Of course. How could the mistake be yours?
Split Thread The validity of classical physics (split from: DWFTTW)
- Thread starter Dan O.
- Start date
- Status
Of course. How could the mistake be yours?
Deserts don't. Dessert does.
Just giving you a chance to reintroduce one of your controversial theories. You're welcome!
Strange. I was quite sure he was.
Just giving you a chance to reintroduce one of your controversial theories. You're welcome!
Well then you won't have a problem posting a blistering analysis.
You have not described how a the belt can induce forward thrust in a plain wheel.
Non-Hertzian nonsense.
Explain how the belt can induce forward thrust in a plain wheel.
Last edited:
You really must catch up on your homework. A long time ago I suggested that you make some more diagrams of the power flow through the cart when on the treadmill and also outside in the wind. You still have the direction of the power flow backwards.
Isn't 100 pages enough for you to get this? (rhetorical question so no response needed)
It gets better and better. Apparently the latest term that he has been using without understanding what it means is "friction"!
On a somewhat related topic, I've been wondering where humber got this strange idea that the contact patch has to move behind the axle for a wheel to move forward. I googled "contact patch behind axle" and looked through the first ten pages of hits. Not surprisingly the only ones that supported this idea were posts in this thread. For such an important principle, you;d think it would be easy enough to find references to it if it were true. And humber hasn't supplied any, either (although I'm sure he thinks he has and will say something like "Already answered".) There were also quite a few pages discussing having a contact patch behind a steering axis for steering stability, I wonder if this has somehow gotten mangled up on the trip through the interdimensional portal to the humberverse. If anybody is interested in reading some intriguingly in-depth discussion of the railroad case, this book preview talks about the contact patch of a train wheel and how it behaves. Naturally, it does not support anything humber has said, although it will be fun to see how he misinterprets it to claim that it does.
(Incidentally, no, my degree is not in aeronautics, and I never said it was.)
As I said, I have done that twice. You cannot argue that the power is not supplied by the belt.
I see no reason to exempt this one, Mender. No.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Spork's clearly a bright guy, and he plans ahead...
You really want to get this on mythbusters, right?
Speaking seriously though, I don't think humber is what he seems to be.
It doesn't. The belt is trying as best it can to pull the cart off the back end of the treadmill. If the cart were a brick, it would succeed. In addition, when the treadmill is tilted up, gravity is also trying to send the cart off the back end of the treadmill. If the cart were a billiard ball, it would succeed even if the belt wasn't moving. With two things both trying to send the cart off the back end, what keeps the cart from doing so, and what in fact will send the cart off the front of the treadmill if there isn't a spork there to stop it? It's the fact that the cart gets some restraint from the air, which means that the wheels have to turn because the cart isn't backing up as fast as the belt would like it to. And that turning of the wheels is leveraged into prop rotation, which drives the cart forward. There is no forward thrust coming from the wheels/belt interface.
Good for you. Not that your "understanding" is in doubt. The jeep on the hill was funny, wasn't it? Sharp perception.
It is hard to find a McDonald's Cheeseburger answer. However, the information is there, but you need to understand it.
You are "arguing from ignorance", to name but one.
It does. Your interpretation is wrong. None of of what you claim to the contrary can explain how the belt can induce forward thrust in a wheel.
That shifts the blame to another discipline.
What are you talking about Humber? What do you mean by "plain wheel"? Is this a wheel not connected to a drive system? Or is this a theoretically perfectly circular wheel on a theoretical perfectly smooth flat surface? What are you really asking Humber?
You may be right, although I'm not sure what he seems to be. He's wrong, wrong, wrong, but I can't say whether he seems to be intentionally or unintentionally wrong.
I'm quite confident that he isn't spork, though.
I don't really think you're this dense, humber. The power is supplied by the belt, as has been said countless times. Do we need to keep a reference list handy for you?
"Trying its best?" How?
That is correct!. It has one important implication. The friction to the belt is low. "To stop it from happening", the only force required is to overcome a little friction. The friction of two surfaces; the wheel rim and belt are in contact, and at that point of contact, moving in the same direction, so the friction is very low.
The force of gravity changes the balance. Can you show how the drive force developed by the cart is related to the angle of the road?
The same reason that a Spork is needed to put it there.
The ball needs only to overcome any imbalance in the forces of friction induced by the belt. Then it will spin in place.
The angular velocity of the wheel, is determined by the belt. It cannot go faster than that, so progress is impossible.
So why do you always suggest otherwise? Only a powered vehicle can drive its wheels independantly of the belt. The cart is powered by the belt, so it is not possible for them to turn slower without breaking traction, or faster, because the belt drives the wheels.
You cannot explain how the belt can induce forward motion in the axle.
Last edited:
A "solid" wheel. That is correct.
- Status