If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   Mind-farking machine completes one turn every 2.3 trillion years even while its engine runs at 200 revolutions per minute   (sploid.gizmodo.com) divider line 94
    More: Cool, engineers  
•       •       •

13580 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Nov 2013 at 7:53 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-03 12:15:10 AM
Torque multipliers gone wild?
 
2013-11-03 12:19:02 AM
tl/dw
 
2013-11-03 12:39:52 AM
The last gear will still do more work than congress in the same amount of time.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-11-03 02:05:58 AM
I call bullshiat.

Look at the top gear, you can clearly see it slowly turning but the connected shaft is not turning the gear on the opposite side of the bearing mount. The slow turning gear is simply slipping on the shaft.
 
2013-11-03 02:19:28 AM
A washing machine could power a locomotive with the right gears. You wouldn't want to ride it cross-country, or anything.
 
2013-11-03 02:34:16 AM

NFA: I call bullshiat.

Look at the top gear, you can clearly see it slowly turning but the connected shaft is not turning the gear on the opposite side of the bearing mount. The slow turning gear is simply slipping on the shaft.


You may be right. The second gear, moving at 4 rpm, should have visible movement. The video pan is too fast to be sure, but it doesn't look like it's moving that fast, if at all.
 
2013-11-03 03:47:11 AM
so how long would it take to just crack the concrete?
 
2013-11-03 08:02:44 AM
"I'm an engineer (with a PhD) and I refuse to see this as an engineering piece. it is art."

I think it is more like science. But who will be around in however many trillion years to see if the last gear has turned? It's not a very good experiment.

Also, over these time scales, I wouldn't be surprised if quantum mechanical jitteryness fused the gears together, or otherwise distorted their shape.
Also, proton decay might be an issue.
 
2013-11-03 08:03:32 AM
What's the point? What good does this thing do?
 
2013-11-03 08:05:44 AM

ElLoco: Torque multipliers gone wild?


You can't spell "wrenches" without "wenches"
 
2013-11-03 08:09:53 AM

vinniethepoo: What's the point? What good does this thing do?

 
2013-11-03 08:13:02 AM
And yet, IT MOVES1
 
2013-11-03 08:13:38 AM

Karma Chameleon: vinniethepoo: What's the point? What good does this thing do?


It torques like crazy
 
2013-11-03 08:19:55 AM

FritzTrotsky: "I'm an engineer (with a PhD) and I refuse to see this as an engineering piece. it is art."

I think it is more like science. But who will be around in however many trillion years to see if the last gear has turned? It's not a very good experiment.

Also, over these time scales, I wouldn't be surprised if quantum mechanical jitteryness fused the gears together, or otherwise distorted their shape.
Also, proton decay might be an issue.


It also might run out of gas.
 
2013-11-03 08:22:23 AM

Karma Chameleon: vinniethepoo: What's the point? What good does this thing do?

 
2013-11-03 08:31:56 AM

vinniethepoo: What's the point? What good does this thing do?


Maybe it got someone interested in this sort of thing?  I mean, I don't know how they can tell it's not broken somewhere, but it could be that people find it fascinating and delve into the details and learn some things.

Or maybe a few people are just briefly amused by it or maybe who cares what good it does.
 
2013-11-03 08:35:16 AM

sxacho: Karma Chameleon: vinniethepoo: What's the point? What good does this thing do?

It torques like crazy


crazy twerking?

www.thewrap.com
Had to be done... sorry.
 
2013-11-03 08:36:58 AM

FritzTrotsky: Also, over these time scales, I wouldn't be surprised if quantum mechanical jitteryness fused the gears together, or otherwise distorted their shape.


I think you'd have to worry about rust, power outages, and motor/bearing failure long before special relativity.
 
2013-11-03 08:38:25 AM

vinniethepoo: What's the point? What good does this thing do?


Art.

Think about it. Every day you work at 200 revolutions per minute, but even the most famous and influential people on earth have never actually MOVED it.
 
2013-11-03 08:41:00 AM
Mind-farking machine completes would complete one turn every 2.3 trillion years if it had unrealistically strong gears, axles, bearings and supports, received power the entire time, and never suffered wear or other damage

FTF the trolls at Giz.
 
2013-11-03 08:51:50 AM

NFA: I call bullshiat.

Look at the top gear, you can clearly see it slowly turning but the connected shaft is not turning the gear on the opposite side of the bearing mount. The slow turning gear is simply slipping on the shaft.


Slipping on the shaft? That's what she said.
 
2013-11-03 09:06:07 AM

toejam: Slipping on the shaft? That's what she said.


something something undersized shaft
 
2013-11-03 09:12:30 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-11-03 09:12:45 AM

NFA: I call bullshiat.

Look at the top gear, you can clearly see it slowly turning but the connected shaft is not turning the gear on the opposite side of the bearing mount. The slow turning gear is simply slipping on the shaft.


