John2020 Posted October 16, 2020 Author Share Posted October 16, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, swansont said: Irrelevant, seeing as your example is purely a classical mechanics problem When researchers claim about "action-reaction symmetry breaking", it cannot be irrelevant then something is going on. Regarding my example, it is another story and has to be faced as a classical mechanics problem. I agree. May I ask you something? Why this thread is so hot and it is not shutted down from the moment, one says "I am ignorant" the other "I have no knowledge of the basics" etc? Could you please clarify this to me? Last time the moderator close the thread because he said I couldn't support it. Am I now supporting it or do I have to start laughing? 7 minutes ago, Ghideon said: You mean that you have no clue how your circumventing of Newtons laws using helical shapes is supposed to work? May I use half a lap? 3/4 of a lap? No. Please tell me, you are the expert along with all others. 16 minutes ago, swansont said: Why, and where’s your derivation? Otherwise this sounds like a dodge, where you realize there’s a point you can’t deny that Newton’s laws work Observation + Intuition I explained myself regarding Newton's laws and that was my view. Everyone knows that in case of Newton's 3rd law, it holds only when we have a collinear pair. Don't you agree? Edited October 16, 2020 by John2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, John2020 said: No. Please tell me, you are the expert along with all others. Ok I will tell you: the shape does not matter. As far as I can tell from my understanding of physics there is no "sweet spot" where current mainstream application of Newton fails. In other words your invented effect does not exist. Regardless of any shape. You need to provide the definition of the required shape that makes your device work and display the non-mainstream behaviour. Can I use one single ball, fixed inside the nut, as a single contact point between nut and bolt? And still get the effect you claim? Im still trying to locate a more exact point where standard use of Newton os supposed to fail and your "alternative interpretation" is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John2020 Posted October 16, 2020 Author Share Posted October 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Ghideon said: You need to provide the definition of the required shape that makes your device work and display the non-mainstream behaviour. Can I use one single ball, fixed inside the nut, as a single contact point between nut and bolt? And still get the effect you claim? The required shaped is the helix for the trajectory of the threads contacts. Proceed with your proposal and make a complete analysis if you like. Let us see what may come out of this. 4 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Im still trying to locate a more exact point where standard use of Newton os supposed to fail and your "alternative interpretation" is required. It is not a point but how you handle this problem. The mistake according to my view is that you (and all others) assume the nut has additionally a kinetic energy or a real momentum, which is not true. Again, none replied to what I shared about the crankshaft. Replacing the mechanism with a crankshaft then we come to your words (Newton's 3rd law). See my reply about the gun where there I justify where is the problem in your approach about the construction in Fig.1-Upper as also I introduce a counter example with a crankshaft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 4 minutes ago, John2020 said: The required shaped is the helix for the trajectory of the threads contacts. Ok. So the important thing is the threads of the bolt (helix shape)? the shape inside the nut is not important at all as longs it have at least one contact point sliding along the threads of the bolt. So the minimum requirement is any shape, guided by the support rods in fig 1, accelerated by the bolt's treads. Ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 8 minutes ago, John2020 said: May I ask you something? Why this thread is so hot ! Moderator Note I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Hot? Do you mean long? Popular? Uncomfortable? 8 minutes ago, John2020 said: and it is not shutted down from the moment, one says "I am ignorant" the other "I have no knowledge of the basics" etc? ! Moderator Note Something about your posts suggest you might better overcome the specific ignorance you have by discussing it with people who can apply mainstream explanations to your non-mainstream concept. You've admitted several mistakes, and that's always the first step to actually learning something. 18 minutes ago, John2020 said: Could you please clarify this to me? Last time the moderator close the thread because he said I couldn't support it. Am I now supporting it or do I have to start laughing? ! Moderator Note You seem to be trying harder, although you don't accept much of the help you're being given. Perhaps it seems funny to ask for help and then ignore it when offered? You go ahead, but I doubt anyone here is laughing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 25 minutes ago, John2020 said: When researchers claim about "action-reaction symmetry breaking", it cannot be irrelevant then something is going on. Regarding my example, it is another story and has to be faced as a classical mechanics problem. I agree. May I ask you something? Why this thread is so hot and it is not shutted down from the moment, one says "I am ignorant" the other "I have no knowledge of the basics" etc? Could you please clarify this to me? Last time the moderator close the thread because he said I couldn't support it. Am I now supporting it or do I have to start laughing? You keep responding 25 minutes ago, John2020 said: I explained myself regarding Newton's laws and that was my view. Everyone knows that in case of Newton's 3rd law, it holds only when we have a collinear pair. Don't you agree? Not sure what needs to be “collinear” here. A block on an incline have action-reaction forces, even though angles are involved. Same as for threads on a nut and bolt. The action and reaction forces are collinear in all cases. But you’re arguing one is nonexistent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John2020 Posted October 16, 2020 Author Share Posted October 16, 2020 6 minutes ago, Phi for All said: You seem to be trying harder, although you don't accept much of the help you're being given. Perhaps it seems funny to ask for help and then ignore it when