Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
A: There IS NO "pit" at the roller on our treadmill. I'll happily demonstrate this in my next video by placing the level at the rear (with the cart in place) and show there is no light under the level at that point. The belt is tight, spans less than an inch of open space and the rear wheel of the cart weighs barely over one ounce. The pit only exists in your imagination. (if the cart was heavier -- say our "truck" design -- it could create such a pit)
B: There IS NO BUMP across the belt created by the boards. The boards do not extend more than a half inch under the edges of the belt. They only turn up the edges a bit to create a fence effect and keep the cart from falling off. I can also demonstrate this for the next video by placing the level on the belt and show no light under it. The bump only exists in your imagination.
To run a device like this on a treadmill *unattended and unattached* is quite a challenge. You have to manage the side to side issue (thus the fence), and you have to get the balance right so it won't fall off the back or climb off the front.
Here's the reason that in the *unattended* 1:48 long video, the cart operates where it does on the treadmill: the propellor is less efficient when operating close to the belt -- simply because of gradient issues. This means that the device can operate at a lower speed with the prop hanging off the back of the belt then it can in the middle. We used this behavior simply to keep the cart from climbing off the top of the treadmill -- the prop generates it's best thrust hanging off and advances the cart slowly ... once the prop reaches the belt it loses thrust by a hair and the momentum carries the cart up just a bit and then with the lessened thrust it begins to back up until the prop bites again off the end. These cycles eventually end up big enough that the cart climbs far enough up the belt and falls back faster than the prop can recover from before the rear wheel falls off the belt.
You see, it's really easy for people to critical of the testing, but until you try to please everyone you really have no clue what it's like.
You want strings hanging off the device -- most see strings and say "WTF -- those strings are part of the hoax". Most want see the device run hands off -- you say "what the heck did you put boards along the edges for".
Get one working of your own and then you can have your very own 500 post thread where people say "your tests are bogus -- here, perform my bogus test".
I haven’t read any sceptic saying that tethering the cart from a fixed point at the top of the tread could be part of a hoax. If anyone (including believers) thinks it could be I would like to know exactly how. Tethering in this manner is also a way of keeping the cart in the centre of the tread.
If you are using a fence why does it have to be under the tread? Surely it would be better to put them above the thread and have protruding rods from the centers of your wheels that contact them. There would be very little friction loss and there could be no suspicion or accusation that the tread was adversely affected.
If my interest remains and when I have the time available (six weeks away) I plan to build or purchase a cart and do many tests that will be posted on Utube and will start a new thread on this forum to debate whatever the results are with anyone who wishes to get involved. I don’t think I will react emotionally if people don’t share my conclusions.
Everything you say could be exactly true and I’m not saying I have any credible proof that they aren‘t. I‘m just not happy to accept that what has been presented so far is proof enough that I can accept it. I won‘t have much or any time to reply to posts so please don’t think I have run away or spat my dummy out if I don‘t reply. Hope everyone enjoys the Xmas Season
I would hope not. But I wonder if you'll respond in kind when they insult your intelligence, your integrity, and your weak efforts. But alas I'm quite certain we'll never know.
I'd explain it with simpler analogies like pulling the string of a yo-yo or pushing on the spoke of your bike. But you're way ahead of me. You've already ridiculed experiments that would require THAT much effort on your part.
I owe you an apology, spork, and also Myriad, and probably others. I don't know quite what happened to me yesterday. I was opinionated from a position of almost complete ignorance on the subject. Sorry.
Some of that was because of the incrediblly powerful intuitive sense that this just should not be so, which I see is common. Of course I should have read much more of the thread before posting my 'opinion', as I was advised. What can I say, I was swept up in it, and very impatient. I began to imagine (from arguing the thing through in my head) that you must be nuts or pulling a scam for the fun of it. I didn't read enough to get to where you said what your qualifications are.
