiplication witch is impossible in all 3 cases I used as examples.Both case A and B can be modified so that F2 = 2 * F1 or whatever gear ratio is by connecting the now floating vehicle body to ground the blue part in case A and the cylinder body in case B. Then there are 3 connection points and F1 will no longer be relative to F2 (equal and opposite) but relative to the vehicle body and then F2 that can be multiple times larger will also be relative to the third point vehicle body and not relative to F1.Forces can not exist in isolation they need to be relative to something and in my 3 examples as they are F1 is relative to F2 and can not exist independent of each other in an non accelerating reference frame.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 10:08:04 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 06, 2023, 09:52:12 pmWhy is acceleration not possible? What is restraining the vehicle from accelerating if the two forces are not equal? You seem to have agreed with the point being made in thepaperthat the two forces in the N2-NF misconception are not Newton's third law force pairs, and so do not have to be equal and opposite when the object is not in static equilibrium.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 10:27:33 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 06, 2023, 10:08:04 pma) Acceleration is no possible if slip is not allowed.b) If slip is allowed acceleration will be zero if the right wheel slips and acceleration will be nonzero if the left wheel slips.c) If left wheel slips and there is acceleration F1 > F2 not the other way around as the gear ratio will suggest. F1 = F2 + m*aA significant force is needed for wheels to slip as the gearbox in case A is locked same as if the wheels where welded to the frame.Here is what happens if left wheels sliphttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/stick-slip-removed-from-front-wheels:0

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 11:06:42 pm
content: QuoteWhy is slip not allowed?QuoteAre there really no states other than completely fixed or completely friction free? Press your finger hard against your desk and drag it. Does it drag the desk along as well or, alternatively, take zero effort to move your hand?And now I am going to spank myself for getting involved again.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 11:18:53 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 06, 2023, 11:06:42 pmI need to mention this as some people think the vehicle can move without any slip.Quote from: PlainName on February 06, 2023, 11:06:42 pmNot quite sure you read what I wrote at point b)If the left wheel slips there will be acceleration and there will also be friction F1 = F2 + m * aBut that means it moves in the direction of applied force not in the opposite direction and it also means F1 > F2 not the other way around and the difference is just m*a

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 11:50:13 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 06, 2023, 10:27:33 pmYou have agreed that the two horizontal forces that act on the vehicle are not Newton's third law force pairs, and so they do not have to be equal and opposite in all circumstances. When they are not equal and opposite, the vehicle will be subject to a net force. This net force must cause the vehicle to accelerate, this is Newton's second law. Are you claiming that this law should include the proviso that it is only true if something slips?

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 11:52:15 pm
content: QuoteI am very sure you didn't read (or understand) my point about slip. Have you never wondered how a clutch works? You can have slip and yetstill transfer power- it is not all or nothing. Thus your statement that " If slip is allowed acceleration will be zero if the right wheel slips" is one extreme. It could slip andstillallow acceleration.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2023, 11:53:59 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 06, 2023, 11:50:13 pmApologies for butting in. Don't know what came over me, and you were doing a far better job. I shall leave you to it

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 12:19:28 am
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 06, 2023, 11:50:13 pmSorry if I was not clear. In my diagrams F1 = F2 and is Newton's 3'rd law that applies there.There can not be motion without slip in any of my diagrams.If you look closely at how the belt is connected you will understand that this is a "locked box". Meaning it can only move if the left wheel slips. If the right wheel slips then only the treadmill surface moves the "vehicle/gearbox" will not move relative to ground.Te examples given for third law almost always involve gravity and that is not a requirement for Newton's 3'rd law thus the failing in understanding what the 3'rd law is about.Say gear ratio is 2:1 in case A you can consider any type of reference frame you want. Will F2 = 2 * F1 ?The answer is clear no and F1 = F2 in a non accelerating frame or F1 = F2 + m*a in an accelerating frame. Thus F1 is always equal or larger than F2 and never the other way around.When both energy storage and stick slip hysteresis are involved the discussion is very different but those two are not provided in the simple example A.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 12:39:20 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 12:19:28 amBut F1 and F2 are not a Newton’s third law force pair. Carefully read again the paragraph frompage 5 of the paperregarding the N2-NF misconception. It addresses precisely this issue. Have you now decided that you do not agree with the arguments presented in this paper?“Consider an object in static equilibrium, under the influence of just two forces. In the Newton’s Second Law – Net Force” (N2-NF) misconception,students note that the two forces must sum to zero (a correct application of the Second Law) and hence the two forces must be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction (also correct, as a direct mathematical result of the first statement), and thus are a Third Law force-pair (incorrect).This reasoning is similar to the (il)logical sequence, “All cats have four legs; my dog has four legs; therefore, my dog is a cat”. While a Third Law force-pair are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, not all forces which are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction are a Third Law pair. This subtlety is often lost on novice students;but the mental model which arises from the flawed sequence of reasoning is strong and resistant to instruction(Wilson & Low, 2015)."

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 01:06:21 am
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 07, 2023, 12:39:20 amWhat will you say that F1 = F2 are a consequence of if not Netwonds 3'rd law ?Or are you saying F1 is not equal with F2 in my examples ?If so please explain how F1 can be different from F2. What is the mechanism to allow that ?And to be clear what I claim is the same as what is observed in a real world test.If F1 is less than what is needed for any of the wheels to slip then F1 = F2If F1 is large enough that a wheel can slip it depends on which one slips.-if is the one on the right F1 = F2 (vehicle is not moving)-if is the one on the left F1 = F2 + (m * a) (vehicle moves to the left in the direction the applied F1 is pointing) video proof:https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/stick-slip-removed-from-front-wheels:0In order for the vehicle to move in the opposite direction of applied force as seen in this other video both energy storage and stick slip hysteresis needs to be involvedhttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/wheel-cart-energy-storage-slow:8In this last case forces are not constant over time. Initial phase F1 = F2 and increasing in value as only right wheel spins stretching the belt (storing potential elastic energy). At some point force is large enough for the right wheel to slip and in that moment the stored elastic energy is converted into kinetic energy.The front wheel will stik (at a different force than it needed to start slipping thus the hysteresis) and the process will repeat multiple times per second (smaller the energy storage the faster the cycle of charge/discharge). Again prove is in the video. You can build your own mechanism and you will observe the exact same thing. It should not be needed to build the experiment if you understand physics including newton's 3'rd law as without energy storage an object will not move in the opposite direction of applied force.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 01:33:05 am
content: In the ideal world of diagram (a) there are no forces, therefore no analysis based on force balances or force pairs can exist.To put this plainly, F1, F2, F3 and F4 are always, unavoidably, and exactly zero. It is not possible to make them anything other than zero.Force balance analysis can only be applied to static systems (the branch of applied mathematics called "statics"). In picture (a) the wheeled assembly is moving freely from left to right and there is no resistance to motion for forces to exist.*The physical simile is a free body moving in space at constant velocity, being pushed by a force labeled "F". It is clear that F must be zero, since a body moving at constant velocity in free space experiences no forces.* Unless we introduce factors like friction in bearings.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 01:43:02 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 01:06:21 amYes, F1 is not equal and opposite to F2 in your examples, except in the case where both are zero.The vehicle in example a) and the cylinder in example b) both have an internal mechanism that guarantees that F1 and F2 will have different magnitudes (except in the case where both are zero). This should be most obvious in example b). Both pistons are exposed to the same fluid pressure, but they have different working surface areas, so as a consequence, F1 and F2 will have different magnitudes.Sorry, it’s getting very late. I need to sign off now.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 01:45:29 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 07, 2023, 01:33:05 amWhy do you say in diagram a there can be no forces in ideal case ?So you saying that appling F1 the assembly will just move freely in the opposite direction of applied force ? How will that ever make sense ?What about case b) as that is simpler to visualize ? Will there be possible to apply a force F1 ? and will F2 not be equal and opposite to F1?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 01:53:09 am
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 07, 2023, 01:43:02 amAs I suspected you have the same misunderstanding as the other about the mechanisms in the 3 examples.I already shown in video that F1 = F2 and also significantly large (can be calculated by the amount the belt was stretched).The internal mechanism in a) and b) can not do force amplification / multiplication in the way they are set up.For that to be true the body of the vehicle in a) (blue part) will need to be connected rigidly to ground and same in case b) the cylinder will need to be connected to ground.Yes fluid pressure is the same also F2 equal and opposite to F1. Please do a google search for a torque multiplier and see if that works with just two points of contact as in my examples a) and b). You will find out that all torque multipliers requires 3 points of contact in order to work.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 02:20:34 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 01:45:29 amIt's a diagram, so there are no frictional forces and no inertial forces. There are also no rigid bodies. Therefore no forces.QuoteYou cannot apply F1 because there are no forces. If the belt is turning as in the picture then the wheels will be turning clockwise and the assembly will be moving to the right. No forces are required for this to be happening.QuoteThere is no need to discuss case (b) as that is different and therefore not relevant.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 02:35:05 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 07, 2023, 02:20:34 amI'm glad you say that case (b) is different since while it is not true it means you likely understand case (b).Belt will not need to move in order to apply a force F1 to the mechanism in case (a).All 3 case represent the same thing floating body/cylinder/GND and thus they can not do force or voltage amplification.In case (c) output current can not be different from input current but you can still have a current different from zero same as you can have a force different from zero in both case (a) and case (b)Maybe you can explain case (b). Can you apply a force F1 in that case and can F2 be anything other than equal an opposite to F1 ?And if so what is the problem there ? Why can you not have F2 say 2 * F1 ?

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 02:49:15 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 02:35:05 amYou cannot apply a force at F1 in case (a), because the wheel will turn, and by yielding reduce the force to zero.QuoteThe first case is not floating as it has a wheel resting on the solid red block, and the other wheel is resting on the belt, therefore not floating either.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 03:17:46 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 07, 2023, 02:49:15 amThe wheel will not turn unless the belt is elastic and the stretching of the belt allows the wheel to rotate while force will increase.You are imagining that the axle friction is so high and that is the reason why the belt stretched so much in my experiment but that is not the reason (not even close).The F1 wants to push the vehicle to the left while the left wheel wants to push the vehicle to the right with the force F2 equal and opposite to F1.It is the same as case (b)I think you are imagining that F1 only wants to turn the wheel and not push the vehicle in that same direction and that will be true if the belt was not connected and the wheel axle had no friction.But due to the way the belt is connected it is basically a locked gearbox no different from having the wheels welded to the body.Quote from: IanB on February 07, 2023, 02:49:15 amThe wheels can rotate independently of the body but not independent of each other due to belt.The body drawn in blue is not connected to anything. If I were to connect the body to ground right in between the red box and the treadmill then F2 can be 2xF1 (assuming 2:1 gear ratio) and so that back wheel can push the red box with a force twice as large relative to grout as the input F1 also relative to ground.Same thing for case (b) where the cylinder body will need to be connected to ground.You can not do force multiplication with just two points of contact and you need a minimum of 3 points in order to do that no matter the device.Just have a search on google images for "torque multiplier wrench" and you will see that all of them require 3 points of contact in order to work.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 04:11:04 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 03:17:46 amThe belt is not elastic and there is no stretching. This is an ideal diagram. There are no physical effects such as stretching, friction or inertia. Everything is perfect and ideal.QuoteNo friction. No stretching. Perfectly ideal.QuoteThere is no F1 because there is no force. No force because no friction, no inertia, nothing to resist any attempted force applied. No resistance, no force.QuoteNo locked gearbox as clearly seen from the diagram and mathematical analysis.You can build it and see. If you want to avoid stick-slip energy storage, use cogs and toothed gears so that no slipping is possible. The assembly will simply move to the right with no force required if the belt moves as indicated.QuotePrecisely.QuoteThere are no forces, therefore no force multiplication.QuoteThere are no forces, therefore no force multiplication.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 04:33:21 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 07, 2023, 04:11:04 amThere is a difference between math and physics.I build it and saw this gearbox is locked. You can see for yourself in this videohttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/stick-slip-removed-from-front-wheels:0Force is applied by the paper to the right wheels (input wheels). As you can see there is no rotation and the entire vehicle is dragged in the direction that the force is applied.The applied force is equal with the frictional force at the back wheels and it is significant (much larger than what it will be required if the gearbox was not locked). This is exactly the same design as the on in diagram (a).

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 04:54:13 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 04:33:21 amYour video clearly shows the wheels turning and the vehicle moving in the manner predicted. The paper goes one way, the vehicle goes the other way.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 05:03:28 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 07, 2023, 04:54:13 amDid you watched the video ? I'm referring to first 15 seconds.The last 9 seconds is a different setup where right wheels (input wheels) will slip and that allows the vehicle to move in the opposite direction of applied force by taking advantage of the energy storage and stick slip histeresis.So what is the reason the wheels are locked while vehicle is being dragged in those first 15 seconds ?

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 05:08:27 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 05:03:28 amYou built it wrong. If the wheels slip it is not working properly. Put some weight on it so the wheels can't slip.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 05:13:36 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 07, 2023, 05:08:27 amThe gearbox is locked so if you want to make the vehicle move you have two choices. Either the left wheels slip and so you drag the vehicle in the direction of applied force (first 15 seconds) or you allow right wheels to slip and then you have the charging and discharging of the energy storage triggered by the stick slip hysteresis fast enough that you will not even notice without slow motion video.So if you think I build it wrong you do it and make sure the input wheels do not slip then let me know how it works.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 05:59:19 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 05:13:36 amI know it works and I know how it works. I have shown you it working with an animation. Animations are ideal, they cannot have any sticking or slipping or any other non-ideal behavior. Animations are perfect, and they work perfectly.Please stop creating these pointless threads.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 06:11:27 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 07, 2023, 05:59:19 amAnything you want can work in an animation without a physics model. Same is true with math.You will be surprised when you will try the real model. You will observe the same thing I showed in my video.You had no explanation for why the gearbox is locked in those 15 seconds while the vehicle is dragged in the direction of applied force. That is because you do not understand the physics involved and specifically Newton's 3'rd law.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 06:11:32 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 01:53:09 amOK, let’s examine your example b) more closely.Assume that your diagram b) represents the state of the system at time t = 0, and at that time, all of the parts of the system are at rest.Also assume that a force is applied to the lever in the direction toward the cylinder starting at time t=0 such that:F1 = 0 for t < 0F1 = X for t >= 0, where X is a constant.What will happen to F2? How do you think that the system will evolve?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 06:57:24 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 07, 2023, 06:11:32 pmIf X is less than needed to move the red box then F2 will have the same value and opposite direction to F1If the body of the cylinder was to be connected to ground then F1 will be applied between the small piston and the cylinder body that is rigidly connected to ground and then F2 can be say 2 * F1 as it will be pushing relative to the cylinder body that is now referenced to ground and not relative to F1As long as cylinder body isfloatingas in diagram (b) F2 can not be anything other than equal and opposite of F1.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 07:11:15 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 06:57:24 pmYes, lets assume that the red box is fixed to the ground and unable to move.So are you saying that the system will reach a static equilibrium with F1 = F2 = X and with the cylinder block remaining stationary?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 07:13:13 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 07, 2023, 07:11:15 pmYes that is exactly what I'm saying.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 07:22:31 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 07:13:13 pmIf the cylinder block remains stationary, then it is behaving exactly as it would if were attached rigidly to the ground. There appears to be no consequence to detaching from the ground. So by what mechanism can whether or not the cylinder block is attached to the ground alter F2?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 07:42:21 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 07, 2023, 07:22:31 pmAs it is in diagram (b) cylinder block floating F2 is a consequence of F1 equal and opposite. Just imagine redbox had no mass and no friction with ground then you can not have an F2 and thus you can also not have an F1 and the displacement will be the same as they will move the same amount.But if the cylinder body is connected to ground then F1 piston can move relative to the cylinder case and the other piston F2 will move say half the distance due to larger say double section area.F2 will push against F1 with say force X but also against the cylinder body with force X so F2 = 2X but this is only possible if cylinder body is connected to ground so there is something to push against.If cylinder body is floating everything will move as one object the small piston the large one and the cylinder case will travel the same distance and so F2 will just be equal and opposite to F1.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 07:50:31 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 02, 2023, 06:27:25 pmBasic physicsYou can also have very interesting discussions with car enthousiasts that keep claiming torque is the main engine parameter. You can't make them understand that power is what makes a car go forward. Even when you show this with simple math

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 07:57:10 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 07:42:21 pmIn the case where the cylinder block is rigidly attached to the ground and the system has reached a static equilibrium, do you agree with the following?If the fluid pressure (force per unit area) is P, and the working surface area of the F1 piston is A1, thenF1 = P * A1Similarly, if the working surface area of the F2 piston is A2, thenF2 = P * A2Therefore F2 = F1 * A2 / A1

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 08:29:40 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 07, 2023, 07:57:10 pmYes that is correct for cylinder block attached to the ground.If cylinder is not attached to ground the cylinder itself will move to the right and assuming cylinder has no mass F2 = F1 but if cylinder has some mass then F2 = F1 + m *a thus no longer function as a force multiplier.So maybe (b) is not a great example as if piston F1 moves to much the cylinder will fall off (as it is drawn). If there is say a stop on the wide part so that large piston can not fall off the cylinder then cylinder will accelerate to that end then cylinder will push against the large piston F2 and so when at that point F2 = F1 as there is no longer than m*a factor.In any case at no point unless by coincidence F2 ≠ F1 * A2/A1 instead is F2 = F1 + m*a until the stop at the end then F2 = F1

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 08:46:02 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 08:29:40 pmSo to sum up. You now agree that the cylinder block will accelerate to the right if it is not attached to the ground. You also agree that during the acceleration F1 will not be equal to F2. As a consequence, do you also now agree that F1 and F2 cannot be a Newton’s third law force pair, because such a pair must necessarily be equal and opposite under all circumstances?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 09:04:25 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 07, 2023, 08:46:02 pmYes but that will be true in any acceleration frame as Newton's 2'nd law is also involved on top of the 3'rd.So to sum up for case (b) you haveF2 = F1 * A2/A1 when cylinder body is attached to ground thus force amplification or force multiplier.F2 = F1 + m*a when cylinder is floating and in an accelerating reference frame.F2 = F1 when cylinder is floating but not moving due to a limit stop so cylinder will not fall off.For case (a) is similar if you attached the vehicle/gearbox body to ground you just have D2/D1 as the gear ratio.If body is floating then you have F2 = F1 unless left wheel slips the as long as it accelerates it will still be F2 = F1 * m*a but once it stops accelerating say moves at constant speed is F2 = F1 again.And there is the more complex case where right wheel (input wheel) slips then there is energy storage and over that period F2 = F1 but right wheel rotates meaning energy is stored then the stored energy is converted to vehicle kinetic energy so again Newton's 2'nd law gets involved.Do you agree with all this ?

