Would These Gears Turn?

No.

Agreed.

me too!

Sorry I have to disagree, it would indeed turn due to the gap between the large and small gears directly below the 'W', without that gap all you get is stripped gears.

I think he is asking if this configuration would work if one were to build it this way.Although I agree that, after expanding the image, I do see a couple of gaps in the mesh.

No there is a conflict.

How about this one. Will it turn?

I do believe it would.

On second thought, the intermediate gear on the top does not appear to be meshing with the two larger gears, as if it is ABOVE them. I think the differing number of teeth ont he two intermediate gears, if meshed would cause it to lock up.

Agreed.

After rethinking I believe you are right--Throw out rpm and take teeth per time and they should be equal---I hope.

There is only one answer and that is all. The tangential velocity is the same. Your answer. Wonder why there are so many arugments on a simple geometrical premise. The thread has so many viewpoints that are ridiculous. You can have as many idlers as you want the answer is the same. Time to stop this thread and go elsewhere

What a great answer...I was about to say 'no they'd lock' but you made me think again.
Thanks... brevity at it's best... a tin of my best Tuna for you _{(terms and conditions apply tuna recipients must be 18 years or older)}
Del

No, again.

Yes

The gears on coin will turn as there seems a gap between gears under letter W.

Beside, forget about the gears on te coin, whole world is turning around this small coin.

In your new gear train, I see that the top small gear is at lower elevation and not really engaged with right and gear. This evident form ovelapping teeth. Thus, this train will also turn.

Besides, you can see that the link below, on which the three gears are mounted can be turned to engage either of the big gears with top small gear. This is sort of gear box to get different output speeds for top small gear.

I agree...good eyes! After repeating "right" "left" "right" "left" all the way around (of course I started at 12 o'clock) I was just relieved to get all the way around.

No watch making for me...

How this can be a GA? It is another question, not an answer

Yes they would as the intermediate gears will transmit the drive 1 tooth for 1 tooth. They do not change the gear ratio only the direction of rotation, & both small gears will do the same reverse direction.

Assuming that all 4 gears have fixed axles and intersecting teeth/cogs, then the gears would turn, only if the two smaller gears were the same size. But, since the two smaller gears are of different diameters, they will turn at different speeds, resulting in interference, which will stop rotation of all gears.

Why do you care if the two smaller cogs turn at different speeds: see nick name's post #12

no it wont run unless ,

the no,s of teeths of small pinion gears are not same ,if it wud hav been same ofcource it will ...

Definitely not!!!

The whole thing is in a locked position as the smaller wheels between the big ones are not the same diameter, regardless which is the driver.

Can somebody give me a score for my answer?

Yes it will turn. Given that the differrence in size of the two larger wheels is proportionate in equalizing the ratio of the smaller gears then each revolution will engage all the gears at their respective ratios.

has to be an even number of gears, On the two pound, they number 19, e.i. no-go.

good illustration Andy

There's a big GA for you for your explanation therefore, the number of wheels on the £2 coin won't work because there's 1 too many wheels on 1 side and despite they are same size still one side has more of the small wheels that causes to lock up the rotation circuit.

The size of the wheels does not matter, its only important that they mesh, not slip. I mentioned this in my last post too.

You damn right that the wheel size does not matter on the coin. The reason why I said the small wheel because there's one extra on one side that does not make the number of wheels even in the circle in order to get the directions right.

They should be even in numbers as your illustrations show to get the directions right.

Only in Bricktop's other question was important to have the small wheels the same size to make the circuit work since both make contact with the larger wheels which are also not the same in size but it does not matter, am I right?

Sorry, I take the last paragraph back because it does work like any even number arrangements.

OK..simplest way........go to pic and put your fingers around the biggest gear and mentally turn it clockwise. (YesYen nailed it) What happens?

The two smaller gears turn in the same anti-clockwise direction perhaps?

Have done.

My opinion only, right answer, wrong reason.....

Thanks Andy, I knew someone's gonna agree with me, I like you.

I don't know what you mean by wrong reason but....

The first gear train will not work as the first and last gears in the train will turn in the same direction.

The second gear train will work as the speed of the final gear is the same. I calculated the ratios of the different teeth for each scenario. The two intermediate gears will however, turn at different speeds.

Assuming all the gears are properly meshed the answer is NO.

In is not possible as the gear ratio via the upper pinion is less the ratio vial the lower pinion.