I have to say that I am now sitting on the fence, but you were wrong, spork, when you say that I KNEW - I was always on the fence, just leaning out a lot. I was and am still just making a judgement as best I could, and I never said I knew, and I would not have said I knew. I said I might be wrong several times, in fact. I posted sceptical critique of your videos, which still is potentially useful or valid - I don't know, and I was releaved to see in one of your posts that you specifically asked people to say if they thought there could be some trickery and what it was.
Thanks (to so many of you) because I have learned so much today it's amazing. I love my new-found insight of that equivalence of systems thing. I would have sworn that the treadmill wasn't anything to do with the cart on the road at first - now it's quite clear. The mistakes I made with those diagrams of models are deeply embarrassing, and I don't even need to push my bike spoke - I've done it before and I should know. I can imagine these sorts of things very well, which is part of what led me to arrogantly claim that DWFTTW was nonsense. My intuition doesn't often let me down on such matters.
I am obviously leaning towards saying that I now see that it is possible, and you have the video, and I have no sound argument against it, and therefore that I'm a convert, but in a way that would just be another demonstration of a lack of true scepticism. That's another weird thought - that all my stuff was actually woo. I still don't know if yours will turn out to be ground-breaking engineering (or even if this is not so new) or even greater woo than mine, or trickery. It's just that the evidence is stacking up in your favour the more I read, think and learn. Besides, many of my objections keep popping up again and again as I think the thing through...and at the end of the day, I don't actually care that much! It would be an interesting fact, but I don't think I'm prepared to go through the months or years of training in physics and aerodynamics I feel I would need to really understand it. Ok, I could build one and I'd know that way, but I am lazy, and I'm not sure I can be bothered to cart it down to my local health club to use their treadmill, to come home going "Oh right, spork's thing does work. I wonder if it will create some cool new technology" or "Well that was a waste of $40". Actually, if it didn't do what it's supposed to, I'd just wonder if I had it set up wrong, and then there might follow weeks of questions and answers about what's wrong.
There is a lot that still bugs me, but I'm going to skip technical questions for a lot longer yet. One thing though - why bother with all the videos and asking for feedback about them and offers to send bits of kit and wagers and even this discussion thread? I mean, is this reasonably ground-breaking stuff (wind-breaking stuff ), the sort of thing that would make a big splash in scientific journals? Has it been accepted by the scientific community? If not, what's keeping you from more serious scientific testing and major kudos, if not an award of some kind? Why spend your time trying to help idiots like me to get to the point of not badmouthing you anymore? If it's already there in the accepted scientific papers, why bother at all? I can see some are hoping to hone it to a fine art, but you seem just to be interested to have it accepted as fact.
The guide threads? So what is the problem when you say that it won't stay on the belt? I would be easy to show the the threads played no part.
If it can make it without threads, then they could only be involved in the starting, or handling process, and you would have to hide that, but how?
If you are suspected of deception to that level, then any video would be useless. You will never satisfy everybody, but you will some.
I think the request is to see that there is not some inadvertent user influence, and how the cart responds to change, rather than suggestion of deception.
Your conclusion regarding force is not correct. All the elements are in series, so there is but one line of force that flows from the applied force to the ground. Apart from that, you can see that this must be true, by stacking the gears so that you include all of their relationships.
Can you see how totally wrong you are here? Let's look at the relationships between the gears, starting at the top of your diagram:
- In your diagram, the second wheel down is turning at twice the speed of the top wheel, in the opposite direction. In Brian's cart, these two wheels are on the same axle. Therefore they turn at the same speed, in the same direction.
- The relation between the second and third wheels is correct.
- The relation between the bottom two wheels is incorrect: like the top two wheels, they are on the same axle, turning at the same speed.
The correct values for the four velocities that you give in the column on the right are:
V = 1
V = 1
V = 2
V = 2
The top wheel tuns at half the speed of the bottom wheel, in the opposite direction.
And you are on only one of many threads I am on. If you put strings on the cart people say "why the hell did you put strings on the cart -- just put it down and let it go".
Tethering in this manner is also a way of keeping the cart in the centre of the tread.
