Live data from Hacker News

Gears

ciechanow.ski

31–40 of 230 posts

Re: Gears

#32

This may be a stupid question, but it is something I always wondered. Torque is effective due to the mass of the lever having a force applied to it, right? Is the length of the lever being used as a stand-in for the mass being affected (a longer lever would necessarily have more mass)? If the lever had no mass, would there be no torque? If the lever did not have a uniform mass distribution, would the difference in ap…

I think that the only role the mass of a lever would play in contributing to torque is through inertia.

Re: Gears

#33

Nicely done! It kind of reminds me of this old video: How Differential Steering Works (1937) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAw79386WI&t=209

I love this video. It's such a great visualization, simple and clear, and gets the point across while being entertaining.

And it's from 1937! We have so many video editing and effects tools today, but sometimes simpler is best.

Re: Gears

#34
This is an absolutely phenomenal 'explorable explanation'. It methodically layers concepts to foster understanding, deploys interactivity to build intuition, and on top of all that provides crisp, clear narrative on top of all of the amazing visualizations.

Re: Gears

#35
post #9
post #7

I'm going to add very little to this discussion, but it's the second article from this blog I've seen here, and - like the other one, about the Earth and the Sun - it's absolutely amazing. This is some of the finest work in "explorable explanations". I'm going to save the copy of both just to be sure to show them to my kid in a couple of years; this beats any educational material on the topic I've been exposed to bef…

It is indeed great, and probably one reason you don't see it more is that it's a ton of work! That's 5K lines of hand-written code! (view source and it's at the end of the page) $ wc -l gears.js base.js 4135 gears.js 904 base.js 5039 total I've wanted to make visualizations like this for my blog. Writing a blog post takes me around 10 hours, which is a fair amount of effort. I believe that the visualizations will tak…

Having been down this road, yes, it does take time, but you can save some time by using SVG and some DOM library. Although canvas is faster, most diagrams don't really need it, so I use SVG unless I really need to switch to canvas. SVG also adjusts for screen dpi automatically.

The things I like:

1. Reactivity (ObservableHQ, Vue.js, hyperactiv.js, etc.). There's usually some underlying data and then a corresponding visualization. These reactive systems let you modify the underlying data and then the visualization updates automatically. You don't have to figure out which diagrams to update when. Even easier: just redraw everything every time you change anything.

2. Some easier way to write the DOM (d3.js, jsx, vue, lit-html, etc.). Since I'm writing a blog post with html, I usually prefer writing my js-in-html (vue) rather than html-in-js (jsx) but try both directions and see which you prefer.

3. No build step. This is especially important when I want to update a page years later and don't want to figure out which build tools I was using in 1997 or 2007 or 2017. I want my pages to last for decades, and I still update my pages from 25 years ago.

I tried recreating one of the gear page diagrams in ObservableHQ https://observablehq.com/@redblobgames/unwind-circle-example . It's not a lot of code. There's a slider, there's a loop to generate the lines, and there's the output svg. Whenever you move the slider it recalculates the output.

I admit that I'm not using ObservableHQ much for my own projects because I want more of a "hand-written" style. I used d3.js for my older pages and vue.js for my newer pages. Vue's reactivity and templates save me probably a factor of 2 or 3 over d3.js.

Re: Gears

#36
post #7

I'm going to add very little to this discussion, but it's the second article from this blog I've seen here, and - like the other one, about the Earth and the Sun - it's absolutely amazing. This is some of the finest work in "explorable explanations". I'm going to save the copy of both just to be sure to show them to my kid in a couple of years; this beats any educational material on the topic I've been exposed to bef…

In addition, his page lead me here http://archive.is/S01gX Start at "The little gears that couldn't." section

PS: had to archive the link because of SSL errors prevent direct access. my guess - my browser had old number of gears :P

Re: Gears

#37
This is a really awesome article and brought me back to intro physics class, saving it and will return to it in the evening so I can fully digest :) Thanks!

Re: Gears

#38
post #30

This may be a stupid question, but it is something I always wondered. Torque is effective due to the mass of the lever having a force applied to it, right? Is the length of the lever being used as a stand-in for the mass being affected (a longer lever would necessarily have more mass)? If the lever had no mass, would there be no torque? If the lever did not have a uniform mass distribution, would the difference in ap…

No, the mass of the object that has a force applied to it has absolutely nothing to do with the torque. Here is how Wikipedia defines the torque caused by a force acting on an object with a rotation axis: Torque is the product of the magnitude of the force and the perpendicular distance of the line of action of force from the axis of rotation.

So the force generated by the torque is completely unaffected by the mass of the lever? Then, why does applying the force on a longer portion of the lever create more torque? I had thought it was because there is more mass acting on the point of rotation (longer lever = more mass).

Re: Gears

#39

This may be a stupid question, but it is something I always wondered. Torque is effective due to the mass of the lever having a force applied to it, right? Is the length of the lever being used as a stand-in for the mass being affected (a longer lever would necessarily have more mass)? If the lever had no mass, would there be no torque? If the lever did not have a uniform mass distribution, would the difference in ap…

Nope, the mass of the lever doesn't play in to the torque that is applied at all. All that matters is that the force be transmitted via atom-to-atom motion. It's the rigidity of the wrench that mediates that, not its mass.

Of course, to create rigid objects, practically speaking they need to be made of something that will have mass. So the rigidity and the mass are related in a very loose sense. In any case, from a Newtonian physics perspective, you'll see none of those terms in there - neither a "rigidity" nor a mass. The torque is simply the length of the wrench multiplied by the magnitude of the force.

In a more detailed analysis, you might consider the flexure of the wrench by analyzing the stress and strain inside the wrench. That would no longer treat the wrench as a perfect idealized body that is completely rigid, but rather a body that can stretch based on the internal compressive or tensile forces that arise inside of it. Sometimes we don't think of metals as being stretchy, but with enough force, they're not so different from a rubber band.

With all that said, once you consider the _dynamics_ of the situation - how the forces applied give rise to motion - then mass does come into play. If you apply torque to a wheel, that will cause an angular acceleration proportional to the mass of the wheel. If you were using a wrench to spin a gear, then the mass of the gear decides how fast it will start to spin. Also, the mass of the wrench matters here, since presumably it will be spinning too: some of your effort has to go into angularly rotating the wrench. So it would have a "parasitic" effect on how fast you could get your gear spinning.

Re: Gears

#40
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the mass of the object that has a force applied to it has absolutely nothing to do with the torque. Here is how Wikipedia defines the torque caused by a force acting on an object with a rotation axis: Torque is the product of the magnitude of the force and the perpendicular distance of the line of action of force from the axis of rotation.

So the force generated by the torque is completely unaffected by the mass of the lever? Then, why does applying the force on a longer portion of the lever create more torque? I had thought it was because there is more mass acting on the point of rotation (longer lever = more mass).

It's the distance that matters. If you push a car it will speed up. If you push it twice as far it will speed up more.

If you apply the same force using a longer lever then the end of the lever moves further (it follows a bigger circle) so you are applying the same force over a bigger distance.

Post reply on HN