Trillion is a big number. You're gonna need a lot more gears to achieve what is claimed.
 
2013-11-03 09:15:20 AM

edmo: NFA: I call bullshiat.

Look at the top gear, you can clearly see it slowly turning but the connected shaft is not turning the gear on the opposite side of the bearing mount. The slow turning gear is simply slipping on the shaft.

Trillion is a big number. You're gonna need a lot more gears to achieve what is claimed.


50^12 is a pretty big number too.
 
2013-11-03 09:21:12 AM

edmo: Trillion is a big number. You're gonna need a lot more gears to achieve what is claimed.


To be fair. A Redditor was the one to do the math that giz claimed.

So the cement block could Actually be turning at 200 RPM.
 
2013-11-03 09:21:36 AM

fluffy2097: FritzTrotsky: Also, over these time scales, I wouldn't be surprised if quantum mechanical jitteryness fused the gears together, or otherwise distorted their shape.

I think you'd have to worry about rust, power outages, and motor/bearing failure long before special relativity.


Forget it. He's rolling.
 
2013-11-03 09:22:44 AM
I wonder if any more math inclined farkers can do an energy analysis (ballpark) of how much energy would need to be expended to turn the concrete end one revolution.  I'm guessing more energy than the human race has used so far.
 
2013-11-03 09:24:41 AM

jfarkinB: Mind-farking machine completes would complete one turn every 2.3 trillion years if it had unrealistically strong gears, axles, bearings and supports, received power the entire time, and never suffered wear or other damage

FTF the trolls at Giz.


And was machined to ridiculous tolerances so that it had absolutely no slack in the gear train.
 
2013-11-03 09:27:11 AM

FrancoFile: And was machined to ridiculous tolerances so that it had absolutely no slack in the gear train.


Better have some frictionless lube if you don't want them to wear over time too.
 
2013-11-03 09:28:24 AM

mrlewish: I wonder if any more math inclined farkers can do an energy analysis (ballpark) of how much energy would need to be expended to turn the concrete end one revolution.  I'm guessing more energy than the human race has used so far.


A lot less than one bulldozer-second of energy.
 
2013-11-03 09:29:54 AM

fluffy2097: FrancoFile: And was machined to ridiculous tolerances so that it had absolutely no slack in the gear train.

Better have some frictionless lube if you don't want them to wear over time too.


"As I stepped onto the Magtube, a thought struck me: can there be friction where there is no substance? And can substance be tricked into hiding from itself?"
- Dr. Gail Nimbala, Morgan Industries Researcher

/now someone has to go and re-install it
 
2013-11-03 09:30:11 AM

FrancoFile: jfarkinB: Mind-farking machine completes would complete one turn every 2.3 trillion years if it had unrealistically strong gears, axles, bearings and supports, received power the entire time, and never suffered wear or other damage

FTF the trolls at Giz.

And was machined to ridiculous tolerances so that it had absolutely no slack in the gear train.


I think that's actually not an issue. It would take a lot less than (2.3 trillion years / number of teeth on the final gear) to take up all the slack, assuming that the slack space is a lot smaller than the tooth spacing.
 
2013-11-03 09:32:59 AM

fluffy2097: edmo: Trillion is a big number. You're gonna need a lot more gears to achieve what is claimed.

To be fair. A Redditor was the one to do the math that giz claimed.

So the cement block could Actually be turning at 200 RPM.


Sure. Just construct the appropriate rotating reference frame. After all, it's already turning at about 0.0007 RPM relative to the "fixed stars".
 
2013-11-03 09:34:36 AM

mrlewish: I wonder if any more math inclined farkers can do an energy analysis (ballpark) of how much energy would need to be expended to turn the concrete end one revolution.  I'm guessing more energy than the human race has used so far.


If I remember my force multipliers correctly, it should take the same amount of energy as it would to do it by hand. You're just applying that energy over a much much longer time.

Think of a block and tackle. If you use 1 pully to raise a pound 1 foot, it takes 1 foot of rope, and you have to lift one pound.  If you use a block and tackle, you have to lift less then one pound, but you have to pull more rope.
 
2013-11-03 09:35:43 AM
I'm gonna go with NFA here. If next year the guy unplugs it and takes it apart, he's gonna find a lot of scoring under some set screws after the first few gear sets.

Some engineer can surely tell us how much torque you can apply to a gear held in place with a set screw (resting on a flattened part of the shaft, I'm sure). I imagine you'll find that torque well before the concrete block.
 
2013-11-03 09:43:13 AM

dfenstrate: I'm gonna go with NFA here. If next year the guy unplugs it and takes it apart, he's gonna find a lot of scoring under some set screws after the first few gear sets.

Some engineer can surely tell us how much torque you can apply to a gear held in place with a set screw (resting on a flattened part of the shaft, I'm sure). I imagine you'll find that torque well before the concrete block.