Out of about ~10,000 posts I've read and been involved in on the Internet since our posted tests, you're the only one (*literally, the only one*) who's mentioned that our fences "adversely affected" the test. Our method has an acceptance ratio I'm quite happy with.
Can you see how totally wrong you are here? Let's look at the relationships between the gears, starting at the top of your diagram:
- In your diagram, the second wheel down is turning at twice the speed of the top wheel, in the opposite direction. In Brian's cart, these two wheels are on the same axle. Therefore they turn at the same speed, in the same direction.
- The relation between the second and third wheels is correct.
- The relation between the bottom two wheels is incorrect: like the top two wheels, they are on the same axle, turning at the same speed.
The correct values for the four velocities that you give in the column on the right are:
V = 1
V = 1
V = 2
V = 2
The top wheel tuns at half the speed of the bottom wheel, in the opposite direction.
No, I wrote "ignore the signs". In this case, it is possible to move the gears from their concentric position to the external. This does not affect the force which is F and not F/2. That was the only difference of opinion.
It is not necessary to even think of this, because there is only one line of force from input to output. You can change the direction of the forces or velocities as you wish, but all will remain the same. As I told you earlier, the work balances.
ETA:
It is all there, Michael_C. The ratio is 1:4 for the top and bottom wheels. You may figuratively divide that in to 1 back, two forward as I wrote, and in agreement with Brian_M.
No, I wrote "ignore the signs". In this case, it is possible to move the gears from their concentric position to the external. This does not affect the force which is F and not F/2. That was the only difference of opinion.
It is not necessary to even think of this, because there is only one line of force from input to output. You can change the direction of the forces or velocities as you wish, but all will remain the same. As I told you earlier, the work balances.
So if you ignore the signs, it's fine to ignore the speeds as well? How come the second wheel in your diagram is turning twice as fast as the first one, whereas in Brian's cart it turns at the same speed?
I owe you an apology, spork, and also Myriad, and probably others. I don't know quite what happened to me yesterday. I was opinionated from a position of almost complete ignorance on the subject. Sorry.
I understand that for sure. You can't begin to imagine my frustration when I argue this with aeronautics professors that seem to hold intuition above physics. There are some things that are without question (at least to me):
1) This works. I knew it before I built it based on the simplest of analyses, and I now can prove it with a physical model.
2) There are getting to be more and more people that not only accept that it works, but understand it and describe it quite well - some are on this forum.
3) It's one of the greatest brainteasers ever. When you can slap together 5.7 oz of off the shelf parts (with nothing hidden) for $40 and create a holy war among experts in the field - you've got a good brainteaser.
As I'm sure you know, JB is my partner in this project, and one of the most knowledgable about how it works. Yet when he first considered the notion of it advancing on a treadmill, he was instantly convinced that it couldn't actually work afterall. And that's no surprise. It's a freakin' mind bender.
I didn't read enough to get to where you said what your qualifications are.
To be honest I would like to believe that being right and being convincing would be far better than offering my qualifications - but I realize on the internet that's not always the case.
I would have sworn that the treadmill wasn't anything to do with the cart on the road at first - now it's quite clear.
It's like it's own little side brainteaser - two brainteasers for the price of one (i.e. free if you don't include mental anguish). But again, you're in very good company. We have debated engineering professors about this very issue. It's astonishing to me that we could have such a debate with a trained engineer, but there it is.
The mistakes I made with those diagrams of models are deeply embarrassing
How'd you like me to post another 30 brainteasers that will do the same? At least when you get a few in, you start to realize that you can't always trust your intuition. Physical intuition is a GREAT tool, but it's a great lesson to learn that it's far from perfect.
I still don't know if yours will turn out to be ground-breaking engineering
I assure you there's no groundbreaking engineering here - just a really fun and bizarre novelty (whose only practical use is to start internet pissing matches).