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 09:22:33 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 09:04:25 pmSo now that you have agreed that the hidden hand of Newton’s third law does not reach out and restrain the cylinder block in your example b), you can apply the same reasoning to example a).In the past you have been arguing that the wheels will slip because Newton’s third law is preventing the vehicle from accelerating. If you now accept that this hidden hand does not intervene in example b), why do you think it will still reach out and restrain the vehicle in example a)? As you seem to have hinted at above, the vehicle will accelerate with no slip required. (Assuming that the treadmill itself accelerates steadily from a stationary start at time t = 0)

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 10:01:47 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 07, 2023, 09:22:33 pmDid you miss the Newton's 3'rd law ? It is present in all non accelerating frames and of course when whe are in an accelerating frame the 2'nd law also applies.Have you missed the fact that in none of the case where body is floating there is no force multiplication ?Yes the vehicle at (a) in order to move will require one of the wheels to slip as it is a locked gearbox.The same is true in b) as neither the piston pushed by F1 nor the one pushed by F2 moves unless fluid is compressible (not normally the case). But if it is compressible it is no different from vehicle (a) where belt is elastic and so then piston F1 will move as energy is stored same as wheel on the right moves storing energy.Unless one of the wheels slips vehicle (a) will not move. It is your choice if back wheel on the left slips or the one on the right and depending on that we can discuss what the forces are but I already mentioned what they are multiple times.Edit: Also I asked but you did not answered if you agree with the equations I wrote.Only for the case of body connected to ground you can have force multiplication F2 = F1 * A2/A1When there is no force multiplication you will have either F2=F1 in non accelerating frame or F2 = F1 + m*a last part being the second law which deals with acceleration frames. None of this is force multiplication.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 10:23:55 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 10:01:47 pmThere is no locked gearbox.QuoteNo one ever said the fluid was compressible. In all the discussion above the results are true for an ideal incompressible fluid.In case (b) it is impossible to apply a force F1 or F2 because as soon as you try the system will move to cancel out the force. So F1 and F2 are always exactly zero (or you have to introduce a non-ideal F = ma term). This situation is just the same as case (a) where F1 and F2 are also zero.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 10:26:42 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on February 07, 2023, 10:23:55 pmProve that.Show that vehicle moving in that configuration without any wheel slip.It is just impossible for that vehicle to move without either the input or output wheel's to slip.I already proved that is the case in my videos with full explanation of what happens.The equation's also show what happens F2=F1 means displacement is also equal and opposite thus no movement.If body is connected to ground of course it will also not move but you can have force multiplication F2 = F1 * A2/A1So with a gear ratio of 2:1 you will have F2 = 2 * F1 but since P out can not be more than P in that means displacement at F2 is half that at F1 thus vehicle body is not moving (it will be impossible anyway as it is connected to ground).

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 10:43:29 pm
content: QuoteA thought experiment:Instead of the belt driving the right wheel, let's think what happens if the belt is freewheeling and we drive the left wheel. That is, we move the vehicle to the right. The left block is fixed so the left wheel turns clockwise. The connecting belt or chain causes the right wheel to also turn clockwise but at a faster speed because of the gearing. The freewheeling horizontal belt then whizzes past, right to left, because of the right wheel turning.Apart from the Hand of God moving the vehicle to the right, what's wrong with that?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 10:50:56 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 07, 2023, 10:43:29 pmNot quite sure in what direction it will freewheel ?And of course the "Hand of God" is not allowed and that is involved in the animation someone showed in the past.F1 should be the only input and not some invisible force pushing the vehicle body. I guess that is what you imagine when you think about the freewheel.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 11:33:54 pm
content: It's a thought experiment. Instead of Hand of God, you can stand there and push it if you want.So, there is no driving or braking on the horizontal belt. It is free to move in either direction. If you move the vehicle to the right, won't the belt be turned to the left?Forget F1 and all that. It is a simple setup. Push the vehicle to the right, the left wheel turns, the right wheel turns, the belt moves. Is that not the case?

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 11:48:49 pm
content: QuoteOK, let's make it simple. Just say at which point you disagree (and why):1. You, HoG or something moved the body to the right.2. The left wheel rotates clockwise.3. The right wheel rotates clockwise.4. The right wheel rotates faster than the left wheel.5. The rotating right wheel pushes the horizontal belt to the left.There. If you say where you get lost then we know where to concentrate on clearing it up.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 11:49:13 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 07, 2023, 11:33:54 pmWhat will be the point of such an experiment ?If you push the vehicle to the right all wheels and the belt will rotate clockwise so not quite sure what "belt be turned to the left means to you".Edit: It is confusing to refer to the treadmill as belt since there is a belt connecting the two wheels of the vehicle.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2023, 11:55:05 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 07, 2023, 11:48:49 pmWell I will disagree with first point as pushing the vehicle body has nothing to do with this discussion where vehicle is supposedly powered by the treadmill and that is only in contact with a point on the input wheel pushing with the force F1.So now the treadmill is unpowered free to move and you push the vehicle body to the right. Of course since you apply a force to the right to the vehicle body the vehicle body will move in that direction.But it has basically nothing to do with the original problem where the only applied force is to the left (not to the right) and it is applied at the input wheel.No vehicle can move in the opposite direction of applied force without using energy storage.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 12:58:48 am
content: This is an aside, intended for those who are interested in how one can and actually should investigate such systems:The first analysis should be akinematicone, examining the motion of the system components without considering the forces or causes of the operation.Let's consider a vehicle that in some specific time interval moves right by \$x\$ with respect to the ground. The large wheel rotates clockwise by \$\varphi = x / R\$ radians, when there is no slippage, because the surface of the wheel travels the same distance \$x = R \varphi\$. (Full turn is \$2 \pi\$ radians, and the length of the perimeter of a circle with radius \$R\$ is \$2 \pi R\$; similarly, the length of a circular arc with radius \$R\$ that distends an angle \$\varphi\$ in radians is \$R \varphi\$.)In the same time interval, let's say the blue driven belt/surface moves left by \$y\$. This means that the surface of the small wheel travels a distance of \$x+y\$, and the small wheel turns by \$\theta = (x + y) / r\$, using the same logic as we used for the large wheel above.The vehicle has a gearbox with gear ratio \$\lambda = \varphi / \theta\$, with \$\lambda \ne 0\$. That is, when the small wheel rotates one full turn, the large wheel rotates \$\lambda\$ turns. Here, let's say \$\lambda = 1:20 = 0.05\$, so that when the large wheel rotates one full turn, the small wheel rotates twenty turns. When \$\lambda \gt 0\$, the wheels turn in the same direction (as shown in the diagram), when \$\lambda \lt 0\$, the wheels rotate in the opposite directions.We now have all equations we need to examine the kinematics of the system. (We don't know or care how much work is done to move the blue surface left by \$y\$, we just know it has done so.) We have:$$\varphi = \frac{x}{R} \tag{1}\label{1}$$$$\theta = \frac{x + y}{r} \tag{2}\label{2}$$$$\varphi = \lambda \theta \tag{3}\label{3}$$The key here is substituting the first two into the third,$$\frac{x}{R} = \lambda \frac{x + y}{r}$$which we can solve for \$x\$,$$x = y \frac{\lambda R}{r - \lambda R} \tag{X}\label{X}$$for \$y\$,$$y = x \frac{r - \lambda R}{\lambda R} \tag{Y}\label{Y}$$or for \$\lambda\$,$$\lambda = \frac{r x}{R (x + y)}$$We can immediately see that \$\frac{\lambda R}{r - \lambda R}\$ is the key term for considering how the vehicle moves. Let's use$$x = \nu y \quad \iff \quad \nu = \frac{\lambda R}{r - \lambda R}$$The only invalid gearing is when \$r = \lambda R\$, i.e. \$\lambda = \frac{r}{R}\$.Examining the effect of \$\lambda\$ on \$\nu\$, we can make the following observations:When \$0 \lt \lambda \lt \frac{r}{2 R}\$, the vehicle moves as shown in the diagram, with \$0 \le \nu \le 1\$, i.e. \$x \lt y\$.When \$\lambda = \frac{r}{2 R}\$, the vehicle moves as shown in the diagram, with \$\nu = 1\$, i.e. \$x = y\$.When \$\frac{r}{2 R} \lt \lambda \lt \frac{r}{R}\$, the vehicle moves as shown in the diagram, with \$\nu \gt 1\$, i.e. \$x \gt y\$.This means that the vehicle moves right faster than the blue surface moves left.When \$\lambda \gt \frac{r}{R}\$, the vehicle moves left faster than the blue surface, with \$\nu \lt -1\$, i.e. \$-x = \lvert x \rvert \gt y\$.This means that kinematically, with a gearbox where the wheels turn in the same direction (\$\lambda \gt 0\$), the vehicle can move right at any rate, but left only faster than the blue surface.However, if we also consider gearboxes \$\lambda \lt 0\$, where the two wheels turn in different directions, we find that then \$\nu \lt 0\$ or \$\nu \gt 1\$, i.e. the vehicle can move left at any rate, but right only faster than the blue surface moves left.That also means that varying the gearing ratio and direction \$\lambda\$, any constant velocity \$x\$ is possible for a given blue surface velocity \$y\$.Note that a constant velocity kinematic analysis implies that all forces are in balance, since there is no acceleration. That includes both static and dynamic forces, and both linear and angular forces (torque). To determine acceleration, both linear and angular momentum would need to be considered also.Simply put, examining a random subset of forces in a system does not tell you anything about the system. Either you do it fully, finding the rules for the vehicle behaviour, especially acceleration, or you do a kinematic analysis as I do in this post, and find out what kind of steady states are possible when losses due to friction etc. can be ignored.The path of such analysis can be considered to start from kinematics (simplest, easy to teach to children; "when this movesthus, how doesthathave to move"), then rigid body kinetics (forces, torques –– perhaps via ragdoll physics), then to classical mechanics.For real world models, friction is a major issue. Test vehicles tend to be light, and slip easily; this means it isextremelyimportant to use small gearing ratios, \$\lambda\$ close to zero. That is, you need a gearing where the driven/small wheel does many rotations per each large/ground/driving wheel rotation, regardless of whether they turn in the same or in the opposite direction.I personally created a test vehicle, where the ground/driving wheel is connected to a vertical axis using Lego Technic worm screw, and a thread spooled to the vertical axis; see the attached image below. This gives \$\lambda = \pm 0.05\$ or so, but even then, adding more weight to the vehicle adds to its traction, and easier to observe behaviour. Depending on the spooling direction, \$\lambda\$ changes sign, so it is easy to test all the above scenarios. If you renametrike.txttotrike.ldr, you can open it inLeoCAD.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 01:23:51 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 08, 2023, 12:58:48 amYou only talk about geometry not physics.Most have no problems with geometry (I think) the problem is with understanding physics and in particular Newton's 3'rd law.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 02:10:28 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 01:23:51 amNo, the problem is that you won't understand a simple and complete geometric example. And as has been demonstrated many times here, there is no need (or even place) for your "slip-stick hysteresis energy storage".

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 02:20:48 am
content: Quote from: fourfathom on February 08, 2023, 02:10:28 amProve that with either correct physics equations or a video of a real world example.I proved what I claim with video of the real world example.In case you have not seen watch the first 15 seconds of this videohttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/stick-slip-removed-from-front-wheels:0It shows the vehicle in diagram (a) being dragged in the direction of applied force showing that the mechanism is indeed a locked gear so enough force needs to be applied in order to slip in the same direction.At constant speed so not the acceleration part F2 = F1 during acceleration F2 = F1 + m*aIf you think I did something to fake this test you can do the same and prove that I'm wrong.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 02:31:14 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 02:20:48 amThat proof has been presented many times.Just look at Nominal's latest diagram. Use your brain, and imagine one wheel turning. What does the other wheel do? Imagine the wheels on two different surfaces, zero slip. Hold the vehicle steady and move one surface. How far must the other surface move, and in what direction? That's all you need.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 02:40:45 am
content: Quote from: fourfathom on February 08, 2023, 02:31:14 amI do not need to imagine anything I have the video of the real thing working the way I described.If you have a video showing something else then feel free to share.I know you imagine wheel turning as your model is just geometric and not physic. Your mental model does not include Newton's 3'rd law.So your model will not correspond to reality.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 03:02:32 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 02:40:45 amYes, it's been shared before, here:https://imgur.com/a/lTqAFg6

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 03:06:31 am
content: Kinematics is physics, even though some call it geometry of motion. It is the appropriate level of complexity for analysing mechanisms like these.You do not model forces until you need to consider things like friction and acceleration. Using only a subset of forces to try and describe a mechanism is an error. OP's evocation ofNewton's laws of motionis astraw man, because A) they are not relevant for the analysis of the mechanism behaviour at this level of complexity (ignoring friction and losses, assuming perfect traction, steady state operation with no acceleration), and B) OP has picked an arbitrary subset of forces that do not describe the system at the level of complexity where those laws would apply, i.e. their "model" does not sufficiently describe the systems at hand.For an example of an analysis where a complete set of forces would be used, would be to assume the entire system at rest at initial time \$t = 0\$, and then integrate the equations of motion to find out whether the vehicle would accelerate or slip, when some specific (usually constant) force is applied to the paper or blue surface. Both static and dynamic forces would need to be modeled, both linear and angular, as well as linear and angular momentums. Again, picking an incomplete subset that happens to support your pet theory isn't physics or science, it is just an error.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 03:07:49 am
content: Have not seen this particular one before but is basically the same setup as mine even the hardware is the same.What you see there is stick slip hysteresis and energy storage. The front wheel slips else it will not work and by not work I mean wheels will not rotate and vehicle will move in the direction of applied force.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 03:16:04 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 08, 2023, 03:06:31 amIf you want the definition here it is:"the branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces which cause the motion."How will you describe what happens in the first 15 seconds of this video?https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/stick-slip-removed-from-front-wheels:0In order for an object to move at constant speed when there is friction (always present in real world) a net force is required pointing in the direction that the object moves.If an object can not move in the exact opposite direction of the applied force unless as it is the case here energy storage is used.Not only what I say is true but I have demonstrated every single detail with real world tests.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 03:20:01 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 03:07:49 amBut it is working exactly the same as the geometrical model below. Where is the stick slip hysteresis and energy storage here, since the geometrical model has neither of those, yet it still moves as shown?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 03:26:02 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 08, 2023, 03:20:01 amThere are no forces involved in your model. Just take a slow motion video of the real thing and you will see the exactly same thing as in my slow motion video and that is generator wheel will rotate while the vehicle and output wheel do not move.Then only when that input wheel slips so the friction loss instantly drops the vehicle starts to move accelerated by the stored energy.The stored potential elastic energy gets converted in to vehicle kinetic energy. Since in real world there still is friction vehicle will slow down so charge and discharge cycles need to repeat many times each second to maintain the vehicle at some average speed.Vehicle speed is not constant due to charged discharge cycles but you will not be able to see unless you take a high speed video of the device and slow it down.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 03:33:16 am
content: perpetual motion machine

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 04:09:42 am
content: Quote from: karpouzi9 on February 08, 2023, 03:53:58 amThis sort of vehicle can only move in the opposite direction of the forced applied due to a combination of energy storage and stick slip hysteresis as the trigger for the charge/discharge cycles.What happens exactly can be seen fairly clearly in this slow motion videohttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/wheel-cart-energy-storage-slow:8You can see it starts with an increasing F2 = F1 as the belt is stretched (elastic energy storage).When F2 = F1 is large enough that the input wheel can slip (it is easier to slip than output wheel as it is already in motion). And the moment wheel starts to slip the force needed to slip is much lower that the force needed to unstick the wheel in the first place so this allows the potential elastic energy to be converted in to vehicle kinetic energy.Since there is friction the vehicle will slow down so to maintain an average speed this cycle of charge discharge needs to happen multiple times per second and much faster than our slow brain can see.What I did in this other video you likely seen (first 15 seconds)https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/stick-slip-removed-from-front-wheels:0is reduce grip at output wheels suficient so that they will be the first to slip instead of the input wheels and in this case at initial acceleration the belt is still streched as F2=F1 increase but they will not be able to increase that much before the output wheels slip and the stored enenrgy is not discharged the belt remains at that constant streached level while speed remains constnat with the vehicle being draged as the mechanism as it is is just a locked gearbox.So eliminating the stick slip hysteresis from the input wheel removes the ability of the vehicle to take advantage of the stored energy thus it can no longer charge and discharge that to move in the opposite direction of the applied force.If I were to replace the soft belt with a stiffer belt then displacement for same force will be lower meaning less energy will be stored before input wheel slips and that means the cycles of charge discharge will need to be faster (more cycles per second for same constant speed).If the belt is to stiff then amount of energy may be to low and not be able to cover the frictional loss and to have extra to convert to kinetic energy so vehicle will no longer be able to move in the opposite direction so it will be dragged or maybe stay in place while the paper is dragged under the input wheels.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 05:59:45 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 04:09:42 amto impart oscillation in to the loop, a mechanical tank circuit oscillator. but still in need of continuous input

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 09:28:51 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 11:55:05 pmOK, well that's a start!QuoteDo you want to learn that it does indeed have something to do with the original problem, or must you hide under your safety blanket?Now, imagine the right wheel is not connected with a belt (and, sorry, I used 'horizontal belt' previously when I should has used 'treadmill' to save confusion). The wheel is locked rigid. You, the HoG or whatever push the vehicle to the right and that causes the treadmill to move to the right. I presume you are perfectly OK with that since it's pretty basic. So..Let's say the vehicle moves to the right (via whatever strange force) at 2m/s. With a locked right wheel the treadmill will move to the right at 2m/s. Yes? Good. Clearly, any clockwise rotation of the right wheel will reduce the speed of the treadmill. We can thus have three distinct situations:1. The connection between the wheels is 1:1 (that is, the left wheel drives the right wheel at the same speed). In this case, the vehicle moves right at 2m/s, the right wheel rotates at the same speed the vehicle is travelling and the treadmill is stationary.2. The connection is 2:1 (that is, the left wheel drives the right wheel at half the speed). In this case the vehicle moves right at 2m/s and the treadmill moves right at 1m/s (since the right wheel is rotating slower than is necessary to keep up with the vehicle speed).3. The connection is 1:2 (that is, the left wheel drives the right wheel at twice the speed). In this case the vehicle moves right at 2m/s and the treadmill moves left a 1m/s (since the right wheel is rotating faster than is necessary to keep pace with the vehicle speed).Do you agree with those? If not, which of 1..3 do you think is wrong? I can assure you that this will resolve your original problem if you stick with it.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 11:06:55 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 07, 2023, 10:01:47 pmFrom your responses to my own postings and those of a number of others, it seems that you do understand the arguments that we are making. However, in every case you throw a spanner in the works by bringing up your version of Newton’s third law.Try a very simple experiment. Extend the forefingers of you left and right hands, then press the tips of those two fingers together. You will notice that the forces you can feel at your two fingertips are equal and opposite and there is no way of performing this experiment where that would not be the case.You may regard this experiment as pointless, and that it just demonstrates a law of physics which is intuitive and completely obvious. So obvious in fact that there would be no point in giving it a name. But it does have a name, it is Newton’s third law of motion. A key characteristic of this law is that the two forces involved always act ondifferent objects, in this case the tips of your left and right forefingers.The thing that you have been calling “Newton’s third law” is in fact the ”Newton’s Second Law – Net Force” (N2-NF) misconception that I have mentioned before, and is discussed in detail in theTeaching Science paper. I have quoted the key paragraphs from page 5 below, because I think that it is so relevant to this discussion. A key characteristic of the N2-NF misconception is that the two forces involved act onthe same object. In your example a), that object is the wheeled trolley. You always insist that it has a "locked gearbox" so that you can justify treating the trolley chassis along with its transmission and wheels as a single object, and thereby apply N2-NF. Hence your need to introduce this "stick slip" behaviour, because clearly (to you) the transmission and wheels need to move at some point if the trolley is to move at all.Quote frompage 5 of the Teaching Science paper:“In fact, there is evidence thatmany students construct a flawed mental model of the Third Law by conflating it with the Second Law(Dedic, Rosenfield & Lasry, 2010; Wilson & Low, 2015). Unlike some misconceptions in physics, such as the Aristotelian idea that objects move until they run out of impetus, this is not a common sense alternative conception based on every day experience. Rather, it is something that is learned during the study of Newton’s laws. We call this the "Newton’s Second Law – Net Force” (N2-NF) misconception.Consider an object in static equilibrium, under the influence of just two forces. In the N2-NF misconception,students note that the two forces must sum to zero (a correct application of the Second Law) and hence the two forces must be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction (also correct, as a direct mathematical result of the first statement), and thus are a Third Law force-pair (incorrect).This reasoning is similar to the (il)logical sequence, “All cats have four legs; my dog has four legs; therefore, my dog is a cat”. While a Third Law force-pair are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, not all forces which are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction are a Third Law pair. This subtlety is often lost on novice students;but the mental model which arises from the flawed sequence of reasoning is strong and resistant to instruction(Wilson & Low, 2015)."