Sure. I could but what would be the fun in that? Besides I already figured it out and it's now my secret. I'll never tell.
 
2013-11-03 09:58:40 AM

vinniethepoo: What's the point? What good does this thing do?


Tells when it's time for Gelfling hand to fix the Crystal
 
2013-11-03 10:21:44 AM

Karma Chameleon: vinniethepoo: What's the point? What good does this thing do?


It's Conceptual Art, guys.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art

Though the first and most influential wave of conceptualism was in the 70s, and the one that historians deem "true" conceptualism, I find this piece compelling as a continuing conversation of the concerns of the original movement.  I dig it.  It's part of a newish branch of kinetic sculpture.

//commence FARK thrashing
 
2013-11-03 10:27:21 AM

NFA: I call bullshiat.

Look at the top gear, you can clearly see it slowly turning but the connected shaft is not turning the gear on the opposite side of the bearing mount. The slow turning gear is simply slipping on the shaft.


This sucker is at the Exploratorium, I saw it in July. It's legit (as much as it can be) you can inspect it up close.
 
2013-11-03 10:34:57 AM

vinniethepoo: What's the point? What good does this thing do?


It blows the mind of people that don't understand simple machines and exponential growth.
 
2013-11-03 10:40:43 AM

FrancoFile: And was machined to ridiculous tolerances so that it had absolutely no slack in the gear train.


I'm not that kind of engineer, but I'm sure that's where the 'mind bending' is. If the top gear isn't slipping, the whole thing will seize up once all of the slack is taken up.
 
2013-11-03 10:46:12 AM

SteakMan: FrancoFile: And was machined to ridiculous tolerances so that it had absolutely no slack in the gear train.

I'm not that kind of engineer, but I'm sure that's where the 'mind bending' is. If the top gear isn't slipping, the whole thing will seize up once all of the slack is taken up.


The wood and the bearings will take up the slack for about 1000 days, then it'll burn the first worm out over a week.
 
2013-11-03 11:02:01 AM

prjindigo: SteakMan: FrancoFile: And was machined to ridiculous tolerances so that it had absolutely no slack in the gear train.

I'm not that kind of engineer, but I'm sure that's where the 'mind bending' is. If the top gear isn't slipping, the whole thing will seize up once all of the slack is taken up.

The wood and the bearings will take up the slack for about 1000 days, then it'll burn the first worm out over a week.


I haven't run any numbers, but I'm guessing that the total backlash in a series of gears like that wouldn't be taken up for hundreds or thousands of years.
 
2013-11-03 11:08:29 AM
On a 50-tooth final gear, let's assume the backlash is 1/50 of a tooth spacing. No particular reason to assume that, except that it's gotta be less than one tooth spacing, and it seems unlikely that it'd be much less than 1/50. (Then again, I'm not an engineer.)

Taking up that slack would take 1/50 of a turn of the previous gear, or one turn of the gear before that. About one billion years.
 
2013-11-03 11:10:40 AM

NFA: I call bullshiat.

Look at the top gear, you can clearly see it slowly turning but the connected shaft is not turning the gear on the opposite side of the bearing mount. The slow turning gear is simply slipping on the shaft.


In the 8 seconds that the video is on those gears, the shaft should turn less than 4 degrees, indeed it's less than 1 tooth on the "top gear" you are looking at.
Here is 2 captures at 5 seconds and 13 seconds. Looks to me like the setscrew moved about 4 degrees. I'm assuming there are 60 teeth on each gear making each tooth 6 degrees.
i1214.photobucket.comi1214.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-03 11:27:53 AM
Correction to above: I count 48 teeth on each gear, making each tooth 7.5 degrees. Less than 4 degrees of motion in the 8 seconds of the video is still valid. Assume the setscrew is 3/8th of an inch from the center, and the distance traveled over that 8 seconds is around 1/100th of an inch.
 
2013-11-03 11:30:02 AM
I dunno... maybe I've lost my sense of wonder but I fail to be impressed by this.  I guess the reaction is supposed to be "OMG it's totally moving but it's tied to concrete!".  The idea that concrete is big and heavy and *totally* solid.  So two things.

1) Things get really big (or really small) *really* fast when we starting using exponentials*

2) That that much gear ratio would move Budda off his spot (very very slowly).  It's not going to have any trouble busting up that block.  Leaving aside all of the engineering concerns of this machine actually managing to run for trillions of years.

* You know what really grinds my gears? People using the phrase 'growing exponentially' when it's no more than linear (with a big constant term) or quadratic at best.  Bonus points if they're basing that off of no more than two data points. </nerdrage>
 
2013-11-03 12:01:22 PM

vinniethepoo: What's the point? What good does this thing do?


It's art
http://arthurganson.com/
 
2013-11-03 12:04:56 PM
Something tells me the beta-test is going to take a while.
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report