offered? You go ahead, but I doubt anyone here is laughing. Thanks for the reply. Speaking about the "hot", I see badge icon writing hot, I assume because of the currently many replies. That's good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 17 minutes ago, John2020 said: It is not a point but how you handle this problem. The mistake according to my view is that you (and all others) assume the nut has additionally a kinetic energy or a real momentum, which is not true. No, since they give different answers and only one answer can be correct. Anything with its CoM moving has momentum and KE. To say otherwise is a fabrication, not physics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John2020 Posted October 16, 2020 Author Share Posted October 16, 2020 3 minutes ago, swansont said: Not sure what needs to be “collinear” here. A block on an incline have action-reaction forces, even though angles are involved. Same as for threads on a nut and bolt. The action and reaction forces are collinear in all cases. But you’re arguing one is nonexistent I am not arguing about the incline and the action-reaction forces that appear. I am arguing about the whole that means on nut displacement, the screw turns without being able to transfer mass to the other direction. Doesn't this make sense? 1 minute ago, swansont said: No, since they give different answers and only one answer can be correct. Anything with its CoM moving has momentum and KE. To say otherwise is a fabrication, not physics But in our case we have conversion and not plus kinetic energy. We have rotational to kinetic energy where the latter is not caused by a real force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 1 minute ago, John2020 said: I am not arguing about the incline and the action-reaction forces that appear. I am arguing about the whole that means on nut displacement, the screw turns without being able to transfer mass to the other direction. Doesn't this make sense? Yes, you are, when you say it’s reactionless. The reaction force is why there’s a recoil, which moves the other mass. The two are connected. Deny one, and you deny the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, John2020 said: I am not arguing about the incline and the action-reaction forces that appear. I am arguing about the whole that means on nut displacement, the screw turns without being able to transfer mass to the other direction. Doesn't this make sense? No it does not make any sense according to known physics. The important thing is the threads of the bolt (helix shape)? the shape inside the nut is not important at all as longs it have at least one contact point sliding along the threads of the bolt. So the minimum requirement is any shape, guided by the support rods in fig 1, accelerated by the bolt's treads. Ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John2020 Posted October 16, 2020 Author Share Posted October 16, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, swansont said: Yes, you are, when you say it’s reactionless. The reaction force is why there’s a recoil, which moves the other mass. The two are connected. Deny one, and you deny the other. It will happen as you expect if and only if we replace the translation mechanism with a crankshaft. In this case we will have recoil. See my reply below: Edited October 16, 2020 by John2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, John2020 said: It will happen as you expect if and only if we replace the translation mechanism with a crankshaft. In this case we will have recoil. See my reply below Repeating your claim isn’t evidence that you’re right. (you aren’t) Also, changing the question is not a good faith argument. Answer what I asked, not some other question, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John2020 Posted October 16, 2020 Author Share Posted October 16, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, swansont said: Repeating your claim isn’t evidence that you’re right. (you aren’t) I repeat it because none replied to it. The crankshaft mechanism will result to a real linear motion of the nut that allows a collinear reaction, in other words there the Newton's 3rd law and the conservation of momentum follow each other. In the case of the translation screw, on mass displacement (coming not from a real rectilinear force) the reaction is just the rotation of the screw. No mass transfer is evident with the same mechanism in the other direction. From the moment the path is not linear but dictated by the helical topology of the screw threads then, any reaction should comply with this limitation (path). It implies you cannot have linear reaction (in contrast when the mechanism is a crankshaft) along the axis of rotation. 20 minutes ago, swansont said: Yes, you are, when you say it’s reactionless. The reaction force is why there’s a recoil, which moves the other mass. The two are connected. Deny one, and you deny the other. I answer on this with the post above this one. See: Edited October 16, 2020 by John2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 (edited) Here is an illustration @John2020, I have reused fig 1 to make it more clear which case we discuss. I have made part of the nut transparent so we see the exact shape inside. The nut is not threaded inside but has one point touching the bolt's thread; the triangular element is touching the bolt. Material fatigue would probably be issue in a real case but should not affect the analyse at this stage. When the bolt is turning the nut is pushed along the guide rails. Nut is not rotating and pushed by this one point of contact. This setup should behave according to your claims? The rotating thread and the point of contact on the nut is frictionless; we may now look at action/ reaction pairs etc required to get an explanation? Edited October 16, 2020 by Ghideon clarified a sentence. Removed an unclear use of word force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John2020 Posted October 16, 2020 Author Share Posted October 16, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Ghideon said: The force from the rotating thread is frictionless; we may now look at action/ reaction pairs etc required to get an explanation? OK. The action-reaction pair (normal forces) in the details analysis are expected to be perpendicular to the inclination of the thread. Right? Edited October 16, 2020 by John2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, John2020 said: OK. The action-reaction pair (normal forces) in the details analysis are expected to be perpendicular to the inclination of