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 11:16:31 am
content: I remember this is somewhat similar to the infinity drive or torque amplifier conundrum. a quest for a better continuously variable transmission.a mechanical system of interconnected differentials in a mechanical circuit were torque and velocity are controlled by a third inputan order of magnitude less then the power throughput.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 03:35:20 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 08, 2023, 09:28:51 amAs I mentioned in your imaginary setup the vehicle has 3 points of contact and that god will need to be real as a force will need to act against the vehicle body and not an imaginary one as you think.If a real force acts against the vehicle body then due to 3 separate forces acting on the different vehicle parts the vehicle will work as you mentioned.I already provided an example but in my example the vehicle body was rigidly connected to ground and in that case the mechanism acts as a functional gearbox and the red box can be moved by the treadmill and force acting on the box provided by left wheel can be 2x larger than the input force at the right wheel provided by the treadmill.In case you do not understand what our disagreement is I will try to make it clear.The setup in diagram (a) as well as the real setup in my video has only two points of contact (no HoG involved or anything else touching the vehicle body) and in this conditions you can not have a functional gearbox as that will require 3 points of contact.With only two points of contact F2 can only be equal and opposite to F1 in non accelerating reference frames so when vehicle is not moving or when it is moving at constant speed. In accelerating reference frames to this newton's 3'rd law F2 = F1 you add the Newton's 2'nd law m*a.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 03:45:46 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 11:06:55 amNow you imagine the same experiment but the finger from right hand is under the right wheel and the finger from your left hand is under the left wheel.Try to bring the hands together and you will understand why it is a locked gearbox and can be treated as a single object.Your right hand will try to move to the left and you left had to the right and so the right wheel will try to move clockwise and the left wheel counter clockwise.Due to the way the belt connects the two wheels it will be impossible for the wheels to spin in different directions thus what I call a "locked gearbox"So unless you allow for one of the wheels to spin on your finger you can not move the hands closer and all you can do is apply a force that will be as you mentioned Newton's 3'rd law of motion.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 04:01:38 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 03:35:20 pmThe requirement for 3 points of contact is not correct, so this argument can be rejected.QuoteWith a kinematic structure neither forces nor Newton's laws are relevant to the analysis. Do you need forces or acceleration to analyze the movement of the gears in a clock? So this argument can also be rejected.In summary, you have no arguments, therefore there is nothing to debate.The best thing is for us to leave you to your own thoughts and let the thread rest. We do not need to care what you believe, it is not our problem, and it ceases to be entertaining after a while.Why do you keep creating these threads anyway? This is what, the third thread now?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 04:12:24 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on February 08, 2023, 04:01:38 pmIt is on you to prove that as there is no functional gearbox that can do force multiplication with just two points of contact.Make a google search for "torque multiplier wrench" and if you can find one that only requires 2 points of contact (like a normal socket wrench one point hand and the other the bolt) then I will admit that I'm wrong.Quote from: IanB on February 08, 2023, 04:01:38 pmI offered video evidence that things work the way I say they work and you want to contradict a real experiment with kinematics only "the study of motion of a system of bodies without directly considering the forces or potential fields affecting the motion"

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 04:41:25 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 04:12:24 pmIt's not on me at all. You started the thread and are asking the questions. Neither I nor anyone else has any obligation to help you.QuoteYou can believe whatever you wish. Since everyone else in this thread can make an apparatus that does what the diagrams show it will do, and you alone cannot do so, that is your problem and not our problem.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 04:55:12 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on February 08, 2023, 04:01:38 pmAnd yet, you keep coming backOooh damn now I did too

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 04:59:23 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on February 08, 2023, 04:41:25 pmYou seems to be the one making the claim that force multiplication is possible with just two contact points. So it will be on you to demonstrate that.Quote from: IanB on February 08, 2023, 04:41:25 pmThe real device is not doing what the diagram shows. In the diagram there is no slip at any of the wheels while in real world there is slip at one of the wheels else without slip vehicle can not move.I showed how vehicle can move in the direction of the applied force when output wheel slips and I also showed vehicle moving in the exact opposite direction of the applied force which will normally not be possible but it is due to both energy storage and stick slip hysteresis and witch means none of the two sown cases match your kinematic only prediction.You can not predict the way a real object moves using only kinematics and ignoring the net force amplitude and direction.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 06:08:32 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 03:45:46 pmI can think of little further to add to what I wrote in my previous message. You didn't disagree with anything, you just threw in a distraction.You yourself have claimed to identify the understanding of Newton's third law as the fundamental difference between us. A belt driven trolley is hardly the clearest and simplest example with which to examine that difference.Here is a definition ofNewton's third lawthat I regard as correct."To every action, there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts."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.If you have a definition of Newton's third law that makes your F1 and F2 a Newton's third law force pair, then please write it down.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 06:28:48 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 06:08:32 pmWhile 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 youYou 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

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 06:37:23 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 06:28:48 pmOnce again you are assuming something that isn't true. If you hold that object in your hands and try to apply opposing forces F1 and F2 then the object will simply move and rearrange itself to cancel out the forces, so that no force remains. It will be like trying to apply a force to an object that moves out of the way when you touch it. In reality there are no forces on that system, all forces are zero.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 06:47:49 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on February 08, 2023, 06:37:23 pmPlease explain what part moves when you apply F1 = F2 ? There is no net force and F2 can not be anything other than equal and opposite to F1The body when F5 = F6 acts is solid so there is nothing to rearrange and the F3 = F4 act on a material that can not deform.So there is no movement.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 06:53:49 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 06:47:49 pmHow can the assembly be rigid when it has hinges and moving parts? You don't need to imagine this when you can easily make it with cardboard, paper fasteners and string. If you push on the two legs they will get closer together.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 06:58:16 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on February 08, 2023, 06:53:49 pmIt will act as a rigid object even if it has hinges.I feel that you need to build this to test since you think there will be some movement when that is not the case.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 07:30:09 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 06:58:16 pmI really have no need to do anything. It's not my problem.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 07:34:26 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 03:35:20 pmSo, after all that, do you agree or not that each of the statements 1..3in the context shown with the HoG, etc? If not, specifically which one are you stating is false?Just for the moment, if you can manage to control yourself, don't relate this to your problem. Just answer the question honestly, without distractions or diversions, and we can move on.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 07:46:51 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 08, 2023, 07:34:26 pmI already answered your question but likely you are not reading what I write.All statements are correct but are for a completely different setup than the one disused here.You statement has 3 points of contact due to HoG in contact with vehicle body while in my examples there are only two points of contact and the body is floating so no HoG involvement.You can only do force amplification when you have 3 points of contact not possible with only two.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 08:05:23 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 07:46:51 pmOK, thank you.QuoteWell, let's fix that then. Let's remove the HoG from the vehicle and instead get him to turn the treadmill. Now, why won't the treadmill moving cause the wheels to turn?QuoteHate to break this to you, but your example does actually have three points of contact. The are:1. Left wheel on block2. Right wheel on treadmill3. Driving force of treadmill. <--- your Hand of GodBut back to the new setup. Remove the HoG from the vehicle, turn the treadmill, wheels turn and vehicle moves. I think that's the proof you were trying not to recognise.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 08:10:37 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 08, 2023, 08:05:23 pmThe treadmill itself can not move as when the treadmill starts to apply a force F1 that will be matched by F2 equal and opposite so nothing can move unless one of the wheels is allowed to slip.Quote from: PlainName on February 08, 2023, 08:05:23 pmThere are only two points of contact if you understand what that means.1. Left wheel on the red block.2. Right wheel on the treadmill.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 08:21:12 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 06:28:48 pmLet’s for a moment accept your absurd mental gymnastics, and view the table with articulated legs as one rigid object, and the ground, the stationary block, and treadmill as a second rigid object. F1 and F2 would still not constitute a Newton’s third law force pair.The total horizontal force exerted by the ground on the table would be the vector sum of F1 and F2. The total horizontal force exerted by the table on the ground would be of equal magnitude to this vector sum, but directed in the opposite direction. Those two combined forces do constitute a Newton’s third law force pair.If F1 did somehow represent the total horizontal force exerted by the ground on the table, and F2 did somehow represent the total horizontal force exerted by the table on the ground, then the table would accelerate in the direction of F1. F1 would be the only horizontal force acting on the table. F2 would be acting on the ground (if you are going to treat it as the Newton's third law reaction force to F1) and so would not restrain this acceleration. This is obviously wrong.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 08:36:56 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 08:21:12 pmThe "table" is a rigid object due to the configuration and the forces acting on it.Can you have F1 different from zero in a non accelerating frame of reference without the equal and opposite F2 ?If not then that is newton's 3'rd law.But whatever you consider or not that to be 3'rd law you can not show F2 to be twice as large as the apply F1 as you can not have a working gearbox (force multiplication) with only two points of contact (the two legs).Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 08:21:12 pmWhat is the net horizontal force acting on the vehicle ?Fnet = F1 - F2 = 0 is my answer. I'm curious to see what your answer is since whatever you wanted to say in the above comment makes no sense.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 08:56:25 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 08:36:56 pmDo you perhaps regard F1 and F2 as bi-directional forces? So in the case of F1 for instance, do you think of it as both pushing against the wheel in the direction shown by the arrow, and by implication also pushing back against the treadmill in the opposite direction with an equal magnitude?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 09:14:24 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 08:56:25 pmYes there is of course the pair to F1 pushing against the treadmill but we are interested in the forces acting on the vehicle and not on the treadmill as we want to know if there is a net force on the "vehicle".You can see the treadmill as a motor with the stator connected to ground and rotor connected to the vehicle right wheel but due to the way the vehicle is configured internally it will act as a solid block and so the left wheel will push against ground which is basically the same as the motor stator.So the stator is basically rigidly connected to the rotor thus the motor can not move even if it can apply a force.Force needs to be high enough for something to slip and depending on what slips will determine in what direction the vehicle will move.Left wheel slips it moves in the direction of applied force.Right wheel slips it moves less intuitively against the direction of the applied force and that can only happen with energy storage.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 09:19:40 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 09:14:24 pmThat pair to F1isthe Newton's third law reaction force to F1.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 09:45:06 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 09:19:40 pmYes that pair will also be Newton's third law reaction force. So will the F2 and the counterpart acting on the red box.But to know if vehicle moves you will only look at the balance of forces acting on the vehicle and that will be F1 and F2Reducing everything to just the electric motor powering the treadmill you can sat the the rotor is connected to the right wheel and the stator to the left wheel.Since the way the belt connects the two wheels only allows the wheel to move in the same direction the motor will stall so no movement just a force proportional with the current applied to the motor. All energy will be dissipated as heat and there will be no movement.If you push on a wall with F1 using your hands the wall pushes back on you with an equal and opposite force but then at your feet there is also another pair of forces you pushing against ground and ground pusing on you and at the base of the wall there is also an say F2 both wall pushing against ground and ground against the wall.In any case nothing will move the same as in the example (a) unless the applied force is large enough for the wheel to slip at the connection to ground.I'm no longer sure what you are confused about. Is only that vehicle is a "locked gearbox" so thus can be treated as a single solid object or even if that was the case you still do not agree with the fact that F2 is equal and opposite to F1.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 10:05:52 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 09:45:06 pmThis is true, F1 and its pair constitute a Newton's third law force pair, as do F2 and its pair. Newton's third law has now been applied to both F1 and F2 independently. It tells you nothing about the relationship between F1 and F2.QuoteThis is also true and again each of those pairs constitute a Newton's third law force pair.QuoteWhether or not anything moves has nothing further to do (beyond its application to these force pairs) with Newton's third law. So you cannot keep using it as the reason why you think that everyone else is wrong.Edit: added text in brackets for clarity.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 10:26:04 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 10:05:52 pmCan F2 be different than F1 in a non accelerating reference frame and if so what will be the relation between F2 and F1 ?If you are not able to provide that relation and insist vehicle moves then you did not understood why it moves.F1 will not accelerate the vehicle thus F2 equal and opposite to F1 else F1 can not exist according to Newton's 3'rd law.In non accelerating reference frame in case (a) F2 = F1 and the real tests confirm that is the case.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 10:27:59 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 09:45:06 pmF1 may or may not be equal to F2, but they do not constitute a Newton's third law force pair.If you assume that the vehicle is not accelerating, then Newton'ssecondlaw will tell you that F1 is equal and opposite to F2 (if you ignore any frictional effects). And if you assume that F1 is equal and opposite to F2 then Newton'ssecondlaw will tell you that the vehicle will not accelerate. But you cannot prove that the vehicle will not accelerate this way.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 10:40:38 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 10:27:59 pmNewton's second law has no application in a non accelerating reference frame.Videos I showed you multiple times show that F2 = F1 and there is no acceleration.In order for vehicle to move relative to ground one of the wheels needs to slip.1.No wheel slipF2 = F1 according to Newton's 3'rd law.2.Left wheel (output wheel) slipduring acceleration period F1 = F2 + (m * a) thus both 3'rd and 2'nd law are added and F1 is larger so vehicle moves to the left (it is dragged to the left as there is no wheel rotation).After acceleration stops and vehicle is dragged at constant speed F2 = F13.Right wheel slipF2 = F1 while energy storage is charged so right wheel rotates but vehicle is not accelerated then stored energy is converted to vehicle kinetic energy F2 = F1 + (m * a) again both 3'rd and 2'nd law applies this time the acceleration is due to stored energy and so vehicle moves to the right.All 3 cases where demonstrated in my videos showing the real world experiment.Notice that in none of the cases the F2 = 2 * F1 that will be the case for a 2:1 gearbox. But there is no working gearbox as that requires 3 points of contact and will not work with just 2.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 10:55:07 pm
content: Seriously? Another one of these threads? Why do you guys waste time arguing with a troll? He never posts anything except for nonsense like this trying to stir people up.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 11:01:56 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on February 08, 2023, 10:55:07 pmThe troll seems to be you. You have nothing to say but decide to comment anyway.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 11:04:39 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 10:40:38 pmThat is complete nonsense. You can have accelerating objects in a non accelerating frame of reference.QuoteWay back in this discussion, Nominal Animal posted a very detailed kinematic analysis of this system. You dismissed his analysis out of hand by falsely claiming that it was contrary to Newton's third law, but this claim would only be true if Newton's third law did require that F1 and F2 were equal and opposite. Then a few messages ago you identified the correct Newton's third law reaction forces to both F1 and F2. Now you have gone straight back to claiming that F2 is the Newton's third law reaction force to F1.It isn't.You are going around in circles.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 11:11:58 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 11:04:39 pmNot so much going around in circles, as carefully avoiding and dodging any deduction that might lead to a rational conclusion, artfully changing the story and backtracking when it looks like things are getting too close to the correct answer. In all the previous threads it has been the same.Notice how the behavior is always to goad other people into responding and doing work in order to prolong the game?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 11:17:52 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 11:04:39 pmThere is only one object of interest here the vehicle and it is either accelerating in which case Newton's second law is involved or it is not accelerating in which case only Newton's 3'rd law is involved.Quote from: cbutlera on February 08, 2023, 11:04:39 pmKinematics is not useful if you want to predict how the real world object moves as forces are not considered at all. Thus real world test show that veicle does not move the way it is shown by that Kinematics model.Because F1 cannot exist without the equal and opposite F2 when no wheel slip is allowed.Correct me if I'm wrong but you (same as others) claim that F2 = 2 * F1 for a 2:1 gear ratio. No such thing is observed in any of the real world tests because you can not have force multiplication done by a device with only two points of contact.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 11:20:24 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on February 08, 2023, 11:11:58 pmDo you agree that a theory is incorrect if it can not predict what happens in a real world experiment ?If so show me where F2 = 2 * F1 for a 2:1 gear ratio since that is what you seem to claim.I claim F2 = F1 and that is observed in my tests. Vehicle is either stationary or moving at constant speed dragged in the direction of applied force.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 11:27:41 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on February 08, 2023, 11:11:58 pmYes, I think that you are right and I have been wasting my time. After finding that paper describing the surprisingly common "Newton’s Second Law – Net Force” (N2-NF) misconception, I thought that maybe I could help. It looks like I was wrong about that.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 11:39:52 pm
content: Problem with real numbers.Wheels in diagram (a) are not allowed to slip but the red box can slip relative to ground gear ratio2:1.coefficient of static frictionus = 0.5coefficient of kinetic frictionuk = 0.3Vehicle mass5kgwith a 50% distribution so2.5kgon the right and2.5kgon the left wheel.Red box is1kgA) What is the minimum force F1 needed for the red box to start moving ?B) What is F2 in relation to F1 if F1 is less than needed for the red box.C) What is F2 in relation to F1 if F1 is larger than needed for the box to start accelerating and in what direction will the red box move.D) What is F2 in relation to F1 when box speed is constant and what is that speed of the red box relative to treadmill speed.Consider the treadmill infinitely long so no worry about the wheel falling of the treadmill same for the red box.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 11:49:58 pm
content: QuoteWell something is moving the treadmill, and to do that it has to be pushing (or pulling) against some part of your setup, otherwise nothing will move1. Perhaps missing that is the source of your mistake.--- Actually, if something drives the treadmill and it's not attached to anything else, the treadmill will just disappear off to the right. But it can't, because it is attached to the ground to which the left block is also attached. Thus it's another point of contact, as you call it, and completes the circuit.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 11:54:38 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 08, 2023, 11:49:58 pmHey this is very good. Maybe this is where the confusion comes from.Treadmill is attached to ground so the force it applies to the right wheel is relative to ground.There is an electric motor inside the treadmill with the stator connected to ground and rotor connected to the treadmill belt.Is this helpful ?

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 11:56:39 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on February 08, 2023, 10:55:07 pmIt's like trying to bang a nail in with a hammer, but whatever you do and however you hold the hammer, the nail always manages to be slightly somewhere else at the critical moment. Keep coming back because it's one of those things you can't quite believe unless you see it

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2023, 11:59:09 pm
content: QuoteYou tell me. I reckon I know what you'll say, but say it anyway.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 12:02:47 am
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 08, 2023, 11:59:09 pmI was not about to say anything and waiting to see what was your answer.Did you think that F1 was applied between the right wheel and some other part of the vehicle ?F1 is relative to ground.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 12:14:47 am
content: It seems to me the only Force Multiplier in this thread is the OP's ability to get so much engagement on a tired subject they can't let go.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 12:22:53 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on February 09, 2023, 12:14:47 amDo you understand what a force multiplier is ? And also that it requires 3 points of contact in order to work ?If so you understand that this vehicle with just two points of contact can not do force multiplication.Same as the electrical circuit in example (c) can not do any voltage boost with a floating ground.How is electrical engineering easier to understand than mechanical ?

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 01:32:15 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 09, 2023, 12:22:53 amThe reference plane doesn't matter.So bolt the chassis of Nominal's two-wheel device to the ground. That's #1Put your hand one one of the wheels and give it a spin. That's #2Place something on the other wheel, It doesn't matter what, but let's say it's a treadmill. That's #3Rearrange the points of contact however you like. It doesn't matter, the thing works. No stick, no slip, no fooling.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 01:39:21 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 09, 2023, 12:22:53 amDo you understand what a joke is?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 01:40:17 am
content: Quote from: fourfathom on February 09, 2023, 01:32:15 amFully agree with what you are saying but that is not the setup we are discussing.You are describing a functional gearbox / force multiplier with 3 points of contact.You have the case/body connected to ground and you have an input and an output.The one in diagram (a) has the input connected to treadmill the output on the red box and that is all as the body is floating and not connected to ground it can not multiply / amplify the force.To do force multiplication you need a device that has 3 points of contact and it will never work with just two.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 01:43:05 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on February 09, 2023, 01:39:21 amIt seems your ability to make jokes is at least as bad as your understanding of physics.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 01:45:31 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 09, 2023, 01:43:05 amI haven't even said anything on this topic in any capacity and already you're calling me an idiot.To every action (a joke) is opposed an equal reaction (your inability to take the joke).