I wonder if it will create some cool new technology"
Oddly, yes and no. I laughed when my father suggested I publish it a couple of weeks ago. Clearly no one in the field would be fooled for a moment by such a silly brainteaser. Since then I've had religious discussions with PhD's and engineering professors that are absolutely certain it can't do what we observe it doing. As a result, I think it is worthy of a journal writeup. I've met with some folks and am just starting that ball rolling. We'll see how it goes.
Has it been accepted by the scientific community? If not, what's keeping you from more serious scientific testing and major kudos, if not an award of some kind?
When I originally concieved of this I was somewhat proud of myself (only for the novelty of it). As it happens I'm far from the first to have thought of it, or even demonstrated it. Publishing this will almost certainly cause a stir only because even the experts fall so hard on both sides of the issue. But there will be no prize or award.
Why spend your time trying to help idiots like me to get to the point of not badmouthing you anymore?
So if you ignore the signs, it's fine to ignore the speeds as well? How come the second wheel in your diagram is turning twice as fast as the first one, whereas in Brian's cart it turns at the same speed?
What's the relevance? You both make the same mistake of assuming that you only have to count that ratio once. No, there is also a common ratio to the next gear. Combine the ratios and you get the 4:1, the ratio that you expect, and is written in my post. Twice.
The single line of force argument is a knock-out blow. There is no hope of change, but for you to find out where you are wrong. You seem not to be a be able to deny that the force must be F.
Without that previously claimed force gain, you have a cart that can go "twice as fast" as the "applied velocity", but at the expected cost of twice the force over a normal cart going half the speed. Same ratio = no gain.
Same work = no gain.
You will go twice the speed for F, but over a greater distance, because the acceleration will be lower for the same force.
The final velocity for a real geared cart is determined as it is for a normal real cart.
So if you ignore the signs, it's fine to ignore the speeds as well? How come the second wheel in your diagram is turning twice as fast as the first one, whereas in Brian's cart it turns at the same speed?
Have you paid no attention at all? The answer is obvious:
There is only one line of force flowing from the input, and the velocity of the wheels will be determined by the input and retarding forces. But if the direction of the force is changed, then the velocity differential also changes. This means that the velocity differential averages to zero for the small wheel, but not for the large wheel - the rectified sine wave diagram shows this.
It all becomes clear when you realize that the absolute force that can be sustained is limited by friction, but reversing the direction would change the level of torque. Newton's laws cannot be circumvented. You make the error of thinking that the wheels are the velocities at which they turn. But mice are not elephants: if you change the signs, you change the speed. The situations are not equivalent.
You're getting there. I made a little demonstration that illustrates the principle of Myriad's cart, and by analogy also the principle of the DDWFTTW vehicle:
The essential thing is that the strip of paper is always pushing at a point directly below the centre of the wheel. When a wheel rolls forward along a flat surface, any point on the wheel directly below the centre is moving forward slower than the centre, while any point directly above the centre is moving faster. The lowest point of all, being in contact with the ground, is stationary.
By pushing with a constant velocity at a point below the centre, you can make the centre of the wheel (and therefore the whole vehicle) move faster than this velocity.
Thanks MC. Good demo. I agree with Terry (although you forgot to ask his opinion).
Thanks Myriad, also, for #969
I do understand that principle. I will ask a bit more about it now. An objection came to mind when I got this far, but it's hard to understand yet. I mean, of course it clearly works, but it's about the fact that in this paper example there is a good deal of simplification. For instance, the paper is not simultaneously pushing past all other parts of the cotton reel, but only being deliberately used at the given surface. Not being able to do the maths, I can't decide whether this is just 'losses' that aren't too serious to affect the main proposition, and it's just my nagging intuition trying to find something to stop it thinking someone's getting something for nothing, or whether that intuition is right, and all the clever physics masks a fundamental error.
Behind it is that I cannot get past the is: a system (whatever it is) is travelling downwind, propelled only by the wind. As it approaches windspeed....and we all know how the rest goes!...it outpaces its power source...
Of course, I'm told, that's not significant. The wind paddles below your bike's axle are still going slower than windspeed (I'm doing this on my bike now in my head) even when you reach windspeed. But how, I then wonder, does this system find a way for those wind paddles not to be doing the opposite when they're moving faster than windspeed over the top of the axle?
You can have them flapping to a different angle, someone might suggest. Doesn't that take some energy, to flap them to a different angle, though, I wonder? (I don't imagine the prop does anything equivalent, but still...). This is what I meant before. Without the detailed physics knowledge, people like me only have guesswork and intuition (and, yes, experiment) to go on.
In the hypothetical version someone described (sorry, forgot who just now) with two wheels, the top one geared at half speed of the ground wheel, and driving the whole by vanes attached to that upper wheel, it was supposed to work because only the top half of the vanes were exposed to the wind. Presumably we can't expose the bottom half going in the wong direction (forwards, relative to the vehicle, I think), and faster than the vehicle.
Never mind, you put it in a bit of a barrel shaped cowl, was the answer. But then I wonder, how is it that those paddles moving round inside the cowl in the wrong direction don't still suck air backwards through their protective casing anyway, and all that supposed advantage be lost again?
And, forgive me, this feature appears to exist for many explanations of how, travelling at windspeed downwind, there is still a source of more energy: that they all feel like they might be errors of the something for nothing kind.
The explanation that it is simply the difference between the ground speed and the windspeed that is available at any speed is again difficult for me to understand. It seems to suggest that if there is a breeze blowing, we can accelerate downwind, overtake the wind, and then...well, the same difference exists, so we should be able to continue to accelerate...
If I'm travelling downwind at 1000 times the speed of the wind, is the differential speed of the ground and the wind still a source of power for me?
I imagine I would be told no, there's the drag, which gets bigger the faster you go up to some equilibrium. But I think I can remember vaguely being taught that that happened, even with a theoretically lossless system (a physical impossibility) AT windspeed, so again it comes down to not being able to do the relevant sums.
Have you paid no attention at all? The answer is obvious:
There is only one line of force flowing from the input, and the velocity of the wheels will be determined by the input and retarding forces. But if the direction of the force is changed, then the velocity differential also changes. This means that the velocity differential averages to zero for the small wheel, but not for the large wheel - the rectified sine wave diagram shows this.
It all becomes clear when you realize that the absolute force that can be sustained is limited by friction, but reversing the direction would change the level of torque. Newton's laws cannot be circumvented. You make the error of thinking that the wheels are the velocities at which they turn. But mice are not elephants: if you change the signs, you change the speed. The situations are not equivalent.
They sum to the same. I expressed it this way, to illustrate that there is no force gain. This has been difficult to dispel. In drawiing the diagram, I faced a praoblem as where to place the relative velocities that would not make the static case look ambiguous. A compromise was struck.
There was no dispute over the relative velocities, anyway, and I supported my derivation. If you read the text, you will see that I tied up the 4:1 ratio with Brian_M's 1 back, three forward argument, to the same result.
No. It makes no difference because the original supporting argument that Ft = Fc/2 is false. They will always be the same.
The remainder of the velocity argument only concerns the acceleration of that object. Because the velocity gain is two, that means half the acceleration.
I do not claim reversal of friction, so I don't see why you think I am contravening Newton. The friction will oppose the force in the normal way. The gearing is a transformer, so the friction will be reflected as well.
I understand that for sure. You can't begin to imagine my frustration when I argue this with aeronautics professors that seem to hold intuition above physics.
It's like it's own little side brainteaser - two brainteasers for the price of one (i.e. free if you don't include mental anguish). But again, you're in very good company. We have debated engineering professors about this very issue. It's astonishing to me that we could have such a debate with a trained engineer, but there it is.
Oddly, yes and no. I laughed when my father suggested I publish it a couple of weeks ago. Clearly no one in the field would be fooled for a moment by such a silly brainteaser. Since then I've had religious discussions with PhD's and engineering professors that are absolutely certain it can't do what we observe it doing. As a result, I think it is worthy of a journal writeup. I've met with some folks and am just starting that ball rolling. We'll see how it goes.