Applying the same assumption to OP the answer is no due to there being an ODD number of gears and the gear ratios around the circle are moot.

It's worth looking again!

The answer that cited tangential velocity to show that the four-gear loop would turn was correct. If you use ratios carefully, that will give the same result, because the diameter/number of cogs on the intermediate gear cancels.

I agree.

I believe no--Because of the uneven number/size of gears, especially between 12 and 2 o'clock(if they are all suppose to mesh together).

And no on the second for the same reason--The two intermediate gears will try to turn at different speeds.

1st one: no - Agree w/ the no's above.

2nd one: no - agree w/ no's above, and it looks funny, esp. if I zoom in. In my experience with gears, looking funny is a bad, bad sign. (It's a highly technical assement to determine the funniness of the gears.)

If enough torque is applied either of these will turn.... For a few degrees anyway while teeth are being stripped...

no, theres an odd number of gears

I see you're still playing with Erector sets. Nice job but no - it will seize up.

it seems as if they will all turn

They allready are "as the world turns" but really i have no clue, now if they were electrons

If the image on this coin were made real, would it be able to turn?

Yes, it would turn, if the coin is rolled across the floor.

Showoff. :-)

no!

I'd say yes, but not the gears meshing turning, but yes to it will turn the coin in relation to the prime mover

The Amazing Randi called attention to this image in 2000.

http://www.randi.org/jr/04-04-2000.html

Could it be that this gear train only functions in another dimension?

Or is it just that some designer is either a joker

or doesn't know anything about gears.

no it will only turn if the power transmisiion is not engaged one gear to another...

Hi, Bricktop!

No. The last sprocket would be turning in the same direction as the first.

Mark

No it cannot turn as there is at least one too few gears (or one too many! Choose one!).

Definately not! It's rapidly falling in value, more than ever.

The 3 o'clock position is shown to overlap so yes, all gears will turn.

Take away the big gear, and see the two small gears turn. They turn at different speeds due to the different number of teeth per revolution.

If they were wheels on the ground, one would be dragged a little. With an inflexible cogged road, by putting the large gear back in place, albeit curved, they would not slip and lockup would occur.

First question clearly no. You would need an even number of gears in this configuration.

Second question, yes.

I suspect that if the number of gears is an odd number, the gear train will lock up. If the number of gears is an even number it can work. Since there is an odd number of gears (19), it doesn't stand a chance.

In the case of the two pound gears they would turn quite well, also in the case of the 4 gears they would turn also.

The speed at which the gears turn is quite irrelevant the teeth mesh 1 tooth at a time so 1 tooth progression at the beginning is 1 tooth progression at the end and there is the correct number of gears on the two pound piece to give the correct rotation without locking the gears up.

In the case of the four gears it completely agree with your answer.

However, you might want to re-count the gears on the coin.

Hi Tim

Just did a recount and you are correct I should have remembered odd & even No gears.

GA from me for a good answer.

Looks like old ASVAB Test. NO is the answer. I almost got it wrong, getting old ya know. Scored 99th percentile when I took that test.

We seem to be getting nowhere towards a definitive answer. May I suggest that one of you hands-on engineers construct a working model to scale and let us know if the thing turns all the way around. Will someone please post a reward for the clever person who solves the question?

"Will someone please post a reward for the clever person who solves the question?"

In good time. Stayed tuned!

I'll send one of these rulers to those with the right answers:

That ruler is defective! It isn't 6 inches long in the picture! =b

Ooops--Not a chance.

I wonder......is that a Free Mason Design?

GA from me.

You also explain better! Thanks.

yesyen, that pretty much sums it up, GA.

Uhuh.......now you want the drawings eh! Ok..........never mind that a mere DUCK gets the answer and can explain the workings in a simple sentence ......ohhhhhh nooooooooooooo....

Answer this then BT.......is there such a thing as two square gears capable of turning each other?

Not exactly square, but strange all the same:

BT, I gotta see that mechanism from a couple other angles, because it looks like it can't move from what I'm seeing. But then again I'm fat and nearsighted too....=b

Whoever thought that up is a genius!

I never saw a gear like that before. Where did you find it anyway?

It looks as if the speed of the shaft it's on varies even though the driving gear's speed is constant, any reason for it?

Incidentally, do you know any website where gear cuttings are shown/illustrated?

I have been curious for a long time but nothing really come to mind just like on ball manufacturing process for bearings? All just curiosity for me but still fascinates.

Isti, I could see a (oil or water well) rod pump needing to vary the speed at which the rod moved up and down in the well. you'd want it to go down fast but slow right before it got to the bottom of the stroke and slowly accellerate on the way back up again. most mechanisms I've seen have an elliptical function built into the mechanism, but this gear set seems to have a very odd and complex power transfer function. It is clearly attached to a water well rod pump, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why the power transfer function needs to be so dang complex.

I'm sorry Bricktop, I haven't been reading these postings lately.

I must say some of those oldies weren't just sitting on their brains, were they?

Looking at those gears on display in the Museum, before the domineering presence of electronics, people did know how to get around problems the best possible ways with mechanism.

Thanx for the enlightenment.

That will actually work fine. It will cause the arms to move in a desired pattern to run the water pump continuously. But it is a neat pattern.

Yep......the principal of establishing the centroid of any shape. Nice.

nice link

500 Internal Server Error

Do you really want the ruler? There may be a problem with it too.

Solution to the second gear rotation question

This Meccano model has a closed loop of four different gears. No two of them have the same diameter, and no two have the same number of teeth. They turn smoothly. Any even number of gears, with parallel axles, or even smooth wheels, can be put into such a loop, and they will turn freely. There's a simple way to prove this, using elementary geometry.

The underlying principle isn't physics, but geometry, and it applies not only to gears, but to smooth friction wheels as well. The figure shows two friction wheels of different diameter. When they turn without slipping, the two circles must turn through the same arc, but in opposite sense of rotation. That is, if the left wheel turns clockwise through arc A, the right wheel turns counter-clockwise through arc B, and B = - A.

If these were gears, then if one gear turns through N teeth, the other gear turns through N teeth in the other direction. It follows that if you had a string of an odd number of gears and tried to make a loop by meshing the gears at the end of the loop, their points of contact would be moving in opposite directions. If you closed a loop of an even number of gears, they would all turn quite smoothly through the same arc.

Say in your case you have teeth counts as follows:

A:100, B:50, C:80, D:25. (Your example was D:40, for your 2:1 ratio).

For 1 rev of A (ignoring sign throughout):

B goes 100/50

C goes 100/50 x 50/80

D goes 100/50 x 50/80 x 80/25

Second time round:

A' goes 100/50 x 50/80 x 80/25 x 25/100

Do some 'cancelling out', and for 1 rev of A, A' is 1.

Do the same for any 4 teeth counts - call 'em E,F,G,H. Write it out as above, and it will always 'cancel out' to 1.

If you now repeat, including the direction, you can also show that the absolute value cancels to 1, but for an odd number of gears, 1 rev of A = -1 rev of A'.

Hi phoenix911!

"is that a Free Mason Design?"

I think it might be; and like all Freemason designs I've heard of, it is probably allegorical, intended to mean something more or other than what it appears to mean at first glance, and containing a moral teaching.

Despite what some people might think, I don't believe it stands for any combination of the numbers 9 and 1 being non-functional as far as useful forward progress is concerned just because the coin's gears won't turn. After all, just look at 191, which is at least 40 proof more intoxicating than good ol' 151. Or, for that matter, your own handle's [phoenix911] magnificent rise out of the ashes of disaster .

Rather, it is an extremely reasonable hypothesis that it stands for the age at which babes become hot. Freemasons are big on hot babes.

(Well, some of them probably are! And some maybe not. _¥ ← do they have gay people in Freemansonry?) Hence, the secret lingo of the group might reasonably be expected to contain, "That babe's a 19!" probably meaning at any age, she's a 19 [...9 more than a '10', dude!]!

Or maybe not. They don't tell.

Mark

I've got a million of 'em:

In William Golding's (1911-1993) novel Lord of the Flies (1954) one character, Piggy, is teased by the other boys because he is fat and wears glasses to correct nearsightedness. Later (Ch. 2) they use Piggy's glasses as a burning glass to start a signal fire. What is wrong here?

Oh! I Know that! (speaking as someone who is fat and nearsighted....)

to optically correct nearsightedness, you need a divergent lens.

to focus sunlight you need a convergent lens.

ergo, either the kid was FARSIGHTED, or the story as written is impossible.

You are correct Rorsch, but are you really sure you want that ruler?

Sure... I'll just use optics to correct for the distortion...=b

OK, so what's wrong with the ruler?