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 01:52:32 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on February 09, 2023, 01:45:31 amIt seems your ability to make jokes (a joke) is at least as bad as your understanding of physics (your inability to take the joke).I'm trying to explain this highschool level physics for the past few months and I do not longer find anything funny.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 02:05:07 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 09, 2023, 01:52:32 amLook, bro, some advice. Maybe I completely agree with you (I don't, but you're an expert at thought experiments so pretend I do). I made a joke about the fact that every couple months you start one of these threads and, pretty unanimously, the board disagrees with you every... single... time.Now, the joke here is that this thread is called "force multiplier" so it appears that one poster (you) is able to conjure up some pretty remarkable reactionary forces out of proportion to their size despite how many times this topic has been hashed, rehashed, triple hashed, and no one is convinced by you.Now remember, in this thought experiment, we are pretending I think you're absolutely right. So, my understanding of physics would be on par with yours.But instead, you instantly turn towards calling me an idiot without even knowing what I think about you, or your arguments. All I said is its funny how strong a reaction you get... every single time. Force multiplier? Get it? Do you get it?And there is an extra joke there - that you might have called someone who agrees with you an idiot for agreeing with you. So that makes you an idiot too, right?So,1) You're incapable of understanding I was making a pretty obvious joke given you tried to lecture me without even pausing to recognize the absurdity of this thread and the last... 3 threads there have been on this?2) You're incapable of taking a joke that might even peripherally be at your expense.3) You're incapable of even recognizing that turning towards calling people idiots without even knowing their opinions of your physics will just make people plain not like you - even if they agree with you.4) You're incapable of explaining high school physics.I've been a teacher for 10 years and a tutor for almost 20. You are really, really bad at teaching. And if this isn't fun or interesting or engaging for you... you can just stop. That's the advice.But you might also be incapable of that.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 02:37:38 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on February 09, 2023, 02:05:07 amI have periods when I'm quite busy with my own business so yes there were multiple times when I tried to explain and needed to give up because I no longer had the time to waste.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.So my reaction to your "joke" is as frustration to my inability to explain this "simple" (simple to me) problem.I was quite convinced that the other two examples will be understood and then with that example (a) will also be understood but apparently I was wrong.There are even people thinking that (c) can work so you can have a different current current at output than input in a floating GND circuit and that is on a electronics hobby forum.So this every action has an equal and opposite reaction is not understood by majority (it makes it even worse that people that argue with me have an engineering degree).So yes I understand I'm very bad at explaining / teaching and this is also not fun for me but I can not stop as I do not live in complete isolation.I depend on other people same as everybody else and world can be better and safer if more people can understand this important part of physics (the every action has an equal and opposite reaction).If I were to be able to explain to you what the issue is and assume you understand it. Will you be willing to spend time explaining to others ?My goal is to find just a few people that can understand until the info becomes widespread and the misinformation is corrected.Else people will think that a wind only powered vehicle can drive directly downwind faster than wind for unlimited amount of time.All this based on a series of incomplete experiments that do not show that to be true. What they show is that vehicle can exceed wind speed but is due to energy storage and that means it will be above that speed only for a limited amount of time proportional with the amount of stored energy.And while I'm bad at explaining I'm not stupid and if I was wrong and everybody else was right then I will have been able to understand.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 03:04:56 am
content: Here is another method of explaining using pulling instead of pushing.In below image you see a typical example of Newton's third law maybe similar to what you will find in a school physics book.Now imagine replacing that Newton meter indicator will some sort of gearbox so input is connected towards human and output towards wall.Gearbox is floating in mid air same as that Newton meter so only two points of contact. Can you imagine human pulling with say 100N and wall experiencing anything other than same 100N in opposite direction ?If so please explain and if not then how is case (a) any different ?

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 03:14:02 am
content: Please explain how slip-stick hysteresis adds power to a system.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 03:28:37 am
content: Quote from: fourfathom on February 09, 2023, 03:14:02 amIt does not add power. Stick slip hysteresis allows the energy to be charged and discharged.So in this slow motion videohttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/wheel-cart-energy-storage-slow:8You can see the treadmill / moving paper applies a force that makes the input wheel (the one on the right) to rotate as the belt is being stretched.The force will increase until the point that force is large enough to make the input wheel slip.There is a difference between the static friction and kinetic friction thus the hysteresis and so as soon as the wheel slips the force drops instantly and thus the stored energy in the rubber belt can power the vehicle so that stored elastic energy is converted into kinetic energy.But as the energy in the belt is discharged the force drops and so the front wheel sticks again and the process will repeat.So the stick slip hysteresis is the trigger for charge and discharge of the stored energy. So during discharge is like vehicle is powered from inside instead of outside.If there was no energy storage or the input wheel could not slip the vehicle could only move in the direction of applied force so to the left as seen in this other video where friction at the output wheels (left wheels) is reduced so to ensure they slip before the input wheels.https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/stick-slip-removed-from-front-wheels:0first 15 seconds.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 06:20:34 am
content: QuoteYou do realize that this makes no sense whatsoever, don't you?If there is energy to be charged and discharged, this same energy can be delivered in a steady continuous manner, with the wheels not slipping or sticking.But forget energy. Forget power. Just consider the geometry. If the geometry works but your physics doesn't, then your physics is wrong.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 07:16:09 am
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 08, 2023, 11:56:39 pmAfter a couple of unsuccessful whacks I'll wander off and get my screwgun or pneumatic nailer.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 07:26:57 am
content: It's kind of like this, but not as funny:(Tremors "hammer" scene)

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 07:29:12 am
content: Quote from: fourfathom on February 09, 2023, 07:26:57 amI laughed out loud at that, he's just flailing with that hammer.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 03:06:41 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on February 09, 2023, 06:20:34 amYou do realize that the vehicle needs to move in the opposite direction of applied force ?"Kinematics is the study of motion of a system of bodies without directly considering the forces or potential fieldsaffecting the motion"And you seen the real world tests witch show exactly what I'm saying so not a constant speed except for the case where vehicle is dragged in the direction of applied force.When vehicle moves fast in the opposite direction the motion is not constant as there is acceleration and deceleration but unless you measure that or slow down the video the human brain is not able to see that same way as the human brain is not able to see the 100 or 120 cycles per second an incandescent light bulb intensity increases and drops.You will just say look at the bulb the light is continuous with no dips and I say make measurements or take high speed video and measure based on the slowed down video information.Same as filament on the light bulb can not cool much in that very short period where current is zero or close to the speed of the vehicle can not drop to much as it is smooth out by the kinetic energy but even with that there is a small variation same as there is a variation in temperature for the light bulb filament.If you reduce the AC current from say 50Hz (100 times crossing through zero) to 5Hz (10 times) you will notice the change in light intensity without needing a measurement device or slowed down video.Same if you reduce the speed of the treadmill enough you will notice the charge discharge cycles and the associated vehicle speed variation same as seen in my slow down video.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 04:09:28 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 09, 2023, 03:06:41 pmThat's not whatNewton's first law of motionsays.In other words, what you insinuate there, is utterly wrong: you're actually saying, "You do realize thatincorrect assertion". This is a really weird and awkward way to ask someone if they too misunderstand in the same way as yourself. Odd.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 04:16:41 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 09, 2023, 03:06:41 pm"And yet it moves."It's amazing to watch how you twist yourself up in your pretzel logic. But I suppose if your fundamental premise is wrong...

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 04:24:02 pm
content: It's especially strange after all the arguments that F2 is equal and opposite to F1, and yet suddenly when it comes to the direction of movement of the cart we have that F1 is the "applied force" and no mention of F2. If F1 and F2 are equal and opposite, why can't F2 be the applied force?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 04:24:11 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 09, 2023, 04:09:28 pmThat question may not be phrased great and it is taken out of question.The treadmill moves to the left so it pushes the vehicle to the left by applying F1 at the right wheel.The vehicle due to the way the wheels are connected will want to move to the right so in the opposite direction but it can not do that since F2 can not be larger than F1 this vehicle is stuck same as if it was all a single solid object.This F2 = F1 is due to Newton's 3'rd law and without energy storage (belt stretched) and right wheel slip the vehicle could not move to the right thus against the direction of applied force F1What 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 04:33:37 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on February 09, 2023, 04:24:02 pmThis vehicle right wheel is the input wheel in the way it is setup.It is not like when you apply F1 it takes some time until you get F2 they are a pair so at the same instant you have F1 you will also have the equal and opposite F2 so there is no delay.See the image below that you normally find in a textbook when Newton's 3'rd law is explainedWill you say that F1 is at the human side as applied force and F2 is at the wall as equal and opposite ?Can you imagine replacing that Newton force meter with some sort of gear box like what we have in case (a) and will that be able to change the ratio between F1 at human and F2 at the wall ?Of course it will not be able to do that no matter what you replace that Newton meter with.

author: Kasper
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 04:58:25 pm
content: If you want to compare hydraulics to a boost smps, look at hydraulic ram pump.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 05:13:06 pm
content: Quote from: Kasper on February 09, 2023, 04:58:25 pmYou mean this ?It is a great example of the mechanism (a) uses to move against the direction of applied force F1.It is energy storage in this case compressed air and the equivalent of stick slip hysteresis generated by the one way valves.At least this moves slow enough for people to see what happens while for the vehicle in case (a) you usually need a slow motion video to see the effect of energy storage and stick slip hysteresis.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 05:19:37 pm
content: Are animated diagrams now proof of something?Oh, it'syouranimated diagram. Big difference, eh.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 05:24:45 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 09, 2023, 04:24:11 pmAnd 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 aLeoCADmodel (LeoCAD being free and available for Windows, Linux, and Mac OS), so that not only can you investigate exactly its components, you canreplicate the vehicle and reproduce the results for yourself. (I used parts fromLego Technics set 9395from 2012 that I got as a gift from a friend –– it reminded me from theset 8846that was my first complex Lego set I had as a kid ––,and I opened the untouched set just to build this example trike.)I could simplify the design so that Lego Technics set 42133 and at least two axle hubs (part55982, available from Lego pick-and-build, and fromBricklink (55982)etc.) would suffice; or the very cheap Lego Technics set 30655 (released Jan 2023, ~ 5 USD) with at least two axle hubs (like part93593), 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'dloveto help you understand, but no argument, logic, model, or explanation seems to change anything in your thinking.)

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 05:26:47 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 09, 2023, 05:19:37 pm? I needed to search (on google) what a RAM pump is so I included the animation for others to understand what it is if they never heard of it.It is not just a kinematic animation it takes into account the forces involved so that it reflects how it works in real life.I can make a correct animation for the vehicle (a) as well but it is seen very clearly in my video so even better than an animation.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 05:38:52 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 09, 2023, 05:24:45 pmWhere is the video of your trike working ?Your trike is more complex than the belt driven device I demonstrate.There is also a problem if the wire you use as input is of center even slightly as then you can take advantage of the offset to create a lateral force against which to get leverage.Hope you understand what I mean by wire being off center and you can imagine an exaggerate large spool where the wire is even outside the vehicle frame then you will have a huge lateral force as the third point against which you can leverage.So because I need to explain the differences introduced by your model I prefer not to discuss your trike.Try your trike with a lower gear ratio and see how the small off center offset of the string will try to rotate your vehicle.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 06:44:45 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 09, 2023, 05:38:52 pmCan 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 Legolink chainas 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?

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 06:45:36 pm
content: QuoteBut 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.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 06:49:57 pm
content: QuoteJeez! You don't need a video - hetells you how to build an actual model, and what with. You could make that by tomorrow if you cared enough. It's simpler than you telling other people to build the stuff you dream up, and you could see exactly for yourself how it works. But you can't let yourself do that because you know it will work and you wouldn't be able to handle it.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 07:54:37 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 08, 2023, 06:28:48 pmApantographis 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?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 08:34:17 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 09, 2023, 06:44:45 pmYes this similar belt or even chain driven vehicle will convince me. But are you assuming that I faked the videos ?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 08:35:38 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 09, 2023, 06:45:36 pmYou can make an animation based on kinematics only (not representing what happens in reality) or you can make an animation including the effects of forces.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 08:43:20 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 09, 2023, 07:54:37 pmPlease 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 videohttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/stick-slip-removed-from-front-wheels:0Or 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=F1The last few seconds shows that allowing slip at input wheel results in movement against the direction of applied force using energy storage.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 08:58:38 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 09, 2023, 08:43:20 pmI 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.In a recent message you wrote thisQuoteYou 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?

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 09:03:31 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 09, 2023, 08:34:17 pmI'm actually utterly surprised you say that! Okay, I'll start working on it. I need to buy at least one cheap set for the chain, and some work lights so I can take an acceptable video of it working using my Ye Olde Phone (Honor 8 from late 2016/early 2017), so give me a day or two to get it done.Is the LeoCAD model of it useful for reproduction purposes, or is the video and images of the vehicle sufficient?Is it okay if I replace the driving wheels with sprockets on a rack, to maximize traction and avoid slipping? Or are rubbery wheels on whatever surface it is put on more convincing for you?Quote from: electrodacus on February 09, 2023, 08:34:17 pmNo, it's just that a vehicle that fails to show something is not proof that it is impossible. I am telling you your vehicle was poorly constructed, and really cannot prove anything one way or another. (And, remember that one example that fails, does not show that it is impossible; it only proves that that one example fails.)Lego Technic are precision components. Even though they are toys, their manufacturing tolerances are extremely tight, on the order of 2 micrometers (0.002 millimeters, less than one ten thousandth of an inch): higher than most metal machine shops' capabilities. They are also quite rigid, capable of withstanding quite high bending forces. This is what makes them excellent for engineering and mechanism examples.Lego downside is their light weight, which means that wheels typically lack traction and tend to slip. It can be worked around by adding weight (coins, anything metal, fishing lure weights). As the set I used for the trike had large plastic rubber tires, they were perfect for adding weight and increasing traction (larger contact area).

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 09:12:21 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 09, 2023, 09:03:31 pmBefore you go to too much effort, please be aware that this video exists:https://imgur.com/a/lTqAFg6

