Force multiplier

[electrodacus]

Wrong. 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).

I 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.   

[electrodacus]

Indeed. 'C' does nothing but leak some uA through the transistors.  Definitely won't boost anything!

It 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).

[pcprogrammer]

No, not this again.

Was 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. 

Funnily 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 about belief and 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.

I 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 

[electrodacus]

Was 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. 

You 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. 

I 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 

The 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 discharged https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/120fps24:9
It is the close up of this and upside down https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/gear-slow30p2:9
In 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.

[PlainName]

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...

Complete 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.

[electrodacus]

Complete 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.

Prove 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.

[RJSV]

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.

[electrodacus]

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.

What 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 a third point of 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.

[ejeffrey]

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.

That's also a trick that anyone who has played with a yoyo for more than a few minutes knows how to do.

[electrodacus]

That's also a trick that anyone who has played with a yoyo for more than a few minutes knows how to do.

This 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.
 

[pcprogrammer]

You are likely thinking at electroboom vs Steve Mould and the chain fountain.

Nope 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/#msg4310218

This 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.

[electrodacus]

Nope 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/#msg4310218

This 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.

Derek 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.

[cbutlera]

...
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. 

"A book lies at rest on a table. The table is at rest on the surface of the Earth. By
Newton’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 from Teaching Science: the Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association would 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 blog Making 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.  See Dr. Skelton's blog for an explanation.

[electrodacus]

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 from Teaching Science: the Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association would be of interest to you. 

Also of interest I think is this blog Making 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?"

The 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 works
The 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.

[cbutlera]

...
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.
...

So 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?

[electrodacus]

So 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?

I 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

[cbutlera]

...
I think my conclusion is the same as that of the paper but is valid for those that graduated from university.
...
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).
...

I’m glad to hear that you agree with the findings in the paper.

The paper addresses 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 the 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 onnovice students; but the mental model which arises from the flawed sequence of reasoning is strong and resistant to instruction (Wilson & Low, 2015).”

[electrodacus]

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).[/i]”

Can 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.   

[cbutlera]

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).[/i]”

Can you please elaborate on this ?
...

The point that they are making on page 5 of the paper is 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.

[electrodacus]

The point that they are making on page 5 of the paper is that the two forces acting on the object in the N2-NF misconception are equal 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 in every circumstance.

Under another circumstance, such as when the object is accelerating, the two forces can and will be different. 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, or equivalently, if the two forces are different, then the object must be accelerating.

Fair 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 video https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/wheel-cart-energy-storage-slow:8
It 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.   

[cbutlera]

Fair 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.
...

Why 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 the paper that 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.

[electrodacus]

Why 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 the paper that 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.

a) 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*a

A 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 slip https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/stick-slip-removed-from-front-wheels:0

[PlainName]

a) Acceleration is no possible if slip is not allowed.

Why is slip 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.

Are 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.

[electrodacus]

Why is slip not allowed?

I need to mention this as some people think the vehicle can move without any slip.

Are 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.

Not 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 * a
But 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

[cbutlera]

Why 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 the paper that 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.

a) Acceleration is no possible if slip is not allowed.
...

You 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?