Video of motorized top - is the explanation correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Swamp Thing
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explanation Video
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the accuracy of a presenter's explanation of a motorized top. Participants note that while the explanation is somewhat vague, it correctly identifies that the off-axis contact point can create torque and angular momentum. Concerns are raised about the complexity of real-world devices versus simplified scientific models, making analysis challenging. The term "forever" in the title is clarified as misleading, as it does not imply perpetual motion. Overall, the explanation is considered plausible but lacks clarity and precision.
Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,032
Reaction score
770
Is the presenter's explanation correct in all respects?

And has anyone seen one of these "in person"?

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Swamp Thing said:
Is the presenter's explanation correct in all respects?
Too vague to tell. But while it is tilted, the contact point on the rounded bottom is off-axis, so the friction there can create a torque that adds angular momentum.
 
When I saw the word "forever" in the title, I thought it was another perpetual motion machine. Not so; he didn't mean forever. Nevertheless, it is too complicated to analyze simply.

When we do scientific experiments or blackboard proofs of principle, things are made as simple as possible. In the real world, devices can be arbitrarily complex and difficult to analyze. Compound that with a natural language explanation instead of math, and it becomes even more difficult. Now the OP is asking for a counter natural language explanation. No thanks.
 
Haven't seen one in RL, but I'm guessing this is the rotational variant of a swing set. Explanation seems legit for as far as you can judge it, because I agree it is a bit vague.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Inclined treadmills and Galilean Invariance'

This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
View full post »

Similar threads

A Leibniz Rule Videos on Digital-University
Replies
0
Views
949
I Explanation of parallel axis theorem
Replies
2
Views
1K
How does a Permanent capacitor motor actually work?
Replies
7
Views
1K
B Filming a passing road sign: speed vs bumpiness
Replies
16
Views
2K
Newton's 3rd law & rocket propulsion (detailed explanation)
Replies
18
Views
4K
B Intermediate Axis Theorem - Intuitive Explanation
Replies
1
Views
1K
Frost preferentially forms on non-vertical car windows?
Replies
7
Views
1K
How does water flow from a faucet?
Replies
8
Views
4K
What is the derivative of velocity with respect to position?
Replies
14
Views
7K
Perfect Floating Ball Illusion (inspired by Jeff Koons' Art)
Replies
6
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top