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 09:37:56 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 09, 2023, 08:58:38 pmI have not asked you to build a pantograph but the mechanism in my diagram as that one will not move unless it slides as a solid piece.Quote from: cbutlera on February 09, 2023, 08:58:38 pmIt depends on where the articulations areDo 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.Even seeing the video with the locked mechanism being slide in the same direction as applied force is no proof for you so you either want to blame that on something else or you think I faked the video.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 10:14:14 pm
content: It seems we are circling back to same questions.I provided the proof that mechanism is locked so F2 = F1 at constant speed and it moves in the same direction as applied forcefirst 15 seconds in this videohttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/stick-slip-removed-from-front-wheels:0Also showed what happens if input wheel (right wheel) is allowed to sliphttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/wheel-cart-energy-storage-slow:8Unless you think I faked any of this videos no other proof is needed for my claim. And if you think it is faked it is on you to show the same setup working differently and that will disprove my theory unless you fake the videoAlso your claim that vehicle should work because of gear ratio that allows F2 to be multiple times of F1 requires 3 points of contact and there are only two.If you think force multiplication can be done with only two points of contact then you need to provide a link to a commercially available torque multiplier wrench that works with just two contact points and that will be proof enough for me.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 11:20:25 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 09, 2023, 09:37:56 pmNo, one is an animation and the other is a static image, but to me that is not convincing proof that one is a rigid structure and the other isn't. But other than that, yes they look very similar, both are hinged quadrilaterals with extended edges.QuoteBoth the pantograph and the articulated table are made up of 4 struts in the form of a quadrilateral with extended edges and with the with hinge joints where they intersect. Such shapes do not form a rigid structure.If I remove one strut from either of them, then they both form triangles with extended edges, with hinge joints where they intersect. Such triangles do indeed form a rigid structure. But I don’t see how that differentiates the two cases.The pantograph and the articulated table are both only supported at two points. In both cases the mechanism in-between is floating. So I still don’t understand what the key difference is that makes one of them behave as a rigid structure, and not the other.QuoteYou 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?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 11:40:54 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 09, 2023, 11:20:25 pmI 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.While the mechanism can move it will not move when F1 is applied as shown in the diagram. If force was applied to some other parts of that mechanism then movement is possible but that is not relevant for the current problem where mechanisms is locked and demonstrated in a real experiment.If you connect the vehicle body to ground then you will have the F1 applied between the vehicle body and input wheel and for a 2:1 gear ratio you will have F2 between the output wheel and vehicle body equal with 2 * F1 so what you will consider a functional gearbox.But as soon as you remove the vehicle body from ground the body is now floating and there is no net force acting on it.I do not think Newton's 3'rd law is hard to understand but it seems I'm proven wrong by all your comments.In school manuals for Newton's 3'rd law you will see an example like the one below.So my question is simple. Just add this device or any other device you want instead of the Force meter thus just two points of contact one on the string connecting the human say human pulls with F1 and the other point connecting the string that is connected to wall say that force will be F2Can any device be able to take the input F1 and have the output F2 be different than F1 ?Maybe pulling instead of pushing makes it more easy to understand and it is a typical example for Newton's 3'rd law.Unless that magic box replacing the Force meter has a third point for leverage it will not be able to have F2 different from F1.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2023, 11:48:43 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 09, 2023, 11:40:54 pmThat 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?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 12:05:06 am
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 09, 2023, 11:48:43 pmI do that is the reason I'm here.The video/video's is not an explanation is a proof that my explanation is correct.It shows the vehicle in case (a) being dragged. That means a large F1 force is applied so large that it can drag the vehicle in the direction F1 is pointing and there is no wheel rotation so basically it acts as a solid object.Relation between F1 and F2 is that F2 = F1 except for the short duration when vehicle is accelerate from zero to a constant speed when F1 = F2 + (m*a)I will love you try and find an alternative explanation that is consistent with what is observed in that video first 15 seconds with the last few seconds showing that vehicle is not faked and that wheels can rotate if the input wheels (the ones on the right) are allowed to slip.Then there is the slow motion video that shows what happens when the front wheel is allowed to slip but in slow motion. And that again is explained fully including the energy storage and the trigher provided by the hysteresis between stick and slip.The force needed to overcome static friction is larger than the force needed after wheels starts to slipFs - force needed to overcome static friction.Fk - force needed to overcome kinetic friction.This are the triggers allowing small and fast charge discharge cycles and why the mechanism looks smooth without slow motion video even tho there are many fast cycles of charge discharge and the only way any vehicle of this type can drive against the applied force.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 05:34:57 am
content: 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 inmy reply #97, when the movement is impossible. Simply put, electrodacus' picked exactly the worst possible gear ratio for their demonstration vehicle.)As shown in thevideolinked 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 06:46:10 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 10, 2023, 05:34:57 amAs far as I'm aware the convention for gear ratio is driver wheel divided by driven wheelhttps://www.sae.org/binaries/content/assets/cm/content/learn/education/motortoycar-samplelessonplan.pdfIn the case of example (a) and also my real world model the driver wheel was the one on the right (input wheel) and the driven wheel was the one on the left (output wheel) so the gear ratio is 2:1 so 2 rotation of the input wheel are needed for one full rotation of the output 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.I have also tested with a 3:1 gear ratio probably the same as the one in IanB video and 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.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 09:54:43 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 10, 2023, 06:46:10 amFine; I used the inverse.Quote from: electrodacus on February 10, 2023, 06:46:10 amIt's not about internal friction, it is about traction in the wheels. How about you actually try a 4:1 or higher gear ratio, instead of baseless assertions?Quote from: electrodacus on February 10, 2023, 06:46:10 amAnd I can show you the exact kinematics of why there are no such discharge cycles when the vehicle does not flex. Yours flexes and behaves badly, because it has such a poor gear ratio, that's all.If you start your examination from the contact point between the driver wheel and the belt, you have four forces at that point, with the net result a clockwise torque on the axle (assuming belt surface moves left). If we ignore friction losses in the gearbox, the gear ratio is also the torque ratio. If your driver wheel turns twice for each driven wheel turn, then the torque at the driver wheel axis is twice the torque on the driven wheel axis. (See e.g.here.)The higher the ratio, not only is there more torque, but also the angular and thus linear velocity at which the driver wheel tries to move the vehicleis lower. That is, with higher gear ratios (using your definition), there is more torque available to move the vehicle forwards.With lower gear ratios, there is less torque available, and the velocity needed is higher. When the gear ratio is insufficient, you will see jerkiness, because the wheels –– driven and/or driver –– will slip. With higher gear ratios (or with wheels with better traction, or with heavier vehicle), there is less and less of wheel slippage, with sufficiently high gear ratios and/or heavy vehicles, the motion is absolutely smooth.If you change the gearbox so that the driven and driver wheels turn in opposite directions, you just change the sign of \$\lambda\$ as described inmy reply #97, noting that \$\lambda\$ is the inverse of the gear ratio as electrodacus prefers it to be defined.Quote from: electrodacus on February 10, 2023, 06:46:10 amSo, you ignored my kinematics equations in reply #97, which shows that there are stable solutions for both same direction and opposite direction, whenever the gear ratio is outside the bad zone?That with a straight belt, with treadmill surface moving left, the vehicle can move right at basically any speed except at the same speed that the treadmill surface moves left; but the vehicle can only move left faster than the treadmill surface?That with a twisted belt, with treadmill surface moving left, the vehicle can move right only faster than the threadmill surface moves left; but left at basically any speed except at the same speed the treadmill surface is moving?Everything I've told you and described to you is mathematically valid and verifiable in both theory and practice. What you have done, is made assertions and shown one video that fails to perform as I've described, which you have taken as proof that no vehicle can perform as I've described. Hell, I've even described exactly why your vehicle failed to perform, and instead of verifying it for yourself, you just assert that your vehicle is proof because you don't want to admit you're wrong here.Are you sure you're not just playing word games and trolling here? Are you here just to try and convince others that you are right, or are you willing to admit you're wrong and learn?Testabilityis a primary aspect in science, and even more so in Physics. You present one video of one non-performing device as proof, and ignore all examples of devices that are proven to perform. You even assert that you don't need to modify your device, because the modifications do not matter! In short, you are refusing to test your understanding. That is not science, it is religion.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 12:29:03 pm
content: Hear HearMy curiosity was triggered such that I decided to build my own vehicles to test the premises. Mind you it is just observational and not actual measurement to proof what is going on. I can't say much about the forces, because I do not have the equipment to measure them. And there in would lie the actual proof.But to me my experiment gave enough proof to believe that what Nominal Animal states is correct.The attached picture shows the 3 vehicles I build. All have the same base structure, but different size sprockets.The first one has a 1:1 ratio based on 20 teeth sprockets at both ends.The second one has a 2:1 or 1:2 ratio (depending on how you look at it) based on a 10 teeth sprocket and a 20 teeth sprocket.The third one has a 3:1 or 1:3 ratio based on a 10 teeth sprocket and a 30 teeth sprocket.Using manual force on the frame with both set of wheels on the table surface it is easy to move the 1:1 ratio based vehicle, but basically impossible to move the other ones without slipping wheels or sprockets on the axles.Using a piece of paper like shown in the video of IanB it is impossible to move the vehicle with the 1:1 ratio without either the wheels on the table to slip or the ones on the paper. In this case I call it just dragging things along.With the other two vehicles it shows the vehicle moving against the direction of the paper with different speeds between the wheels. This can easily be proven by the different distances traveled by the two axles. For this to work the wheels on the paper have the 10 teeth sprockets.Reversing the vehicle such that the 20 teeth or the 30 teeth sprocket is on the paper, the movement reverses. The vehicle will start to move forward when the paper is dragged forward. There is again a difference in speed of the wheels, which is needed to make it work.None of this shows any energy storage or slip stick hysteresis to me. With the bigger gear ratio the movement is very smooth.All it needs is an initial force to overcome the friction and then movement starts. This force is supplied by my hand pushing or pulling the paper.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 04:42:57 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 10, 2023, 12:29:03 pmGlad to hear you where interested enough to decide and do your own experiments. Thanks.Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 10, 2023, 12:29:03 pmThe gear ratio makes no difference on how the vehicle performs.For 1:1 there is no longer a define input as both size can be considered input or output so stored energy storage while charged has no way to discharge on just one of the sides thus vehicle can not have a net move in any direction as randomly one set of wheels will slip.But it is still useful to show that the way belt/chain is connected makes this a locked gear and that is true for all other possible gear ratios.Correct definitions are 2:1 and 3:1 since when looking at a gear box you need to know which one is input and which one is output and in this application the input is always the small sprocket. 1:2 will mean the large sprocket is the input and a gear ratio of 1/2 = 0.5While definition is not so relevant knowing what is the input on a system is important else you will think overunity is possible.Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 10, 2023, 12:29:03 pmOf course that makes perfect sense because at 1:1 wheels rotate at same speed and forces are the same (no force multiplication)When using any other gear ratio the wheels will want to spin at different rate and if they can not slip the vehicle is locked.Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 10, 2023, 12:29:03 pmYes vehicle will move against the direction of input force / paper but the only reason that is possible is energy storage and stick slip hysteresis.To verify this even with a high speed camera (it will be much easier with a camera at least 120fps if you have one to slow down the video).But just try to move the paper super slow to see what happens and how force you apply to the paper needs to be so large that the wheels on the paper will need to slip before the vehicle can move powered by the stored energy against the direction of the paper.Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 10, 2023, 12:29:03 pmHere is one of the other main problems and that is considering what is the input and output of the vehicle.The fact that you put the large sprocket on the moving paper does not mean that vehicle is not the same so all you did was move the input on the table and output on the paper.So the input in this case is the table and you need to look at the movement of the table surface relative to vehicle then see how vehicle moves relative to that.You will also be able to see in slow motion that the first wheel that moves is the input so the one with 10 tooth sprocket on the table.You have a more rigid belt/chain it has both flexibility and a bit of gravitational energy storage as the chain will be lifted when charged but the elastic is likely still the largest contributor.That initial force is to make the wheel slide so is not about internal forces as it is about dragging the wheel until it slips.If wheels are all equal the input wheel the one with small sprocket will always be the first to slip and if you can eliminate the slip at input wheel you will see that vehicle no longer moves against the direction of the input force but in the same direction as input force.It is like saying that a incandescent lamp does not flicker because your brain can not see the fast changes in light intensity and so claiming that lamp works on DC instead of actual AC where light intensity fluctuates 100 or 120 times per second way to fast for our brain to notice.My claims cannot be disproved with a fast motion of the vehicle and no way to slow down the video to see the charge discharge effect and stick slip hysteresis.But anyone truly understanding Newton's 3'rd law will understand that an object can not move against the direction of the only force applied.So please if you have a phone or camera that can do some god slow down video take the 2:1 vehicle and do some video in good lighting from the side so that the movement of the wheels can be seen.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 05:01:14 pm
content: I don't have a good camera to do this, and I don't need to be convinced about what is going on. I guess we have to involve the "slow mo guys" to make a proper video about it, but I don't think they will be interested in something like this.But Nominal Animal was right, there is no convincing you. I just did the experiment to see for myself what happens and I have seen it with my own eyes and don't buy into the energy storage belloni you are trying to sell.If you really want to proof you are correct, I challenge you to setup a verifiable experiment with measurement equipment and proof that way that there is happening what you claim there is. I don't have equipment for it so I can't do it myself.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 05:15:49 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 10, 2023, 09:54:43 amIt will make no difference (as I mentioned I used 3:1) and had the same result. The higher the gear ratio the less the vehicle moves with every charge/discharge cycle. At some point is also possible for the belt connecting the wheels to slip wasting the stored energy.According to your explanation F2 = F1 * 2:1 so F2 = 2*F1 thus why will you need more than this if it was true and at all times?In reality F2=F1 that increases the F3 = F4 (belt energy storage) and only when input wheel slips the force form the energy stored in the belt adds to F2 and drops very fast as it is converted to vehicle kinetic energy then when it is used up the input wheel sticks again tho this time vehicle is in motion so stick slip happens much faster than first time as I showed in this graph except you can consider the time in ms (not sure what the graph was used for is from google search).So unless you are superhuman you will not be able to observe stick slip hysteresis and energy storage without a slow moving vehicle and high speed camera.Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 10, 2023, 09:54:43 amMy vehicle is not flexing most of the storage is in the rubber belt but even if you make the rubber belt much stiffer all you do is increase the cycle of charge discharge with less energy for each cycle making it harder to see without even higher speed camera and at some point if you reduce the energy storage to much you need to increase the gear ratio significantly else will no longer work/moveThus your need for larger and larger gear ratios as you reduce the amount of energy storage (elasticity of the elements involved).Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 10, 2023, 09:54:43 amCan you please make a diagram and put the forces on that so we know what net force you are talking about ?Also we may need to confirm what you consider the driver wheel ?If this was a proper gearbox with 3 points of contact there will be no slip anywhere and smooth motion even when seen in a slow motion video and even with less than 2:1 gear ratio witch it is plenty and even with a 1:1 gear ratio.It seems to me you start to admit that this vehicle can not move without wheel slip ? If so I will consider this progress.Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 10, 2023, 09:54:43 amNo matter if belt is straight or twisted a vehicle/gearbox with only two points of contact can not do force multiplication. You need 3 points for a gearbox to be called a functional gearbox and be able to do force multiplication.So the only configuration that will work with two points is twisted belt and 1:1 gear ratio none of the other vehicons can move without slip in the direction of applied force or stick slip hysteresis and energy storage in the opposite direction.So if you want to prove my theory wrong you will need to show that your vehicle can move with no slip at any of the wheels. (not a little bit of slip or no visible slip but no slip).If there was no slip allowed the belt or chain will be stretched until it breaks and nothing will move.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 05:24:01 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 10, 2023, 05:01:14 pmWhat puzzles me is how this "energy storage" is even supposed to work. If there is energy to be stored, then there is energy. This energy can be accumulated and released in bursts (the stick-slip). Sure, that can happen, we see it all the time. But this energy can also be used in a continuous mode, without storage and release. The amount of energy will be unchanged (ignoring losses in both cases), and stick-slip will not increase this energy.Electronics analogy: PWM vs DC.The models work with or without stick-slip. Stick-slip does not increase the available energy. Stick-slip is an irrelevant distraction.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 05:26:20 pm
content: QuoteHey, that's useful. Pick a random graph of something unknown on Google and then it proves whatever you want it to prove. If only other people knew that they could solve no end of problems!

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 05:30:49 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 10, 2023, 05:01:14 pmBut what is wrong with my slow motion video ?Please take say the 2:1 vehicle and while moving the paper as slow as you can watch from the side what happens with the system. It is a way to slow time without access to a slow motion camera.What will be a good proof for you ? I can buy two Force newton meter and show forces are equal F1 and F2 ?You can do that even without the force meters just pull on the paper and you already applied a force and you do not need to know the value of the force but you will see that unless that force is large enough for one of the wheels to slip the vehicle will not move.To disprove my theory you will need to be able to show that the vehicle can move without any wheel slip. Else it just shows that F1=F2 unless a wheel slips and of course when it starts to slip the force at the wheel starting to slip drops significantly allowing whatever stored energy is available to be converted to kinetic energy.I can also show that if I restrict the vehicle body by connecting it to ground the force F2 will be 2 * F1 assuming 2:1 gear ratio and there is no slip involved.There is no such thing as functional gear box without 3 points. No force amplification can happen with 2 points.After you stretch the belt (energy storage) and input wheel slips you have a system with 3 points as you have now another input energy source (the energy stored in the belt).To make this even slower motion you can have a generator at the input wheel a battery and a motor at the output wheel.If you connect generator wires directly to motor it can not work as motor output power can not be larger than input generator power.But if you connect the generator to battery the battery can be charged then you can connect the battery to motor to move the vehicle forward as you have now an internal energy source not just the external one so you can apply a force between the vehicle body and output wheel.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 05:34:32 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on February 10, 2023, 05:24:01 pmLook at example (c) and let me know if that DC-DC boost converter can work.If you can show me that circuit can boost the V2 to 2*V1 then you won the argument.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 05:35:46 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on February 10, 2023, 05:24:01 pmI don't know. First it was the rubber belt that was doing it, and when replaced with a fairly ridgid chain, it is the chain, and for sure, when I replace it with a bunch of sprockets or a drive shaft it will be the sprockets or the driveshaft having flexibility or what.The only energy in the experiment is what I put in to it with my hand, and if there is some erratic movement it is also because of my hand. I did make a video with my cell phone, yet it is not very good, but it does show that the 3:1 runs smoother then the 2:1. Has to do with speed I guess.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 05:42:21 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 10, 2023, 05:26:20 pmIt is not something unknown is a graph showing the difference between force needed to overcome static friction and kinetic friction. Basically the stick slip hysteresis.Do make a google image search for "stick-slip" and you will find plenty of example relevant as without stick-slip hysteresis there will be no trigger to charge and discharge the energy.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 05:47:21 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 10, 2023, 05:35:46 pmThere are no materials that have zero elasticity in real world.Yes the only energy is what you put in with your hand but that energy is first stored (no vehicle motion) then when input wheel slips stored energy is converted to kinetic energy.Without this combination of storage and then discharge of the storage no vehicle can move against the applied force.The 3:1 needs to move less so it requires less energy that is why it seems smoother as you put less effort in and also the charge discharge cycles are 50% faster than for 2:1 so even harder to see the non uniform motion due to charge discharge is like it is harder to see a image flicker at 30Hz than at 20Hz

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 06:02:20 pm
content: Another example of static vs kinetic / sliding frictionSorry for the low resolutionYou can see that applied force F1 equals friction force F2 same as it happens in case (a) and so no different from a solid box like in this above example.As soon as slip happens the frictional force drops so here is when the stored energy in the belt can now be used inside the vehicle applied between the vehicle body and output wheel to move the vehicle.If you either remove the slip or energy storage the vehicle can no longer move. But removing energy storage is next to impossible. It can be reduced to the point it no longer works but then you will just select a larger gear ratio and blame the low gear ratio for not working.Changing the gear ratio will not result in a completely different vehicle you just change the force acting on the belt or chain thus influences the amount of stored energy.You can have low force on the belt and large displacement or large force and low displacement (stretch) and you can store the same amount of energy by playing with the ratio of force and displacement.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 06:35:34 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 10, 2023, 06:02:20 pmInteresting, but false, assertion. You constantly return to this claim, but you have provided no plausible proof or demonstration. Others have shown (in many ways) that energy storage is not necessary.Again, explain why this energy cannot be used without storage. Friction / stiction / stretch are minor factors in a properly designed "vehicle", and irrelevant to this discussion. They affect the efficiency, but not the fundamental principle.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 06:50:47 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on February 10, 2023, 06:35:34 pmA "vehicle" has an internal motor/engine and energy source.While we call this a "vehicle" it is a very special case an nothing more than a locked gearbox.Due to energy storage and stick slip hysteresis it has a very particular and no intuitive behaviour and that is the ability to move against the direction of external applied force.In a "normal vehicle" with an internal engine or motor the force is applied between the vehicle body and output wheel so if a flexible belt is used there you have the stretch of the belt during initial acceleration but then stretch remains constant is not fluctuating between stretch and unstretch multiple times per second as it happens in this vehicle where belt is used as an energy storage device to accelerate the vehicle athens or even hundreds of times per second.There are a few facts that you do not understand:1) Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.2) A device (gearbox) can not do force multiplication with only two points of contact for that 3 points are needed.3) An externally only powered device can not move against the direction of applied force. (when have you ever pushed a box and the box pushed you back further than you pushed the box). And if that ever happened to you it was likely a very elastic box and you were thrown back when you lost traction by the elastic energy that you stored in pushing the super elastic box.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 07:07:10 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 10, 2023, 12:05:06 amI think that I may be making some progress here, but rather than this specific example, I’m trying to understand the analytical method that you are advocating. For me that is much more useful. I have made a list of the key points that I have picked up from what you have written. Am I on the right track here? If you do see any errors, could you correct the text as necessary.1) Intuition plays a key role in classical mechanics.2) Before making any calculations, it is vital that the analyst chooses the correct frame of reference in which to perform those calculations. This can only be done through intuition, built up from years of experience. Inexperienced analysts can easily get this step wrong and choose the wrong frame of reference. In which case any conclusions that they draw from subsequent mathematical analysis will be invalid.3) There are two classes of frames of reference, which are the accelerating and non-accelerating frames of reference.4) In an accelerating frame of reference, objects within that frame obey Newton’s second law of motion.5) In a non-accelerating frame of reference, Newton’s second law is not relevant, because nothing is accelerating. In this case, Newton’s third law will apply to every object in that system, so every object in the system will be subject to a net zero balance of forces. In the case of two forces acting on an object they must necessarily be equal and opposite. This is what Newton meant by stating"To every action, there is always opposed an equal reaction”.6) Some mechanical systems can alternate between being in accelerating and non-accelerating frames of reference. The analyst needs to take great care here to allocate the correct frame of reference to each moment in time. Inexperienced and even many experienced analysts can get this wrong, and is one of the most difficult skills to master.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 07:33:41 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 10, 2023, 05:30:49 pmYes, get those meters and show that F1 and F2 are equal.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 10, 2023, 11:54:19 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 10, 2023, 07:07:10 pmI do not know if I will agree with that. There is not much if anything that was not studied in classical mechanics. Sometimes "intuition" seems to be wrong.For example using kinematics only and not considering forces will not provide the correct answer.To me it seems that people always imagine that the force is applied between vehicle body and input wheel not as it is the case between the input wheel and the ground.The only time the force is applied between the vehicle body and output wheel is when stored energy is discharged in that case the vehicle is powered from inside and not form the exterior.Quote from: cbutlera on February 10, 2023, 07:07:10 pmAgain not sure we have the same definition for intuition.Result will be the same independent of the reference frame chosen.Quote from: cbutlera on February 10, 2023, 07:07:10 pmFor this particular example you can only have acceleration if either input or output wheels slip so unless that happens there will be no acceleration.The applied force F1 needs to be large enough for slip to happen else if that is less nothing will happen other than belt will be stretched the input wheel will rotate correspondingly with the amount of stretch but vehicle body will not move relative to ground.If output wheel (left one) slips first then vehicle will be accelerated to the left and F1 the applied force will be F1 = F2 + m*a so sum of 3'rd and 2'nd law.If input wheel slips (right one) (this is what happens if you have the same type of wheels and and material since the input wheel already rotates and it will slip more easy) the you have F2 = F1 + m*a and F2 can be larger due to belt applying a force inside the vehicle between the vehicle body and output wheel and this force is possible because of stored energy.As you see from this equations the gear ratio is not involved unless you look at the amount of stored energy as that will depend on the gear ratio.Quote from: cbutlera on February 10, 2023, 07:07:10 pmAs I mentioned 2'nd law is involved only if you allow wheel slip. And the direction the vehicle is accelerated depends on which wheel slips.If the vehicle worked the way you think it works there will be no wheel slip but that is not the case in any experimental test where vehicle moves.Quote from: cbutlera on February 10, 2023, 07:07:10 pmThat is not quite true. It is true that net forces for this particular problem is zero in an non accelerating reference frame.But if you have a proper (working) gearbox that means 3 points of contact so vehicle body connected to ground. Then the applied F1 will be between vehicle body and input wheel and the F2 will be between vehicle body and output wheel and at 2:1 gear ratio the F2 = 2*F1 and that will be the case in an non accelerating frame of reference.If not convinced by this think about a balance with fulcrum the third point offset as in image below.Nothing will need to move for the input force to be smaller than output force and Newton's 3'rd law works here as two separate loops with F1 input force having a pair at the fulcrum and the other pair F2 output also relative to fulcrum.But example a has no 3'rd point the fulcrum equivalent so with that missing input and output force can only be equal.Quote from: cbutlera on February 10, 2023, 07:07:10 pmYes that is the case here when vehicle moves to the right against the applied force as the vehicle will accelerate in burst many times per second so fast that it looks like smooth motion to the slow human brain.Maybe it is a difficult skill but as soon as you see a device moving in the opposite direction of applied force you will know that some other energy source is present like in this case a small energy storage device.Because you know from experience and Newton's 3'rd law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction so you can not have an unpowered item like this vehicle pushing with higher force F2 against the applied F1 as that will also violate the energy conservation.The energy conservation is not violated in this case only because energy is stored so treadmill moves say 1cm while vehicle is not moving at all but this 1cm and the F1 was stored as elastic energy in the rubber band then in the next moment this stored energy could be converted in kinetic energy in the opposite direction and if there was no friction with just this initial energy the vehicle can maintain forever the gained kinetic energy but since there is friction the cycle of charge discharge needs to repeat all the time to maintain an average speed. Speed of this vehicle is not constant but it is not possible for humans to detect that without faster more sensitive measurement equipment.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 12:30:52 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 10, 2023, 11:54:19 pmThis is *NOT* an energy source.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 12:35:37 am
content: Quote from: fourfathom on February 11, 2023, 12:30:52 amIt is a charged energy storage device. How will you call that if not an energy source ?

