• Welcome to engineeringclicks.com
  • Translate rotational force to a different rotational frame

    Discussion in 'The main mechanical design forum' started by germeten, Aug 25, 2016.

    1. germeten

      germeten Member

      Joined:
      Aug 2016
      Posts:
      10
      Likes Received:
      0
      Hi everyone.

      I'm trying to design a product that translates rotational force (as in a static pressure, not an actual rotation or movement) from one frame of reference to another. The first sketch is a disk just rotational frames.jpeg to show the orientation. The rotation occurring in 1. (depicted by a crank end) must cause rotation of the entire crank arm & boom around a center frame of reference 2. Can someone direct me to an online library of mechanisms I can sift through? I'm not really clear what to call it so searching it is difficult. And no, toothed gears won't work for this application, because the crank doesn't actually rotate, only a rotational vector force is applied. That pressure vector creates the larger rotating vector in 2. Directions depicted and even the crank itself are arbitrary and not as important as the over-all motion.
       
      Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
    2.  
    3. s.weinberg

      s.weinberg Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Nov 2012
      Posts:
      58
      Likes Received:
      0
      I'm a little fuzzy as to what you're trying to do.

      Are you trying to convert a force, with no motion (and thus no work) to actual rotational motion about your 2nd axis?
      Or are you just trying to convert force to force? If so, why do you think gears won't work (not that they're the only way to do it, but explaining this will help show what you're after)?
       
    4. germeten

      germeten Member

      Joined:
      Aug 2016
      Posts:
      10
      Likes Received:
      0
      There is force but no motion-related work in the 1 frame, there is force AND motion in the 2 frame. Gears won't work because they require motion in both frames.

      And I better probably ask now, apart from rude or outrageous behaviour, are there any subject matter topics that will get a person banned from this board?
       
      Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
    5. Erich

      Erich Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Feb 2012
      Posts:
      222
      Likes Received:
      2
      We tolerate a couple of free energy crackpots, so pretty much anything goes except the behaviors you noted.
      What is the nature and source of this force with no motion?
       
    6. germeten

      germeten Member

      Joined:
      Aug 2016
      Posts:
      10
      Likes Received:
      0
      Well that's a relief! The source of the applied pressure could really be anything, say a screw, static head, compressed air, weight, spring. etc. I'm trying to extend my understanding into the realm of pure and applied forces/kinetics, not just the meaty, perpetual, physical contact of things. It's definitely outside my comfort zone and a bit scary.
       
    7. s.weinberg

      s.weinberg Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Nov 2012
      Posts:
      58
      Likes Received:
      0
      I'm pretty sure that if you are applying a rotational force, but not producing motion, there is no work done. To create motion and force in your 2nd frame from no work in your first would be violating the conservation of energy, and cannot be done.
       
    8. Dana

      Dana Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Sep 2010
      Posts:
      342
      Likes Received:
      3
      Gearing will certainly transmit torque ("rotational force") even if there is no motion. However, if you want motion on the output side, there must be motion on the input side. Input torque times input rotation equals output torque times output rotation. It can't work any other way.
       
    9. germeten

      germeten Member

      Joined:
      Aug 2016
      Posts:
      10
      Likes Received:
      0
      Well I respect your opinion, knowing what they teach in college, but a person does run into exceptions outside those institutions. I'm studying a patent by a person who has since passed on, that seems to have violated those rules.
       
    10. s.weinberg

      s.weinberg Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Nov 2012
      Posts:
      58
      Likes Received:
      0
      Nope. They really don't.
      While some fairly basic laws of science HAVE been proven wrong in the past, the instances of such cases are EXTREMELY few and far between.

      I look forward to your creation of whatever is described in the patent, and your Nobel Prize in physics for doing so.
       
    11. germeten

      germeten Member

      Joined:
      Aug 2016
      Posts:
      10
      Likes Received:
      0
      They don't typically reward people who violate the "laws" of physics with
      Nobel prizes but more often with a bullet to the back of the head, for depriving
      someone else of what they've come to consider their due profits, and there
      have been more than a few examples of inventors turning up dead. That's how
      the real world works, and why it doesn't work as well as it could, or should. Of
      course an inventor can also "sell out," in which case their invention will never
      be heard of again, and so it goes. Apart from the last movie Orson Wells played
      in, and Ben Kingsley, dealing with Tesla, or the film "Tucker," I'm surprised no
      other has been made (outside of Youtube) about the "politics" of inventing. Every
      corporate board-room is a conspiracy, and they often succeed. Just do what
      you're paid for, don't get any ideas outside the paradigm, at your own cost.
       
      Last edited: Aug 28, 2016

    Share This Page