the thread. Right? There is no friction so the fact that the thread on the bold is doing a sliding movement agains the point of contact does not matter. Illustrating with the extreme case; if I had made a stupid mistake and had used a cylinder with circular groves instead of a nut with threads: There is no angle, just a point of contact, sliding frictionless along the same circular groove, over and over. The important thing is that the sliding movement does not imply force, only the angle of contact. Ok? I think this agree with your statement I quoted. Additional details to verify: So the situation is described by the following: the thread is illustrated by a grey line. The force that acts on the nut (point of contact) is the normal force N perpendicular to the plane of the thread. N may vary in magnitude due to acceleration but the direction is constant. Do we agree that this is a correct description? I have not added forces from guide rails acting on the nut. Also note that force acting on bolt is not added at this time. Edited October 16, 2020 by Ghideon missing sentence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John2020 Posted October 16, 2020 Author Share Posted October 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Do we agree that this is a correct description? I have not added forces from guide rails acting on the nut. Also note that force acting on bolt is not added at this time. I think so. OK, go ahead. I have to go to sleep. It is about 01.30 am. Post your solution and we will discuss it tomorrow, OK? Good night everybody! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, John2020 said: I think so. OK, go ahead. Thanks. But if you are uncertain, please double check* that your proposed effect still will emerge. As the sliding motion of the thread has no effect on the outcome, the thing that matters is the angle of the contact between the object that pushes the nut (acting at the point of contact). This means that there is no need for a rotation, the trick is a sloped shape makes the normal force push at an angle and not along the direction of travel of the nut. Ok? This sloped shape of course has to be moving, powered by something, to push the nut. *) there is also a great chance that I make a mistake at some point, this kind of analysis is not part of my day job at this time. Edited October 16, 2020 by Ghideon italic to highlight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John2020 Posted October 16, 2020 Author Share Posted October 16, 2020 5 minutes ago, Ghideon said: This means that there is no need for a rotation, the trick is a sloped shape makes the normal force push at an angle and not along the direction of travel of the nut. Ok? OK. Let us see what comes next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 1 hour ago, John2020 said: I repeat it because none replied to it. The crankshaft mechanism will result to a real linear motion of the nut that allows a collinear reaction, in other words there the Newton's 3rd law and the conservation of momentum follow each other. In the case of the translation screw, on mass displacement (coming not from a real rectilinear force) There is a real force. You’re just denying it’s there. Because of some nonsense you made up. Quote the reaction is just the rotation of the screw. No. The screw actually pushes on the bolt. Quote No mass transfer is evident with the same mechanism in the other direction. In Narnia, perhaps. Meanwhile, in this universe, Newton’s 3rd law holds, and there is a reaction force that pushes mass in the other diarection. Go ahead and build your device and prove your fictional scenario. That’s the only way to show you’re right. Quote From the moment the path is not linear but dictated by the helical topology of the screw threads then, any reaction should comply with this limitation (path). It implies you cannot have linear reaction (in contrast when the mechanism is a crankshaft) along the axis of rotation. The center of mass does not move in a helix. Force and velocity don’t have to be in the same direction, but I’ve already shown the force diagram giving a net force along the axis. Newtonian physics says there’s a force. If you say there isn’t, you need to show how Newton fails 1 hour ago, John2020 said: It will happen as you expect if and only if we replace the translation mechanism with a crankshaft. In this case we will have recoil. See my reply below: You can stop bringing this up. Nobody is discussing this. Nobody cares. Stop distracting from the physics you’re getting wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John2020 Posted October 16, 2020 Author Share Posted October 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, swansont said: Force and velocity don’t have to be in the same direction How then the action-reaction principle and the momentum conservation applies when the force and the velocity don't have to be in the same direction? It is a contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 1 minute ago, John2020 said: How then the action-reaction principle and the momentum conservation applies when the force and the velocity don't have to be in the same direction? It is a contradiction. An object moving in a circle at constant speed has a force directed to the center of the circle, perpendicular to the velocity. The reaction force is in the opposite direction (e.g. you pull on a rope, the rope pulls you, the mass swings in a circle.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 8 minutes ago, John2020 said: OK. Let us see what comes next. Thanks. I’ll post next picture tomorrow. (Night time here now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John2020 Posted October 16, 2020 Author Share Posted October 16, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, swansont said: An object moving in a circle at constant speed has a force directed to the center of the circle, perpendicular to the velocity. The reaction force is in the opposite direction (e.g. you pull on a rope, the rope pulls you, the mass swings in a circle.) But in our case the force directed to the center of the circle is not a contact force. For example the screw could have threads but empty inner volume (like a cylinder with threads imprinted on its surface). This is also the reason the path I mentioned above is crucial because only contact forces are relevant to the action-reaction principle along with the direction of the velocity that must comply with it. 00:14 (UTC), Saturday 17 October 2020 Edited October 17, 2020 by John2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts