Science Fact Check Does 3.14 = 5.14

Rejected. Scientific and engineering fail for using undefined units, formulas and parameters.

What is W? Why is there no unit for the result?

W = work

I think you can figure it out one way or another.

sorry if you refuse my presentation, i tried my best.

Ok let me try to figure it.

First one is a wheel that turns on the spot with a certain torque.

The work needed for it is 3.14 whatever unit.

Then the wheel is turned and moves adding some distance. While you say that this happens at the same torque you now are adding a distance. This adds to the work that went into the system.

No?

Yes! Yes! The first wheel A is what we know and understand as 1/2 turn a movement of 3.14" ... with a potenical output of 3.14"

The second wheel B represents that wheel rolling 1/2 turn or 3.14"

Measure the distance traveled from it's start of 9 o'cock on the circumfrence to the outside edge when it stops 5.14" ... you can see the 9 and the 3 switched position. that is a fact. If the wheel would travel 360 degrees all would cancel out to normal movement what we all understand. The wheel must stop at 1/2 turn to measure 5.14"

I did not think this would be so difficult to understand ... your the 1st one to get this far.

Physics now says you are wrong!

Check the facts again!

Sorry Thomas, you're the only person here who doesn't get it.

Start with your flywheel apply your torque for a given angle; when you remove the drive the flywheel will be spinning; it won't stop if there is no friction.

Calculate the total kinetic energy.

Start with your cart wheel apply the torque for the same angle; when you remove the drive the wheel will be rolling.

Calculate the total kinetic energy.

Where did the 5.14 come from? The center of mass of the wheel moved only 3.14. It doesn't matter what some single point on the circumference did.

Look at the drawing again.

think out of the box ... 9 o'clock to 9 o'clock is 5.14 "

3.14" is center to center

utilize circumference not center for 5.14

Incorrect procedure.

Using your logic, the result could also be 1.14 (3 o'clock to 3 o'clock).

That should have read 3:00 to 9:00.

I am measuring only from 9 to 9 as the wheel rolls and stops. this is 5.14" or 1/2 turn ... no more no less.

You failed your 4th grade math quiz.

I see you understand !!

It is exactely based on the circumfrence which is consider irrevelant points of interest

well until now.

Is the whole system frictionless?

What is the total energy of the system at the end of the period?

No .... no friction considered at this time or no load. Just trying to get out the concept.

If you can't figure out your mistake from this, you're hopeless:

Much better picture

exactly what i should have used .... thanks

love this picture. Great depiction of the movement.

thank you !

A to B is 3.14"

2" Pinion starts center on A but the left horizontal side of the pinion's circumference is 1" further left of A because the radius is 1" this is the start point for the measurement.

The pinion stop point is B so the pinion is centered over B while it's radius 1" extends 1" past point B this is end point of the measurement.

thus 5.14"

so the measurement starts 1" radius to the left center and ends 1" radius to the right of center.

"so the measurement starts 1" radius to the left center and ends 1" radius to the right of center."

As Jamie Hynaman would say, "Now THERE'S your problem."

You don't measure the start of movement on the left side of the object, then end it on the right side.

Just proves, that with an incorrect procedure, the result becomes meaningless.

I'm reminded of the 'equation simplifying' that makes 1=2. The flaw there is that the way the equation is written, there is a 'division by zero' step that is hidden from casual view. once you're dividing by zero, any further steps along that line are meaningless, you need to back up to before the div/0 and try something else.

The 3 represents 3 o"clock on the outside circumference... pi is 3.14 the distance of 1/2 turn of a 2" wheel.

To turn the wheel i suggest using an easy number for force ...1... no load or acceleration .. just push the wheel 1/2 turn with a force of 1

wheel only turns 1/2 turn then stops

In your first example you have the distance a point on the circle moves around the center.

The second is the distance in a straight line from the point to point after the circle rolls

Your comparison is flawed.

With your logic if we then turn the first example 360º we have a travel of 6.28". In the second with it rolling it's still 5.14". So by your logic any farther turn and you lost work.

Yes ...Wheel A is an example of 1/2 turn around a center.... movement of 3.14"

normal conventual rotation.

Wheel B is a 2" wheel rolling on surface for 1/2 turn or 3.14" and stops ..no more no less.

the 5.14" is a measurement off the outside circumference movement.

fact the is distance of 5.14" outside measurements.

Someone previously supplied a wheel or gear on a rack ... great idea!

entry 26 should have cleared things up.

no-pne understands ..... to bad

Unfortunately, it is you who doesn't understand!

It does not matter how far any particular point travels, but rather how far the center of mass (the average of all points on the object) travels.

As at least one prior post said, if you travel one more half-revolution, that same point on the wheel, which you say traveled 5.14 inches during the first half-revolution, will only travel (6.28-5.14)=1.14 additional inches during the second half-revolution, giving an average of 3.14 inches per half-revolution.

The gear axle doesn't move. Per my previous comment, you're hopeless.

I think we have here a typographic error where you meant to have output as:

W=Fd =1 x 3.14" =3.14, not 5.14 as stated in your original post.

This is beyond ridiculous to add further speculation on top of the obvious error.

It is physically impossible to gain work between input and output.

By the way, in the machine of the first kind, no external work is done, all the input work is expended as heat, so W=0

In the second case, the object being a wheel is moved through one rotation.

input W= 1 x 2 x 3.14 =6.28 not 5.14, (the arc length is 1" x 2π).

This is also the output work in this case, ignoring friction, etc. There is nothing to see here, move along please.

Your logic is flawed....The wheel movement is leveraged by the axle....If you compress A to B in this scissor extender, then measure distance travelled of C towards D, you will see more movement because of the leverage....

(_{Psst! It's only half a rev})

I think that is exactly where the poster has a fallacy in thinking. He assumes the movement of the wheel is 3.14 but a point initially at 3 has moved 3.14 + 2 times 1 = 5.14. That of course is correct but is does not mean anything. Point 9 moves 3.14 - 2 times 1 = 1.14 so the sum of both points 3 and 9 is 3.14 just like the wheel. I am repeating what was already said by Rixter just to hopefully make it clearer. He beat me to it.

The sum of all points is 3.14. For calculation involving work it is the wheel that counts not some point on the wheel. The wheel is a unit with a mass at its centre and that mass counts for motion calculations. Centre of mass. The motion of the sum of all points is 3.14.

Hope that helps the poster.

Exactly, you beat me to it. If it rolls along another 1/2 revolution every point on the disc has travelled 2*pi inches, because it's the same as sliding it along bodily.

It's a kinematic problem, torque, work etc are irrelevant.

Yes ! Yes! Yes!

Yes!

Everyone else, it blew right bye them,,, they are not even close!

How can something so simple and apparent be overlooked?

I have been working on this for 30 years now 73, retired engineer

Just got tired and decided to go public so the world would know

Don't understand why nobody else can see this right in front of there eyes?

You may also understand that this can also go 360 degree!

30 years? How?

You are correct

i also posted this again to be clearer

read my previous post 26

If you ask me, this whole scenario is trivial. In the first case there is no work output, only heat from the disc spinning on the flat surface. In the second case, one point moved further, but so what? The whole center of mass only moved by the value of π.

The only output work was done on moving the axle from initial to final point linearly, against whatever rolling resistance mentioned.

Look up epicyclic motion. The case described is the path of a point on the exterior of the disc. If you continue the movement, the point moves 1.14" instead of 5.14" for the second 180 degrees.

Epicyclic gear teeth were and are common in clock movements, particularly where the pinion is a cage of rods, rather than a gear tooth. It works for low power transmission and goes through a slight acceleration and deceleration as each tooth engages, travels and disengages, but is smooth enough with low enough friction to work in a clock movement.

Thanks

interesting did not know term epicyclic motion.

interesting qualities in that.

So how is this off topic? It applies directly to the original question.

Wow. This isn't even science. It's High School level Geometry.

correct it is that simple

Aha!

And then 30 years!

Soooooo simple!

Thomas,

Do you believe you have come across a route to an over unity device here?

Do you see some sort of paradox in just the geometry of the situation?

Do you understand that if you move an object from one place to another at the same level then in a purely physical way you have done no "work"?

Can you explain what you mean with this? It is regarded work when I push the trolley from one spot to the other one. At least thats what I tell the boss during our shopping sessions.

Alone the heat that this argument creates could drive a car for 2 km her nuts for 2 hours....

No problem with you not understaning. I had similar results on this diagram of a wheel half turn which i requested input advice directed at the fact of the 2 different lengths of movement in one event of 1/2 wheel turn during which one the longer traveled distance (circumference v/s center) is apparently considered irrelevant by science. Obvious my problem is people don't understands my stupid description .... this is a humbling earnest interest for me. Somewhere someone must have a correct answer.

Have you thought of seeing a psychiatrist?

Not trying to be nasty, but if you've attained such a grand old age, and are puzzling over this, then there is a serious possibly that dementia should be considered.

The only work you do when moving the trolley is in overcoming friction, and, it is is converted into heat in the bearings (plus a little bit in increasing the energy/temperature of the disturbed air).

Unfortunately we are designed without KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System), so you also use up energy accelerating the mass and decelerating it. But, imagine that the trolley was completely frictionless in a vacuum, and attached to a stretched piece of elastic.

In the initial situation there is a lot of potential energy stored in the elastic.

When the elastic gets loose that energy has been transferred to kinetic energy in the trolley.

The trolley moves at a constant speed until the elastic starts to tighten again.

When the elastic reaches the same length as it was at the beginning the trolley stops.

If you slam on the brakes at that point, all the energy is again potential energy in the elastic.

The trolley has moved twice the length of the stretched elastic, but, you still have exactly the same amount of potential energy in the elastic as you had to start with.

No work has been done.

Yes i believe it's geometry anomaly that exits but unknown or understood for it's value, obvious no claim for over unity. Just seek an enlightened explanation.

This is going to look really stupid, but, please humor me: I'm just trying to understand what you're perplexed by.

Suppose there are three points on the floor: A, B and C. They are in a straight line, and there's two feet from A to B and two feet from B to C (and, therefore four feet from A to C).

A man stands balanced with his right foot on A and his left foot on B with his centre of mass directly above the mid point between them.

Then he takes a step so that he ends up with his centre of mass directly above the mid point between B and C.

He (his centre of mass) has moved two feet. But his right foot has moved four feet (and, incidentally his left foot hasn't moved at all).

Does this situation seem to present a similar sort of anomaly?

Interesting .... the center of the load overall moved 2 feet.

......the man advances with a 4' step but the load moved only 2'

conversely ...... a red dot on a wheel circumference A" ... 9 o;clock rolled CW to 3 o'clock has absolute constant force from A to C. So what if it is considered "not useable" force, but the fact is... it is there.... the full red dot move A to C.

Thanks interesting thought... but i believe i am still confused or correct, maybe both.

You are confused! Take care!