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 01:53:24 am
content: Thanks for that detailed response, I think I am getting closer to understanding your method of analysis. I was trying to make generalised statements that could be applied to any mechanical system rather than just to this specific example.Quote from: electrodacus on February 10, 2023, 11:54:19 pmPerhaps I should have written that it is vital to choose the correctclassof reference frame. In other words, for an unspecified mechanical system, not one of the examples we have been considering, is the analyst free to choose an accelerating or a non-accelerating frame of reference in which to perform his analysis. With the same result being obtained either way?For instance would it be appropriate to analyse an accelerating car using a non-accelerating frame of reference?QuoteAs a general statement, but not with reference to the current examples, is my statement 4) correct in your view?So using the accelerating car example, would you agree that an accelerating frame of reference must be used, so that Newton’s second law can be applied?QuoteI can see that now. Your lever and fulcum example clarifies your understanding of Newton's third law to me quite well.Would you agree that my statement 5) is always true in a non-accelerating frame of reference? Again, as a general statement about non-accelerating frames of reference, not just with regard to this specific example.Quote

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 02:49:14 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 10, 2023, 04:42:57 pmI showed you in reply #97 in clear math that it does. Others have tested it, and agree it does. Yet, you insist on asserting that it does not, without any explanation –– except that your single video with an extremely bad choice of a gear ratiosomehowproves to you it doesn't.That is bullshit. We have shown you a number of vehicles that prove the gear ratio makes a major difference in how the vehicle performs. I've shown the exact math, derived from kinematics, which is the simplest form of mechanical analysis, showing it does. Yet, you insist on claiming it doesn't matter, why? Is it because you know it does matter, and that demolishes your argument, and you're not interested in learning, and are here just to try and "win" some kind of word or trolling game?Gearing ratio 1:1 is a singular point in the math (leads to division by zero) – the vehicle will not work in the cases we're examining here at all then –, and all ratios close to 1:1 are extremely sensitive to wheel-surface friction, inducing all kinds of flexing in the mechanism (because the induced velocities are large compared to the torque available, leading to parts twisting and flexing), leading to incorrect interpretation of what is happening. Ratios far away provide more torque with smaller steady-state velocities, which does not stress the mechanism as much (so no flexing or twisting even with lightweight plastic parts), and show the movement is smooth.Is the reason you refuse to admit this, that you know it proves your belief and assertions incorrect, and you just don't want to admit that –– because it would stop this language game you like to play here at EEVblog forums?I don't care about your games one way or another, but I do care about the fact that other people, especially youngsters lacking the education yet, can find these threads by doing a web search using suitable search terms, and may be swayed by your convincing-sounding writing, even though there is no logic, science, or rational thought behind your language. It's exactly the same mechanism charismatic movements and cult leaders gather following, by manipulating others. And I hate that, because it wastes those peoples' time and honest efforts; those youngsters doing the web searches are really trying to learn, and you're deliberately fucking that up for them. I despise your behaviour here for that reason, just like I despise people who smear human excrement on the walls, even if they do it to a building I myself will never visit.All my efforts in this thread are not for you, electrodacus, even though I don't consider you an enemy, and only want you too to learn. My efforts have been to minimise the long-term negative efforts your language games here are making to others' efforts to learn. Regardless of what do you here to "win" or bolster your ego, you need to remember we're spending our time and effort in this thread, only to minimize the negative effects of your illogical and irrational babble has on others reading these texts. It is quite sad, really.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 02:51:31 am
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 11, 2023, 01:53:24 amCan you clarify where your think understanding of Newton's third law differs from mine ?Do you understand that example (a) (actually all but I'm most interested in example (a)) will be equivalent with the above diagram if the fulcrum was not in contact with ground so could not transfer any force to ground (floating fulcrum) ?To make the case (a) equivalent with the above the vehicle body (blue color part) will need to be connected rigidly to ground.There is no good analogy to make because gravity is involved here and fulcrum not touching the ground (floating fulcrum) will be ridiculous but that is what device in case (a) is a gearbox with floating body thus is incapable of force multiplication same as this with floating fulcrum can not do force multiplication.Regarding accelerating vs non accelerating reference frames.For case (a) it is irrelevant as you have a locked gearbox that can not move so for any force F1 the F2 will be equal and opposite.There is no specification of wheel friction or material elasticity in case (a)But if you consider a real case instead of the theoretical case then there is both elasticity (no material is perfectly rigid) and there is also friction.The other important aspect in a real setup is the fact that there is a stationary friction coefficient and a kinetic one and they are different.Because of elasticity when treadmill is started / turn ON there will be movement but because the mechanism (vehicle/gearbox) acts as a solid object unless the treadmill can provide a force large enough to exceed the stationary friction the input wheel will rotate a bit stretching the belt and then stop in that condition will net force on vehicle always zero.The instant the force F1 exceeds stationary friction the net force will no longer be zero but the direction of this net force and the source will depend on which wheel slips.If is the output wheel that slips then net force will point to the left and be provided by treadmill and if the input wheel slips the net force will point to the right and be provided by the stored elastic energy.I think this is as good and complete example of what happens and also demonstrated in real experiments.It seems to me that your explanation for vehicle moving to the right is force multiplication from a functional gearbox. In order for this to be the explanation you will need to prove me that a gearbox with only two points of contact can do force multiplication.There is to my knowledge no force multiplication device that can work with just two points of contact (the input and the output) and no third point the "body/case" against which it can reference the input and output.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 03:00:29 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 11, 2023, 02:49:14 amI can echo exactly what you have mentioned here except for the part about cults and human excrements.I just think there is some brain limitation that makes you unable to understand the correct explanation of how this sort of vehicle works.The title of this thread is force multiplier as that is your explanation of how this vehicle could move to the right.My simplest debunk is that you can not have force multiplication while having just two points of contact and that will require 3 points.So you either disagree that 3 points are needed and then provide a real world device that I can buy that will do that (like a force multiplier wrench) or you specify what is the third point since I do not see one in diagram (a).

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 03:10:13 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 03:00:29 amAnyone reading this thread now or in the future needs to understand that the "you" highlighted in the above sentence refers to the whole world of physicists and engineers other than electrodacus. That somehow electrodacus has a unique understanding that the whole rest of the world lacks, and that the whole rest of the world has some kind of brain limitation that prevents them understanding what only electrodacus can see.Anyone reading this thread then has to consider how likely is it that the above situation is true?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 03:19:20 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 11, 2023, 03:10:13 amNo not the whole world just a very limited number that I interacted with.Keep in mind that we (all humans) have a lot of quite significant brain limitations and we see thing that are not there or do not see things that are there.Here is a good example of what I'm saying.A and B squares (the background) are the exact same shade on grayDrawing a line makes it evident

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 03:57:47 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 12:35:37 amAnd what is the source of this stored energy? Please explain why this source cannot be used directly, without the intermediate energy storage / discharge (stick / slip). This is a critical point which you persist in ignoring. This sounds like a religious axiom for you: unprovable and must be accepted on faith.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 04:04:50 am
content: Quote from: fourfathom on February 11, 2023, 03:57:47 amThe source is the treadmill. Treadmill can only push the vehicle in the same direction that treadmill moves and you need an energy storage device if you want to move in the opposite direction.I'm not a religious men and I do not accept anything based on faith. The experiment's I made fully confirm what I'm saying.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 04:51:05 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 03:00:29 amNo, my explanation of how this vehicle moves to the right is described by simple kinematics, and requires no "force multiplier" or anything like that.Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 03:00:29 amNo, that is a loaded question.Either you admit your understanding is wrong because others have proven it to be wrong, or you are a troll who gets their rocks off by misleading people into magical thinking and idiocy. Which one will you do?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 05:13:22 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 11, 2023, 04:51:05 amIt just seems to me that you are ignoring physics and reality. Reality is not described by kinematics.Kinematics definition from Oxford Languages"the branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces which cause the motion."To elaborate on the definition is that with kinematics you can understand the way an object can move if you can have any forces you want acting on all parts of that object.This particular example has only one force acting on it and that force is applied between the ground (reference) and input wheel.The output wheel is the only other contact point and that is also connected to ground.So there is a force applied between the input and output of this object (basically a floating body gearbox).There is no proof for your claims and all experiments are in accordance with my explanation. I see no deviation or thing that is not explained by energy storage plus stick slip hysteresis.Others seem to disagree with you and insist on the force multiplier theory. I will say that that is wrong because of the floating body your kinematics only no force involved theory is much more ridiculous.If there is no net force the vehicle will not move. How you get that net force is the main question and not what are the degrees of freedom for this vehicle.I showed this same vehicle moving in both directions with the same applied force by only manipulating the amount of friction on the input and output wheels.I also explained how it works in both cases. The fact that you can not understand will not make you true unless you provide a proper explanation for both cases and why movement is only possible if wheels are allowed to slide.In your kinematic model there is no slip as you can assume forces will act against the vehicle body without the need to explain where those magic forces come from.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 05:42:54 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 11, 2023, 03:10:13 amEspecially since some of us actually have done physics research for a living, applying Newtonian mechanics every day for years; and always with the core understanding that garbage fed into the models yields garbage results, so that the very first examination of any model or result set is alwaysDoes this make any sense? How does this make sense, if it does?I have a background in physics research, centered at materials physics, but because I particularly enjoy making tools for other researchers, actually extending to quite a various subfields of physics. I've always been interested in mechanisms and how they work, and modeling their behaviour. I could write a few self-aggrandizing but verifiably correct (and occasionally funny, because it all would start at childhood, almost half a century ago – I even built my first hut before puberty, with others laughing how ramshackle it looked, and laughing even more when they found out how sturdy it actually was!) paragraphs on exactly why the structures in my brain are actually quite well suited for physics and science and scientific analysis and analysing mechanisms, way more so than average physicist or engineer; but the simple truth is that I've done so quite a bit, successfully, in many subfields, in both the real world and when helping others with actual peer-reviewed physics research. Tested and found reliable enough, in other words.The proper understanding of this stuff is important to me. There are situations when you need analogs and an intuitive understanding instead of exactly correct understanding, and situations when an exactly correct understanding and model are needed. This is why I do not refer to authority or "laws" nearly as often as others do, because I don't care if people are exactly correct: it suffices their understanding is reliable and allows them to extrapolate and integrate additional information without getting confused.(The cases where I've made errors do haunt me. I could discuss the time when I realized I had confused chitin and keratin (former being a polysaccharide and the latter a protein), simply because they have very similar properties and similar names; or the time I realized I had remembered the typical geostationary orbit elevation wrong by a factor of 1000. I do make errors, but it is importantto meI admit them, because leading others astray does actual harm, whereas admitting making an error onlyfeels badand hurts ones ego.)This is also why I strongly oppose incorrect modeling (picking a few random forces, and claiming they describe the system, when they clearly do not), and prefer to start at kinematics, which is much easier to understand, and harder to get wrong. Understanding is not achieved by convincing others; it is achieved by making testable hypotheses, applying ones understanding, and comparing the results to the real world observed results. Because of this, I find Popperianfalsifiabilitya more valid approach to science than basicverifiability. It is also exactly why instead of posting a video, I posted the exact description/recipe/model of a vehicle anyone can build and reproduce the findings: no need to take my word for truth, here is how you can find out for yourself.I know now I cannot help electrodacus understand, no matter how much effort I spend, but I do hope I've helped anyone else reading this thread to not be convinced by electrodacus' physically daft but linquistically clever writings. On the surface, it looks so reasonable; but if you examine the questions and answers, you can see the lack of logic, rationality, and any kind of scientific rigor: only the opposite, a religious stance on incorrect assertions that no proof will ever shake.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 05:56:50 am
content: Oh, but does time slip when you're enjoying yourself!

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 06:48:24 am
content: "If there is no net force the vehicle will not move."A net force will accelerate a vehicle, not "keep it moving". Completely ignoring Newton's first law of motion, and accusing others of not understanding physics, is utterly, religiously, strange.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 07:41:28 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 11, 2023, 05:42:54 amYes kinematics is easier to understand and harder to get wrong but it does not represent reality.I did not picked random forces as you claim. There is a single force F1 that is the input to the system. You can not expect any movement if you do not apply any forces. F2 and all others are consequence of the applied F1 so I did not made up forces.I appreciate you trying to make me and others understand how this works as that is the same thing I try to do.But kinematics is just not the tool you can use to find how this device works.No unpowered device will be able to move in the opposite direction of the only applied force without using energy storage.When have you ever pushed something and thing pushed against you with more force than you applied ?You claim (let me know if I'm wrong) that vehicle in case (a) can move without any wheel slip ? But my videos of the real machine shows wheel slip in all cases.The reason you can justify that is because you are imagining a different setup from that in case (a).What you imagine is a free wheel treadmill and the applied force between the ground and vehicle body (that will get you exactly what the kinematic model shows and no slip involved).But the problem in case (a) specifically asks that applied force is provided by the powered treadmill so F1 is applied to input wheel (right) relative to ground and not relative to vehicle body.While the result will look very similar with the kinematic model the mechanism involved is very different.You and it seems most others prefer the simpler kinematic model as it will look to predict the same motion (it is close but not the same) but I think the reality of what happens while more complex (involving energy storage and stick slip hysteresis) is important.The reason I try to explain this particular device (a) is because people (multiple) have made the claim that it represents the equivalent of the direct downwind faster than wind vehicle when it is in fact representing the direct upwind vehicle and that is because they confuse the input with output.As for the direct downwind faster than wind, what chance will I have to explain that witch is even more complicated as it involves pressure differential energy storage.But I can make multiple prediction witch if tested will show the prediction to be super accurate.For example the claim is that such a vehicle can drive for unlimited amount of time above wind speed and I know that it will start to slow down as soon as it gets to peak speed since at that point pressure differential stored energy will be used up.Nobody even bothered to take a video from the side on the treadmill model (the one with propeller) to see that acceleration rate drops and not increases as they predict from wrong (invented) equations.Anything that can be predicted from this vehicle I can predict accurately and I have not seen any real world example of behaviour that is not predicted by my current understanding.And it seems strange to me that reality (ultimate test of any theory) showing energy storage is ignored or blamed on my setup which is exactly the setup in diagram (a) so the model of interest. Same with the slip that is also seen in the video. The locked and dragged example is again ignored.All this behaviours are explained fully by Newton's laws of motion. My mistake is probably to assume that everyone will be at the same level of understanding as Newton itself because so much time has passed and we tested his theories but human genetics has not changed at all since his time so the amount of people able to understand and not just memorize his discoveries is still very limited.Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 11, 2023, 06:48:24 amA net force is needed for a stationary vehicle to accelerate so increase in vehicle kinetic energy. An ideal vehicle will then maintain that speed (kinetic energy) without any additional energy input.A real world vehicle will experience friction meaning that in order to maintain speed (maintain the same kinetic energy) it requires constant input power that ends up as heat.So if you start form not moving relative to a reference say earth/ground a force needs to be applied relative to earth/ground for the vehicle to move.You by using kinematics just ignore forces but to get that result you get from kinematics (it is possible) the force will need to be applied to vehicle body relative to ground or to any of the wheels relative to body but it will not work that way if applied force is relative to ground to the wheel on treadmill.So yes ignoring forces you can get whatever you want but is not the correct description of what happens when force is applied to wheel relative to ground.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 09:19:39 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 07:41:28 amYou picked two out of all the ones in the system. How you picked them, I cannot say (and therefore used the term "random"), but they do not constitute any kind of model of the system.Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 07:41:28 amYes, it is. It is telling that you cannot even understand how useful kinematics analysis is.Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 07:41:28 amThat is utterly wrong. All you need is a suitable gearing.The simplest example device is a spool of thread, rolling on its axis on two rails, with the radius of the spool larger than the wheels on the rails (and that is the reason you need the raised rails, as otherwise the spool would touch the ground), and the thread coming off the spool from the underside. When you pull on the thread, the spool rolls in the opposite direction.The key is the gear ratio, just like in your vehicle. When the wheels are on the same axis, it suffices that the driven wheel is larger than the driving wheels. It is more obvious whenever the ratio of the wheels is large.When you vary the spool-to-wheel ratio, at certain point you can make it switch directions. You can also switch directions by having the thread come off the spool from the top, which yields the same behaviour as negating and inverting the spool-to-wheel ratio, as shown by the kinematics math.Do you want me to show you a diagram of its exact properties and Newtonian mechanics? Not just kinematics, but all the forces, assuming the device is made of uniform rigid material (say, 3D printed in PLA with 100% infill)? I can, but would it help? You probably would just invent some new forces or other inane reasons to not agree with physics and reality. So, I think it would still be more useful if you tested it yourself. After all, all you need is two rails and a spindle (an axis with a small wheel, then a spool, and then another small wheel), the wheels much smaller than the spool (say, diameter 1/4 of the sool diameter), and you can clearly observe and test its behaviour yourself. Heck, if you use a round stick as both the axle and the wheel, it's very simple to do!In fact, a related device is often used as a physics experiment, with the unspooling thread replaced by gravity. The wheels form a double cone, bases against each other, apexes outward, and the rails are not horizontal or parallel, but converge downwards. The ratio of (half of) the rail angle and the conical angle corresponds exactly to the gearbox ratio here. At 1:1, the vehicle does not move. At larger than one ratios, the vehicle travels upwards along the diverging rails (because its center of gravity goes down, i.e. it converts potential energy to kinetic energy). At smaller than one ratios, the vehicle travels downwards along the converging rails (because its center of gravity goes down too). All this without any kind of initial push.Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 07:41:28 amThat is a false simile, and wrong.Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 07:41:28 amWe are telling you your machine slips because its gear ratio is too close to 1:1, and it suffers from loss of traction. To fix, you only need to increase the gear ratio.You refuse, because you axiomatically insist that the gear ratio is irrelevant. Even after even a simple kinematics analysis shows that the gear ratio is the key factor in describing the behaviour of these vehicles.Why do you think that one incorrect example is proof that no solution exists? Even when everyone else is telling you how to correct your example so that it would show the solution you, and only you, claim is impossible?When did you look at a broken car, and decide that because it didn't work, no four-wheeled car-like device could ever work?

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 11:13:33 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 02:51:31 amIn what you wrote above you describedNewton’s third lawworking in loops involving more than two bodies.“To every action, there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.”The law explicitly applies and only applies to the “mutual actions of two bodies upon each other”, not three bodies in a loop, nor four bodies in a loop, nor any other number of bodies in a loop.One of your most frequently stated claims in this thread has been that almost everyone who has commented here doesn’t understand Newton’s third law.I wrote in detail about Newton’s third law in message #37 in this thread, and messages 39, 41, 43, 45, 49, 53, 56, 80, 82, 109, 118, 129, 133, 135, 137, 141, 184, and 188. Did you really manage to read all of those messages, and not spot the very difference in understanding that you claim to see between almost everyone else and yourself?You tell us that you want to correct the misunderstanding that most of us have about Newton’s third law.If you have identified my common misunderstanding then here is your chance, tell me where I am going wrong. And use the example on theWikipedia pageof the book resting on a table, which is a standard example used when teaching Newton’s third law. Don’t use an unnecessarily complicated example such as a trolley with a gearbox. It should be obvious by now to anyone except the most bone-headed, that using that example isn’t going to get the message across. If you can’t explain my misunderstanding using the book resting on the table as an example, then you don’t understand it yourself.For a long time I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but I have reached my troll test moment in this thread. If you can make a credible attempt to explain why you think that I don’t understand Newton’s third law, using the book resting on a table as the example, then I will continue to participate. If you don't even try, then I too am out of here.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 04:11:33 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 11, 2023, 09:19:39 amThe "vehicle" has only two points of contact with the outside world and there is no internal power source (no motor or engine).So all that is needed to know are the values of F1 and F2 since only those are relevant. F1 is the input due to treadmill and we need to know what the value of F2 is in relation to F1 to know of there "vehicle" can accelerate in one of this two directions.Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 11, 2023, 09:19:39 amKinematics has some uses but can not be used to predict how the "vehicle" will move in specific conditions like if it had an internal engine appling the force to one of the wheels relative to vehicle body (the part in blue) or if an external force between the ground and vehicle body was applied.Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 11, 2023, 09:19:39 amYou think that because you do not understand that a gearbox requires 3 point of contact with the outside world in order to be able to do force multiplication.Any device including your spool example that moves in the exact opposite direction of the applied force requires energy storage and a trigger mechanism like in this cases stick slip hysteresis.All you need to apply the force to the thread slowly and you will see that you increase the force and spool will not move until a very sharp transition when spool starts to move even as you no longer apply any force but then due to friction the spool will slow down so you need to apply force again.This sort of behaviour will not exist on a gearbox where input and output force will be continuous as there are no charge discharge cycles.When you pull on the string the spool will be dragged towards you but it can not move due to static friction at the points where spool contacts the ground.At some applied force the spool will slip and the elastic energy stored in the wire will make the spool rotate as there is less energy needed to make the spool rotate than to slide towards the applied force.I will say that a slow motion video will clarify all the above mechanism but I think you will blame the setup and try to find ways to change that other that to acknowledge that energy storage and stick slip hysteresis are involved.Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 11, 2023, 09:19:39 amI will not say that 2:1 is anywhere close to 1:1. I will understand if it was 1.1:1 but not 2:1No matter the gear ratio one of the wheels will need to slip for the vehicle to move.But I can give you an example that you can no longer contradict.Build a 1:1 version and push on the body (apply a force between ground and the body) the vehicle will move exactly how the kinematic model will predict and there will be no slip.Then take the exact same 1:1 version and pull the paper under one set of wheels (treadmill) and you will see that all you get is slip and no movement.That will tell you definitively that kinematics can not be applied to predict the motion of the treadmill example as forces are involved and kinematics ignores forces.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 04:15:38 pm
content: Could electrodacus be an evil AI chatbot? Perhaps not evil, just designed to annoy?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 04:29:20 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 11, 2023, 11:13:33 amThe book on the table is to simple of an example to create a proper understanding of Newton's 3'rd law.The problems with that example are.1) It involves gravity and it seems all you examples you provided always involved gravity and that will make people think that Newton's 3'rd law only applies in those conditions.2) No movement is possible so it is always a static example making people think that Newton's 3'rd law only applies to a mechanism that is not in motion.In any case you isolate the subject and look forces acting on each of them.A better example of Newton's 3'rd law will be the one in the below image.I asked multiple times if you can think of a device that will replace the newton meter and will be able to use the input from human to pull the human towards the wall ?

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 06:55:58 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 04:29:20 pmThat question does not have any relevance.However, we can easily arrange for this to happen:

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 07:47:20 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 04:29:20 pmWell I don’t think that Newton’s third law only applies to gravity, and I also don’t think that Newton’s third law only applies to a mechanism that is not in motion, and I asked you to explain it to me. So those two points do not represent an impediment to using the book resting on a table as an example, when explaining to me, why you think that I don’t understand Newton’s third law.It’s pretty obvious to everyone that you are unable to do this, and so you chose to throw an irrelevant elephant onto the table instead.QuoteNo, no, no! You are confusing it with Newton's first and second laws of motion. Newton's third law of motion applies to "the mutual actions oftwobodies upon each other". It has no relevance to the forces acting on anyonebody. Do you understand the difference between one and two?QuoteHow would the answers of either yes or no to this question have any relevance to Newton’s third law? Either way, the force exerted by the right hand end of the rope on the hook/elephant, would be equal and opposite to the force exerted by the hook/elephant on the right hand end of the rope. And similarly for the pair of forces between the left hand end of the rope and the man’s hands, and the pair of forces between the man’s feet and the ground, etc.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 08:32:46 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 04:11:33 pmUtterly, utterly wrong.The reason there is a minimum limit to the force required to get the object moving is simply because of stiction, static friction.There is no slip at all.A perfect example of this is when you put the object near the edge of a table, with the thread hanging off the table, with a small weight at end.Small enough weights cannot overcome the static friction, so do not cause the object to move.The exact weight that causes enough pulling force on the thread to overcome static friction, will cause the object to accelerate at a near constant acceleration¹, because static friction is higher than dynamic friction. (The force needed to get a rolling wheel moving is larger than the force needed to overcome rolling friction at a constant velocity. This is due to atomic and molecular interactions.)¹ Dynamic friction has small components that depend on relative velocities at contact, so the acceleration is notexactlyconstant; but it is very nearly constant.The only situation when you see jerky movement of the spool is when you do not keep a constant pulling force on the thread.In other words, it isyouwho creates the jerky movement there. By replacing your jerky pulling with a constant force, the acceleration of the spool is perfectly continuous and approximately constant.The exact same static friction vs. dynamic friction (especially between rolling components) exists in all gearboxes.You're just inventing new theories as to why you don't need to test this for yourself, becauseyou know this disproves your theories, and shows it is exactly you who does not understand the physics here.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 09:04:40 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 04:11:33 pmThat is because you do not understand the kinematics here. Review the math inmy reply #92. In your vehicle, the wheels are the same size, \$r = R\$. Per your definition, gear ratio \$G = 1/\lambda\$. Using \$x\$ for the vehicle speed right, and \$y\$ for the treadmill surface speed left, kinematics analysis shows that$$x = y \frac{\lambda R}{r - \lambda R} = \frac{y}{G - 1} \quad \iff \quad \frac{x}{y} = \frac{1}{G - 1}$$Let's look at what kind of velocity ratios \$x/y\$ different gear ratios \$G\$ yield:$$\begin{array}{c|rcr}G & \frac{x}{y} & ~ & ~ \\\hline1:8 & -\frac{8}{7} & \approx & -1.143 \\1:4 & -\frac{4}{3} & \approx & -1.333 \\1:2 & -\frac{2}{1} & = & -2.000 \\1:1.1 & -\frac{11}{10} & = & -11.000 \\1.1:1 & \frac{10}{11} & = & 10.000 \\2:1 & \frac{1}{1} & = & 1.000 \\4:1 & \frac{1}{3} & \approx & 0.333 \\8:1 & \frac{1}{7} & \approx & 0.143 \\\end{array}$$A gear ratio of \$G = 2:1\$ requires the vehicle to move as fast as the treadmill surface. This requires very good traction, because there is very little torque; only about half the linear force provided by the treadmill surface at the point where the driving wheel contacts the surface.A gear ratio of \$G = 4:1\$ requires the vehicle to move only one third as fast as the threadmill surface, with so much torque that the linear force in the driving wheel at the point where it contacts surface is three times the force provided by the treadmill surface.There is a HUGE difference between \$G = 2:1\$ and \$G = 4:1\$, and it is exactly because of the relationship \$x = \frac{y}{G - 1}\$.That relationship also tells you that changing the gear ratio (from say \$G = 4:1\$ to \$G = 1:4\$) is sufficient to change the direction where the vehicle will move; but because for \$G \lt 1\$ we always have \$\lvert x \rvert \gt y\$, you do need good traction to show that.That also tells you that with \$G = 1:1\$, this scenario is impossible (no smooth movement with the wheels turning in the same direction), since it is a singular point. On the other hand, \$G = -1:1\$, i.e. wheels turn the same amount but in opposite directions, yields \$x = -2 y\$, i.e. the vehicle travels in the same direction as the surface of the treadmill, but at twice the speed. This too requires good traction in the wheels.You also keep claiming that kinematics is not a good way to analyse such mechanisms, but seeing as I've derived the continuous velocities for any given gearbox, it actually yields testable, verifiable mathematical model of the behaviour of the system.This is experimentally verifiable stuff. You just refuse to experiment with it, making all sorts of imaginative excuses as to why you do not need to.Instead of testing these, you rely on your hand-eye coordination and a single video clip as "proof". That is not science, it is religion.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 09:54:32 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on February 11, 2023, 06:55:58 pmSo what are you saying exactly ? Will that gearbox be able to move towards the wall ?Will the human move relative to the wall ?Will you mind explaining what is inside the gearbox to allow it to move ?You realize that F1 applied by human equal with F2 at the wall so there is no net force. Not only that but this time there is also no slip posible.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 10:06:07 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 11, 2023, 07:47:20 pmYou misunderstood what I wanted to say (it is my fault as it was not clear).When I say isolated I mean you look at groups for two objects (there are a total of 3)So a pair is book and table and then the other pair is table and ground.Quote from: cbutlera on February 11, 2023, 07:47:20 pmCorrect so that also means the that you have the same force on each side of the Newton meter and if you replace that with whatever else you want like a gearbox with input connected towards the human (left) and output towards the wall (right) the forces will remain equal on both sides of the gearbox as the gearbox with a floating body can not do any force multiplication.But IanB apparently think that is possible based on his answer.Looking forward to your answer.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 10:07:48 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 11, 2023, 06:48:24 amHow can anything accelerate if there is no time, though?

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 10:14:56 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on February 11, 2023, 10:07:48 pmHere's the simplest experimental demonstration setup demolishing electrodacus' arguments, using Lego Technic:Pull the chain left, and the gears rotate clockwise, moving right. Any motion of the chain corresponds to exactly 0.4× (16:40) movement of the gears right. With continuous motion of the chain, the motion of the gears right is smooth and continuous. No slip-stick and no jerking, unless you jerk the chain yourself, jerk.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 10:15:50 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 11, 2023, 09:04:40 pmBefore I look at your math please specify how are the two wheels connected in your setup ? Where is the belt connecting them?Unless I can see that I have no idea what the relation between the two wheels is.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 10:23:48 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 11, 2023, 10:14:56 pmYou may have seen this video but watch closely at second 9https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/120fps24:9Sorry it is filmed upside down as I used a soldering microscope for the close up ability and high frame rate video recording.Due to large gear ratio there is only one cycle in the short video with the discharge around second 9.Explain what happens at second 9 as the motion was constant no jerkinesYou can see the zoom out and correct orientation experiment but it will be harder to notice the charge discharge cycles compared to the zoom out video abovehttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/gear-slow30p2:9Looking forward for your explanation of why tooth engagement suddenly changes at around second 9.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 10:55:21 pm
content: Quote from: karpouzi9 on February 11, 2023, 10:39:56 pmOK what is the reason for backlash ? And why it happens at regular intervals proportional with the gear ratio ?If a gearbox in a normal application will have worked like this at all times it will not have a long life.In any case this is not a great example and it works due to the tooth shape as it allows the entire assembly to be lifted when force is applied as the axel is not constrained (floating) by anything other than gravity. So gravitational energy storage is used here.If you were to change the shape of the tooth (will need to be custom designed as it will not be standard) to not allow the gear to be lifted then it will be just locked and not able to move.I was thinking initially that this will be easier to understand due to reduced number of parts but it is actually more complicated than the case (a) where a belt is used and gravity plays no role other than for the amount of wheel friction.Elastic energy storage is simpler and more visual and the slip is easier to observe also.There is an infinite variant of floating gearboxes and all of them will behave the same. I feel that is not constructive to discus all of them as the conversation will never end.You will have backslash if you have changes in acceleration rate that should let you know that acceleration is not constant meaning the speed of the moving gear assembly is not constant as the movement of the hand is as constant as possible of course will be affected by this charge discharge cycles.Of course constraint the axle (adin the necessary 3'rd point ) will remove the backlash and it will act as a normal gearbox including force multiplication.The gearbox assembly is lifted slowly over a long period (charging) then over a much shorter period energy is discharged when the assembly falls back down (what you see as backlash and the definition will be correct).

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2023, 11:24:11 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 09:54:32 pmYes, I am saying we can construct a mechanism so that when the human pulls on the rope, the gearbox mechanism moves towards the wall.QuoteYou are the smart one here, you figure it out.I am pretty sure everyone else reading this thread can make a post that says, "I can see how to construct such a mechanism."Let's see how many do.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 12:00:39 am
content: I can easily see how to construct such a mechanism.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 12:01:56 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 11, 2023, 11:24:11 pmI think I know what you have in mind so keep in mind that the input and output string can not be offset. It should be as in the diagram.Offset equal and opposite forces will create a torque (rotational force) and that is not what we are discussing here as the is no offset in diagram (a)

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 12:02:37 am
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 12, 2023, 12:00:39 amSee replay I made to IanB. Offset is not allowed.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 12:08:02 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 12, 2023, 12:01:56 amIf there is any offset between the two strings then the rotational torque created will cause them to line up in a straight line. If the two strings are normal flexible cords, there is no way for them not to be in a straight line when pulled taut as shown.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 12:10:21 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 12, 2023, 12:02:37 amWho needs offset? Just you, I think.I get the impression that you'll start disallowing this and that until we're eventually left with a single piece of string and no mechanism. Whether it is offset or not is irrelevant - as you note, that would cause some torque until it naturally aligned anyway.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 12:20:43 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 12, 2023, 12:08:02 amNot quite sure you understand what I mean by offset.I'm referring to a spool with two diameters with the string connected to wall on one diameter spool and the one connected to human on the other diameter.In that case there will always be a an offset and they will not be on the same line as the spool is constantly falling over.As soon as the two equal and opposite forces are offset you get a rotational force. It is like in case (a) I will apply the force F1 to other part of the wheel other than the bottom directly in line with the F2.So the two separate strings should look as in the diagram as if it was a single string.So say you have a cube box and two holes in the middle of opposite faces just as large to have the string pass trough. Then inside you can have whatever you want (of course not a battery and motor).And why not have the exact mechanism in case (a) ?

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 12:22:14 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 11, 2023, 11:24:11 pmAs a child back in the 1960s, I had toy astronaut called "Major Matt Mason". One of his accessories was a jet pack with two strings emerging. You could attach the upper string to the back of a chair, or some other suitable object. Then when you pulled the lower string downwards out of the bottom of the jet pack, the pack would reel in the upper string and rise to the top of that string. Sadly I could find no on-line videos that showed it working as it was intended.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 12:48:59 am
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 12, 2023, 12:22:14 amI was only able to find some photos.What about the mechanism in case (a) witch is the one of interest. If I roll some string on input wheel and another string on output wheel. and tie one of them to a wall and pull on the other.What is your prediction ?Will anything move except for stretching the belt a little bit ?My prediction is that it will not move as the ability to slip is eliminated.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 01:08:21 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 10:06:07 pmWell you have just demonstrated why the book at rest on a table is a good example with which to illustrate Newton’s third law. There are more significant force-pairs acting in this example than the two that you have identified. Can you identify the other Newton's third law force-pairs?QuoteThat may or may not be true, depending on the circumstances. The tension meter isonebody with several forces acting upon it. Newton’s third law applies to "the mutual actions oftwobodies upon each other". It has no relevance to the forces acting on anyonebody. You cannot use Newton’s third law to conclude that the forces applied by the rope on either side of the tension meter are the same.Remember, the tension meter has a mass, and the rope has a mass per unit length. The rope and tension meter may or may not be accelerating. You cannot assume that they are not accelerating.QuoteWell I know that it is possible, because mechanical analysis shows that it is possible, and as I mentioned in another message, as a child I once had a toy that worked exactly that way. So I have seen experimental evidence too.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 01:11:16 am
content: So if I spool some string on anticlockwise on input wheel and clockwise on the output wheel with output on the bottom then pull them apart nothing will move and the string will remain spooled on both sides.It is like what happens in this video is just that I also eliminate the slip on the output wheelhttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/stick-slip-removed-from-front-wheels:0If any of you thinks the wire will unspool I can find the model and do a short video.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 01:11:56 am
content: my father had one for lifting engines out of cars.endless chain block

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 01:21:02 am
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 12, 2023, 01:08:21 amThat drawing is a bit bad as the string is not perfectly horizontal so yes the gravity will play a role in case you consider string has mass since the the connection at the wall that is higher will see a larger force due to gravity acting on the string.If you replace the newton meter with mechanism in case (a) so spool the string on the wheels and also keep the string perfectly horizontal so there is no gravity involvement then nothing will move.The reason nothing move is because you eliminate the ability to slip at both wheels.If you disagree I'm ready to spend some time finding the toy vehicle and do a short video demonstrating that.Of course I can make changes to case (a) and allow motion but the particular case (a) is discussed. How it works is relevant else you may not be able to do a correct prediction.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 01:23:12 am
content: Quote from: jonovid on February 12, 2023, 01:11:56 amYes it has 3 points not just 2 so of course it can do force multiplication.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 01:35:19 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 12, 2023, 01:23:12 amlife your self in a cage = 2 points