...of course it clearly works, but it's about the fact that in this paper example there is a good deal of simplification. For instance, the paper is not simultaneously pushing past all other parts of the cotton reel, but only being deliberately used at the given surface.
This is true, but it only goes to the practicality of whether we can build a DWFTTW vehicle - not any theoretical limitation (which believe it or not it the primary point I argue for. The fact that we can easily build one is a bonus). The reason I say this is that the sails that catch the wind can be made arbitrarily large, and the frame can be arbitrarily small - at least in theory.
Behind it is that I cannot get past the is: a system (whatever it is) is travelling downwind, propelled only by the wind. As it approaches windspeed....and we all know how the rest goes!...it outpaces its power source...
But our intuition tells us that "outpacing our power source" means outrunning the wind. But this isn't the case. We are immersed in this fluid. And this fluid happens to be moving in an advantageous direction to allow us to extract some energy. The paper and spool demonstrates this very nicely. Even as it moves along faster than the paper, there is still paper there to apply the necessary force to continue to motivate the spool.
Of course, I'm told, that's not significant. The wind paddles below your bike's axle are still going slower than windspeed (I'm doing this on my bike now in my head) even when you reach windspeed. But how, I then wonder, does this system find a way for those wind paddles not to be doing the opposite when they're moving faster than windspeed over the top of the axle?
In our theoretical example let's make those spoke sails in the form of a japanese fan that extends and retracts - normal to the flow of the wind.
Alternately, you could build a cart like I show that has a belt that goes all way around (above and below) the deck. The vanes extend on the bottom and fold down on top.
You can have them flapping to a different angle, someone might suggest. Doesn't that take some energy, to flap them to a different angle, though, I wonder?
Again, there is not minimum inherent work done here. We can make that work be arbitrarily small by using the most clever materials and techniques. Folding them normal to the wind doesn't inherently take any specific amount of energy.
The explanation that it is simply the difference between the ground speed and the windspeed that is available at any speed is again difficult for me to understand. It seems to suggest that if there is a breeze blowing, we can accelerate downwind, overtake the wind, and then...well, the same difference exists, so we should be able to continue to accelerate...
But for a given gear ratio you can only exceed the true wind speed by a fixed percentage. Remember that this is extracting energy from the true wind over the ground - not the wind over itself. We could in theory increase the gearing and therefore the speed indefinitely, in a perfect (lossless) world. But in the real world there will be a real limit.
If I'm travelling downwind at 1000 times the speed of the wind, is the differential speed of the ground and the wind still a source of power for me?
Yup. But you'll never find prop, transmission, etc. that have such performance to allow that speed in the first place. Keep in mind that as you gear for more speed, you get less propulsion force (and therefore less force to overcome the real world losses).
Go check out the physics forums if you want a real scare. Those guys were the worst. I don't recall any physics professors in the fray, but we've had both mechanical and aero swearing it's not possible - and that's just shameful. I have no doubt I could find a physics professor that would argue against it.
They sum to the same. I expressed it this way, to illustrate that there is no force gain. This has been difficult to dispel. In drawiing the diagram, I faced a praoblem as where to place the relative velocities that would not make the static case look ambiguous. A compromise was struck.
The static case looking ambiguous represented a problem that the compromise that had been struck was unable to resolve. Therefore, you expressed it that way, but the force gain was zero. Zero force gain and no force gain is not the same gain as the force gain gained by the input force.
There was no dispute over the relative velocities, anyway, and I supported my derivation. If you read the text, you will see that I tied up the 4:1 ratio with Brian_M's 1 back, three forward argument, to the same result.
The relative velocities were not in dispute, but you must consider the absolute velocities. There is no such thing as relative velocities. You did tie up the 4:1 with 1 back and 3 forward, but you didn't forward the 3 back towards 1:4. That makes the result the same, but the same result doesn't mean that the situation is the same. Remember the sine waves? This is the same thing, but opposite.
No. It makes no difference because the original supporting argument that Ft = Fc/2 is false. They will always be the same.
The remainder of the velocity argument only concerns the acceleration of that object. Because the velocity gain is two, that means half the acceleration.
You are correct that force is always the same. Specifically, no amount of gearing can ever change a force, as you illustrated by your single line of force argument. That is really bulletproof.
But you're forgetting acceleration. As you point out, velocity gain of two is half the acceleration. This means that velocity gain of four is one full acceleration. And this means that there is no difference in velocity (ignoring difference in value and sign).
The gearing works as a transformer between velocity and acceleration. This means that when friction is reflected, force will become momentum, and that must always be conserved. This is why the distance will be doubled, and the force that never changes will result in twice the speed.
Or, in your own words, "You will go twice the speed for F, but over a greater distance, because the acceleration will be lower for the same force."
The key to understanding is in your final remark that the acceleration will be lower for the same force. This means that mass must increase. But according to Einstein, that is to be expected when the vehicle moves, so you are correct.
To sum it up, you say that velocity plus force equals momentum minus friction, and I agree, but point out that acceleration is twice the speed. This is because the force never changes. And that's what this is all about.
(Note to others: I'm done now. I just couldn't resist.)
The static case looking ambiguous represented a problem that the compromise that had been struck was unable to resolve. Therefore, you expressed it that way, but the force gain was zero. Zero force gain and no force gain is not the same gain as the force gain gained by the input force.
The relative velocities were not in dispute, but you must consider the absolute velocities. There is no such thing as relative velocities. You did tie up the 4:1 with 1 back and 3 forward, but you didn't forward the 3 back towards 1:4. That makes the result the same, but the same result doesn't mean that the situation is the same. Remember the sine waves? This is the same thing, but opposite.
Correct, it becomes 1:1 in my diagram. Not concentric are they? Sine waves are support. Lost on you, though.
You are correct that force is always the same. Specifically, no amount of gearing can ever change a force, as you illustrated by your single line of force argument. That is really bulletproof.
But you're forgetting acceleration. As you point out, velocity gain of two is half the acceleration. This means that velocity gain of four is one full acceleration. And this means that there is no difference in velocity (ignoring difference in value and sign).
Transformed in proportion to the V/F ratio. Simple.
I did not say that you are contravening Newton, I said that Newton is contravening you. This is not the same thing.
The gearing works as a transformer between velocity and acceleration. This means that when friction is reflected, force will become momentum, and that must always be conserved. This is why the distance will be doubled, and the force that never changes will result in twice the speed.
Or, in your own words, "You will go twice the speed for F, but over a greater distance, because the acceleration will be lower for the same force."
The key to understanding is in your final remark that the acceleration will be lower for the same force. This means that mass must increase. But according to Einstein, that is to be expected when the vehicle moves, so you are correct.
To sum it up, you say that velocity plus force equals momentum minus friction, and I agree, but point out that acceleration is twice the speed. This is because the force never changes. And that's what this is all about.
No. The diagram is figurative, which is why I wrote "ignore the signs".
I should have been able to say to you "But there is one line of force"
And your response should be " Ah yes, that mean I can only transform the V/F ratio". The internal velocities are irrelevant.
If your understanding is that you must have internal arrows, argue with yourself. The gears fix the v/f ratio and you are stuck with it.
Friction is resistive, and not reactive, so it will not be transformed as you suggest. You tried too hard, there.
Friction was not a consideration in Brain_M's argument for the forces and velocities concerned.
How wry of you to put a "wink" at the end. What makes you think I am talking to you?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
), the sort of thing that would make a big splash in scientific journals? Has it been accepted by the scientific community? If not, what's keeping you from more serious scientific testing and major kudos, if not an award of some kind? Why spend your time trying to help idiots like me to get to the point of not badmouthing you anymore? If it's already there in the accepted scientific papers, why bother at all? I can see some are hoping to hone it to a fine art, but you seem just to be interested to have it accepted as fact.