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 01:42:55 am
content: Quote from: jonovid on February 12, 2023, 01:35:19 amPoints of contact on which forces can be applied.You can not do force multiplication with only two points as in that case the forces can only be equal ignoring any acceleration force.If you have 3 points then you can use the 3'rd point as a leverage in order to be able to do force multiplication.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 01:48:07 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 11, 2023, 10:15:50 pmBefore I look at your question, please specify what your astrological sign is?It does not matter, because it applies toyour setup. \$G\$ is the gear ratio. \$G \gt 0\$ for a direct belt, \$G \lt 0\$ for a twisted belt.For belt pulleys, \$G = d_\text{driven} / d_\text{driver} = N_\text{driver} / N_\text{driven}\$, i.e. the ratio of the diameter of the driven wheel to the diameter of the driver wheel, or equivalently the number of rotations of the driver wheel per driven wheel rotation.It even applies to chain and gear gearboxes, with \$G\$ being the input:output turn ratio.I must say, electrodacus gives a completely new meaning to the termdodgy.I bet if they were to spout their theories outside in the rain, they'd manage to not get wet; they dodge so much.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 01:51:24 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 12, 2023, 01:21:02 amThat has nothing to do with it. Please read what I wrote above again.You are trying to answer the question, will the tension meter (or some gearbox in its place) move? If it is starting from rest, and if it is going to move, it will have to accelerate. So the question becomes will it accelerate? If it does accelerate, the net force acting upon it will not be zero. So you cannot assume that the net force acting on it is zero, and then conclude from that that it cannot accelerate. That iscircular reasoning.You didn't reply with any further Newton's third law force-pairs in the book resting on a table example, beyond the two that you mentioned previously. I can tell you if you really can't do it, but it would be much better if you could identify them for yourself.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 02:23:33 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 12, 2023, 01:48:07 amQuote from: Nominal Animal on February 12, 2023, 01:48:07 amIn my setup a 2:1 gear ratio means for each full rotation of the input wheel (right) output wheel will make half of a rotation.Both wheels in my setup have the same diameter the sprockets have different diameters.A direct or twisted belt will make no difference in the gear ratio only the direction the wheel rotate.All gear ratios and belt configurations result in a locked gear except for the 1:1 gear ratio with and twisted belt.So no matter the gear ratio with direct belt the vehicle can not move without wheel slip.The gear ratio is relevant when input wheel slips as at that point the energy stored in the belt powers the vehicle F3 = F4 but offset due to gear ratio thus it can move the vehicle oposited to F1 direction.So ignoring forces in case (a) and looking just a kinematics (so like pushing the vehicle body relative to ground and having a freewheeling treadmill )For a 2:1 gear ratio you haveX = 1m relative to groundY = 2m distance the input treadmill surface moved relative to ground.In your example it seems you considered the input wheel diameter half of the output wheel diameter and that is not what it happens in case (a) with both wheels having the same diameter so input wheel needs to make 2 full rotations while the output wheel just makes one.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 02:33:24 am
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 12, 2023, 01:51:24 amcase (a) is nothing more than a gearbox with floating body.Due to the way the belt is connected in case (a) and the place the forces act on it, it is a locked gearbox thus there will be no acceleration if wheels are not allowed to slip and if you use a string then they can not slip thus it will not move.The net force will be zero and there will be no acceleration.If we use a twisted belt instead then there will be acceleration so during acceleration period F1 = F2 + m*a so both Newton's 3'rd law and 2'nd law are involved.I'm not really interested in the twisted belt or variant just the the direct belt connection of case (a).That mechanism can not accelerate unless slip is allowed and the use of strings will eliminate any slip thus nothing will accelerate unless you consider the small rotation of the wheel while the belt is stretched but that will be all.Only when that case (a) is on a surface and it can slip it will be able to move.As mentioned if you disagree I can do a video as I still have that toy car somewhere.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 02:53:30 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 12, 2023, 02:33:24 amThere 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?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 03:13:44 am
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 12, 2023, 02:53:30 amSeems like you are changing the subject but fine.A locked gearbox is no different from a solid object so if you apply a force at one end and the other end is constrained like say tied to a wall then net force can only be zero.I don't even care if someone even heard of Newton as long as it can predict what happens in cases (a) to (c)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. So invalidating your claims can be as simple as showing that gearbox will not move.But a kinematics only model will predict that wheels rotate at same speed since is like applying a force to the vehicle body relative to ground with a freewheel treadmill.So none of your theories can predict what happens when you perform the test as it needs to make correct prediction independent of gear ratio.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 05:28:44 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 12, 2023, 02:23:33 amNo, I don't. It was a typo in the table I fixed in the last edit, 40 minutes before you posted that.For a 2:1 gear ratio, the vehicle moves right the same distance as the surface of the treadmill moves left, both with respect to the ground.You keep insisting the gear ratio does not matter. Yet, a gear ratio of 4:1, as shown in my table inreply #240, would require the vehicle to move only 0.333m right when the surface of the treadmill moves 1m left, both with respect to the ground.I don't care if you don't believe me, that's fine. But refusing to test a larger gear ratio is utterly unscientific.I guess you already know that if you do, it proves even to yourself that you are wrong. But that is the nature of science: testability, not belief, is the key.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 05:54:38 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 12, 2023, 03:13:44 amHow 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: the velocity ratio is undefined (division by zero) or infinite.This has been told you time and time again, yet you somehow keep claiming thatweclaim 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 (leftwards) to vehicle speed (rightwards), 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 inreply #240.The fact that at gear ratio \$G = 0\$ the velocity ratio is \$1\$ means that if the driven wheel is locked (will not rotate), the vehicle will move in the same direction and at the same speed as the surface of the treadmill. Similarly, at \$G = \pm \infty\$ the velocity ratio is zero, meaning that if the driven wheel rotates freely but the driving wheel is locked, the vehicle will not move at all.All this, just from the kinematics analysis, which you refuse to review (and much less understand, even though it is the simplest level at which one can examine mechanisms).

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 05:56:49 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 12, 2023, 05:28:44 amMaybe the confusion comes from the fact that you are using something other than what I show in case (a). Your example vehicle there is very strange and drawing at least for me does not show what the relation between the two wheels of different size is.For that vehicle 2:1 gear ratio will be exactly the same as a 1:2 gear ratio. In fact there is no 1:2 gear ratio is the same 2:1 gear ratio just turned 180 degree as input wheel is always the one with the smaller pulley.While in your table not only there is a 1:2 gear ratio but it looks like it will behave completely different.There is always and input and output wheel and since the input wheel is always the one with the smaller pulley you can not have a gear below 1:1 so no such thing as 1:2 possible as it will actually be a 2:1 and you will just confuse the input with output and of course all sort of wrong conclusions can be had if input and output are defined wrong.I will love to have this clarified and I have no idea what is your magic vehicle doing as you sure not use the vehicle I describe in case (a) witch has wheels of exactly the same size and there is no vertical offset between the wheel on treadmill and the one on the ground/redboxThe purely kinematic motion of that vehicle (a) same as if vehicle was pushed by applying a force between ground and body with a freewheel treadmill will beFor 2:1X = 1m (distance the vehicle body moved relative to ground).Y = 2m (distance the treadmill surface moved relative to ground).if you want to look at speed instead of displacement then for 1m/s vehicle speed relative to ground the freewheel treadmill will move at 2m/sFor a 4:1X=1mY=4mNothing complicated or strange as in your table (likely do to some strange vehicle you are using with different wheel sizes and no clear description of the relation / connection between those two wheels).

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 06:04:53 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 12, 2023, 05:56:49 amCan we just end the thread here, please?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 06:12:06 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 12, 2023, 05:54:38 amTake 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.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 06:13:54 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 12, 2023, 05:56:49 amNo. 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.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 06:16:55 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 12, 2023, 06:12:06 amSo, 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.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 06:28:06 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 12, 2023, 06:04:53 amI 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.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 10:11:16 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 12, 2023, 03:13:44 amThroughout 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 anMIT course on classical mechanicsQuote from: IanB on February 12, 2023, 06:04:53 amYeah, you are right.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 04:35:15 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 12, 2023, 06:13:54 amYes 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 04:44:37 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 12, 2023, 10:11:16 amPlease 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.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 06:46:48 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 12, 2023, 04:35:15 pmInsanity.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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 07:12:26 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on February 12, 2023, 06:46:48 pmThere 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 videohttps://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/wheel-cart-energy-storage-slow:8Just 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.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 07:18:46 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 12, 2023, 07:12:26 pmThis 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.QuoteYou 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 10:18:06 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on February 12, 2023, 07:18:46 pmFor 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.Quote from: IanB on February 12, 2023, 07:18:46 pmOK 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 4:1For 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.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 10:31:30 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 12, 2023, 10:18:06 pmBut 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.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 10:32:23 pm
content: 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 thateven if it does need the energy storageit 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 11:45:21 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 12, 2023, 10:32:23 pmIt 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.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2023, 11:58:53 pm
content: QuoteFor 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 12:09:08 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 12, 2023, 10:31:30 pmIf 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 ?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 12:19:49 am
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 12, 2023, 11:58:53 pmNot 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 ?

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 12:32:11 am
content: QuoteSounds good. When are you going to try that?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 12:59:06 am
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 13, 2023, 12:32:11 amI 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.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 07:28:50 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 13, 2023, 12:59:06 amYou 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.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 08:15:28 am
content: 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.htmlQuote

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 09:36:30 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on February 13, 2023, 08:15:28 amOh, 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.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 10:46:22 am
content: 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 03:38:41 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 13, 2023, 07:28:50 amWhat 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 ONQuestion 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 03:45:12 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 13, 2023, 10:46:22 amThanks 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 PlainNameVehicle 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 ONQuestion 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 04:09:58 pm
content: Edit: Nevermind about the experiment as it will not show the amount of slip since the slip is powered by the treadmill is just extra energy that is lost and that is harder to measure.If the charge circle makes say 1 degree rotation (vehicle is not moving) then during discharge there is a slip of exact same amount 1 degree so it is not contributing to the distance traveled just to extra losses due to friction.Just answer the problem I posted in the earlier comment and you will be hopefully able to realize that wheels can not rotate unless there is both energy storage and stick slip hysteresis. Unless you have an alternate explanation or you think the result of such an experiment will be different than what I think then we can test that.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 07:49:14 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 13, 2023, 04:09:58 pmDammit, like a moth to a flame, I just can’t resist.I can see why you had to scotch that experiment. You accidentally made a testable prediction.Okay, so now, if I have got this right, during the stick phase at least one of the wheels is slipping. Then during the slip phase, the wheel(s) that slipped, slip back to the same position relative to the ground/treadmill from which they started. The result being that there will be no net accumulated slip at either wheel that could be revealed by distance markers on the wheels and ground/treadmill.Keep going. All you need to do now is to make these equal and opposite slips small enough to be accommodated by tyre flexure instead of real slips.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 08:04:45 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 13, 2023, 04:09:58 pmAgain, why does it matter? Both vehicles move to the right when the paper (treadmill) moves to the left. That's all that matters - they aren't going to suddenly backtrack all the way and then continue to the left, are they? Indeed, when the paper stops moving nothing happens at all. If there were any energy storage, where did it go?So your prediction and contention that they cannot move to the right (due to whatever magical thing) is obviously wrong, isn't it?

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 08:06:06 pm
content: QuoteYes, I'm fascinated by how he manages to survive.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 08:13:11 pm
content: He is on a mission to prove to the world that his ideas are correct. He is doomed never to succeed, since his ideas are wrong, and therefore they will never be accepted.Like Sisyphus, his hubris knows no bounds:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 08:17:45 pm
content: The only thing he's on a mission to do is waste people's time, and/or generate traffic to his website. He's either a troll or a fool, either way it is totally pointless to engage. You'd have better luck convincing a rock that it is wrong.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 08:24:22 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 13, 2023, 08:04:45 pmIt matters to understand why it moves to the right to be able to make almost any prediction about the way the mechanism moves and how much energy it needs to do so.Why are you not answering the problem with 4 possible answers? If you think none of those is correct then please add the correct one.Until you make a prediction based on your model of this should work I can not show you the proof to the contrary.There is nothing any of you said other than Kinematics and some force amplification.None of this can be used to correctly answer correctly my last question so it may be the key to understand what I'm unsuccessfully trying to explain.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 08:28:06 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on February 13, 2023, 08:17:45 pmQuestion if for anyone reading this not limited to James.Solve the problem below and if you select the correct answer you will basically admit that my explanation of how this mechanism works is correct or if you answer wrong I can demonstrate that is wrong.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 ONQuestion 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.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 08:38:14 pm
content: QuoteForgotten what the questions relate to, and frankly can't be arsed to waste any time or effort explaining when you'll just move the goalposts yet again.How about you deal with the proofs you've been ignoring? NomAm put a lot of effort into not only showing you how and why, but even detailing how you can do it yourself as well. To what effect? You've just posted your irrelevant questions and demand answers to them.So, no. Before your can expect answers to your questions, you can start by dealing with this very good video, that someone has spent time and effortentirely on your behalf and to your whims. That is showing exactly what you originally said couldn't happen. There is no stretch, slip, nothing. It works exactly as everyone else said it would, and precisely according to the formulae that NomAm kindly worked out and posted. There couldn't be better proof that you are wrong, but you ignore it anyway and make nonsensical demands.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 08:47:55 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 13, 2023, 08:38:14 pmThe video does not show anything different from what my theory predicts but it is also no useful in proving my theory as both the frame rate and angle at which it is filmed prevents showing the charge discharge cycles. Those can be see way better in my videos.I do not think my problem takes long to answer if you claim you know how the vehicle works and all you need to do is say a letter corresponding to the correct answer and worst case if none of those 4 are the correct answer (not sure what other option can there be) then you add a short phrase as the correct answer.My guess is that you do not know how to answer that thus try and avoid it.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 08:56:10 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 13, 2023, 07:49:14 pmQuote from: electrodacus on February 13, 2023, 08:47:55 pm

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 09:00:57 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 13, 2023, 08:56:10 pmYes I did made a prediction and that is that the amount wheel moves clockwise to charge is equal with the amount it slips while rotating in the other direction.So it can be visualized with high speed camera but there no simpler test to show the slip.But please answer my latest question since I do not think any of your vaguely defined theories can be used.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 09:38:12 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 13, 2023, 09:00:57 pmOkay, thanks for confirming what I said.So again, if I have this right, during the stick phase, the vehicle remains stationary, and the input wheel slipsagainstthe direction of the treadmill. During the slip phase, the vehicle moves forwards, the output wheel turns without slipping, and the input wheel slipswiththe direction of the treadmill, catching up to the point where it would have been had it not slipped.Is this correct?QuoteWhat 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.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 09:45:55 pm
content: QuoteBecause there are none.QuoteYou've been told and shown how it works. All you can do is deflect by coming up with another 'if you just answer the question'.Not my problem if you can't handle the reality.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 11:13:49 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on February 13, 2023, 09:38:12 pmMaybe 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.Quote from: cbutlera on February 13, 2023, 09:38:12 pmEveryone 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 2:1Then 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 11:16:25 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 13, 2023, 09:45:55 pmThe problem is a real one.So why can you not answer a problem that takes less to answer than took you to post this last comment?

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 11:32:52 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 13, 2023, 11:16:25 pmBecause it's not our problem and we don't care?This game is boring now, and whatever entertainment it ever provided has been exhausted.Responding is not productive.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 11:35:39 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on February 13, 2023, 11:32:52 pmHow this has taken this long for anyone to figure out I really don't understand.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 11:51:38 pm
content: QuoteAnd yet you pretend to do so.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2023, 11:53:11 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on February 13, 2023, 11:35:39 pmIt's this or reading about strikes and Boris or Truss making a comeback. Difficult choice.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 12:01:09 am
content: Quote from: james_s on February 13, 2023, 11:35:39 pmBeats me but its doubly hilarious now that I know for a fact that the OP had the opportunity to converse directly with the inventors of the wind device that has driven the OP to insanity and they eventually told him to f*ck off.And now he's here... God knows why.PSThere is of course a fascination in picking apart pseudoscience which is one of the reasons I enjoy Donald Simanek's website so much:https://dsimanek.vialattea.net/museum/unwork.htm

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 12:20:18 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on February 14, 2023, 12:01:09 amThe inventor is of course clueless as to how his machine works else he will never made it as it makes no sense.He thinks his vehicle is powered directly by wind power no energy storage involved so of course he will predict that he can travel at 2x or 3x the wind speed directly downwind and never slow down.He never tested if his prediction works but he is sure it is.The truth is that his machine blackbird and also the treadmill model Derek from Veritasium showed use pressure differential energy storage to be able to exceed wind speed directly downwind and that also means that once it gets to peak speed it will not stay at that speed but start to slow down as all stored energy is used up and will slow down to below wind speed where it can recharge and repeat the same again.Not only that but Derek invented math to look like it will work but is a complete fail if you test that invented equation in any other case than when vehicle is above wind speed.But this case (a) is much simpler and it seems it is still got wrong despite me having the proof that energy storage is used.If you ask what the proof is then just answer that last question that everyone seems to be avoiding now.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 12:32:45 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 14, 2023, 12:20:18 amQuoteYou're a goddamn liar - and this is why spork/Rick Cavallaro told you to f*ck off.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 12:36:55 am
content: 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 12:42:51 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on February 14, 2023, 12:32:45 amLying 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.But yes if you make incomplete tests do no measurements you can come up with wrong conclusions about what happens.So that video is not a proof of anything other than a majority of people not understand basic physics like Newton's 3'rd law and energy conservation.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 12:54:40 am
content: Quote from: james_s on February 14, 2023, 12:36:55 amThere 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 draghttps://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DragPower.htmlsince internet is full of the wrong version of this equation.And also here is the correct implementationhttps://www.electromotive.eu/?page_id=12&lang=enagain 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).

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 01:06:22 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 14, 2023, 12:42:51 amIf 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.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 01:17:34 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 14, 2023, 12:42:51 amThis 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.htmI'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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 01:20:53 am
content: Quote from: fourfathom on February 14, 2023, 01:06:22 amIt 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 01:47:14 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on February 14, 2023, 01:17:34 amWhat 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 01:54:01 am
content: Quote from: james_s on February 14, 2023, 01:50:23 amEven this took more time that will have been need to answer my question.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 02:14:39 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 14, 2023, 01:47:14 amAhh 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.QuoteOf 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 02:27:20 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on February 14, 2023, 02:14:39 amSo 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 downwindThe 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.Quote from: HuronKing on February 14, 2023, 02:14:39 amTreadmill 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.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 02:27:58 am
content: Quote from: HuronKing on February 14, 2023, 02:14:39 amYou 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 02:33:39 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 14, 2023, 02:27:58 amIt 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.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 02:35:50 am
content: Quote from: IanB on February 14, 2023, 02:27:58 amOh 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.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 02:56:22 am
content: 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 03:01:32 am
content: Quote from: james_s on February 14, 2023, 02:56:22 amWhat 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.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 06:58:17 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 14, 2023, 03:01:32 amThat 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.Quote from: electrodacus on February 14, 2023, 03:01:32 amI 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.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 08:31:30 am
content: [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 slipsB) One turnC) Two turnsD) 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.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 09:48:33 am
content: 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.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 11:19:39 am
content: QuoteAbove and beyond!

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 11:24:18 am
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 14, 2023, 01:47:14 amYou ain't kidding there. It's not your area of study either.QuoteNope, 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 02:59:02 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 14, 2023, 06:58:17 amI'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 ONQuestion 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.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 03:19:54 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 14, 2023, 02:59:02 pmBefore 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?

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 03:28:50 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 14, 2023, 08:31:30 amThis 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 03:34:58 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on February 14, 2023, 03:19:54 pmIt 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.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 03:47:22 pm
content: QuoteWhat 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.

author: electrodacus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 03:53:30 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on February 14, 2023, 03:47:22 pmIt is a testable question. So there can not be any arguments about the correct answer.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 03:54:21 pm
content: Quote from: electrodacus on February 14, 2023, 02:59:02 pmHas already been given by Nominal Animal, but you refuse to accept any answer other then your own, so it is pointless.I do the experiments to see with my own eyes what is happening and even with the naked eye I can see that there is no energy storage that you claim there to be. Your videos show this behavior because of the imperfections introduced in the system. Like how you lift the paper when you push it and make it bow, that can be seen as energy storage since it will act as a spring.I'm not going to spend money on a good slow motion camera to make a video to convince you, because you will just come up with some other bullshit as to why you are right and we are wrong.A question for you, do you have any followers that buy into your premises? Because what I see here nobody buys into them and declare you to be a troll.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2023, 04:37:46 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on February 14, 2023, 03:54:21 pmCouldn't agree more. It's about time they were banned imo.