Hill Climbing Primer

[SPYDERLK]

What youre saying is that the pinion can overide a torque generated by its own action, that is equal and opposite to the direction of its action. Why do you say that?The above statement is yours. I never said anything resembling that.There's two contentions I claim.First. No tire slippage. No powertrain failure along with enough power to keep turning. No movement of the load attached. Power applied to move the tractor forward. The tractor will become light in the front and without any mechanical interference (wheelie bars, hitch rammed in the ground, etc.) will in fact tip over backward.Second is a question CalG and yourself have avoided. With forward movement where is the load on the pinion bearing closest to the pinon gear, Top, Left Side, Right Side, Bottom?? And to save going back and forth half a dozen posts, explain why you chose whichever you choose.Please forgive my crunched paragraph, for some reason my computer won't separate.

You said that by saying the pinion would continue to turn with infinite traction and a resisting load at ground level. Applied at ground level the unmoved resisting load exactly offsets pinion torque while it is holding back the tractor motion. So how can the pinion keep turning?

I did answer your questions ... but not the reasons. The directions are the resultant of forces to drive the ring forward.

 

[CalG]

ovrszd

As to your question.

Since spyderlk answered, but you made no follow up of intent or explanation, I interrpreted your motives as "entrapment" with guile.
I prefer not to participate.
With that, my response was made in the return comment questioning complementary forces within the transmission and is also fully stated in posts 95 and 100 (by another, but I concur)

At this time, I have come to realize that you have placed sufficient conditions on your position regarding the inevitability of a flip over to reduce a pulling tractor to an over sized self powered winch. A Lewis winch. which when attatched properly exibits the exact same "two lever " resolution of forces that is being offered as a counter to your position.

Perhaps you can see my points.

cheers

 

[ovrszd]

You said that by saying the pinion would continue to turn with infinite traction and a resisting load at ground level. Applied at ground level the unmoved resisting load exactly offsets pinion torque while it is holding back the tractor motion. So how can the pinion keep turning?

I did answer your questions ... but not the reasons. The directions are the resultant of forces to drive the ring forward.

Now we're getting somewhere.


Your statement above that I hilighted is the issue. It is definitely possible for the pinion to continue turning because we have one motion unaccounted for. The lifting of the front of the tractor. And that is exactly what would happen. If all elements of this demonstration continue, the tractor will do a wheelie. It has no choice.

You can demonstrate this with any tractor. You can raise the front tires of your tractor off the ground and hold them in the air, lift them higher, lower them back to the ground, all by turning the pinion. I cannot count the number of times I've done just that when trying to move an object that resisted my attempts.

Now if you add another element, such as CalG's suggestion that you weld the axle shafts to the housing, or if you securely anchor the front of the tractor, then all motion stops.

In our discussion CalG and yourself never touched on the fact that the front of the tractor is still free to do whatever the applied torque requires. In this case it would be to lift. Put the tractor in reverse and the opposite thing happens, the front would be forced into the ground.

Keep all this in mind, no traction loss, continuous turning of the pinion, no load movement. The inevitable result is the front of the tractor rises. Doesn't take any graphs, diagrams, charts, formulas or any other solutions to prove that.

 

[ovrszd]

ovrszd

As to your question.

Since spyderlk answered, but you made no follow up of intent or explanation, I interrpreted your motives as "entrapment" with guile.
I prefer not to participate.
With that, my response was made in the return comment questioning complementary forces within the transmission and is also fully stated in posts 95 and 100 (by another, but I concur)

At this time, I have come to realize that you have placed sufficient conditions on your position regarding the inevitability of a flip over to reduce a pulling tractor to an over sized self powered winch. A Lewis winch. which when attatched properly exibits the exact same "two lever " resolution of forces that is being offered as a counter to your position.

Perhaps you can see my points.

cheers

Once again, you completely ignored the question and replied using big words and complex sentences. Kinda like saying I'm "Wrong", just with more finesse and style, in your opinion.

Yes Sir, I see your points clearly. Just as I don't understand your lengthy and complex responses, you don't understand my clear, simple and concise examples.

Since you prefer not to participate, I'll not reference you in any further posts. In return you have no further requirement to comment on any of my future posts.

Cheers

 

[RaydaKub]

Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

There's two contentions I claim.First. No tire slippage. No powertrain failure along with enough power to keep turning. No movement of the load attached. Power applied to move the tractor forward. The tractor will become light in the front and without any mechanical interference (wheelie bars, hitch rammed in the ground, etc.) will in fact tip over backward.

I've resisted appending to this thread, but I think I see an issue here. If we follow through on this scenario, the front end comes up. As it comes up, the drawbar is going to go down, staying in line with it's original position relative to the front end of the tractor. At some point however, if the tractor is going to go over the top, the drawbar is going to go under the bottom (if we assume it does not bend/break in any way). In order for the drawbar to go under the bottom, it would then be in front of the rear axle (front end straight up, at a right angle to the ground) because it started below the axle (add 90 degrees rotation from it's original position). And now we arrive at the problem: if the drawbar is now in front of the axle, it had to move forward relative to the starting position. The load didn't move, the tires have infinite traction, so it didn't slide backwards, and torque applied. The drawbar didn't bend, so....as the only component left, we had to stretch the chain/cable/rope by a couple feet to account for the forward movement of the drawbar, even if the rear axle didn't move forward a millimeter.

This is a classic case of the irresistable force meeting the immovable object.

 

[sacmarata]

So, lets just say I'm the OP and I'm looking for more than ad hominem, conjecture and the occasional straw man. Would anyone have any suggestion that involved something less than a challenge between Newtonian physics and relativistic physics? Anyone? Anyone?

:stirthepot:

 

[Raised on a Deere]

So, lets just say I'm the OP and I'm looking for more than ad hominem, conjecture and the occasional straw man. Would anyone have any suggestion that involved something less than a challenge between Newtonian physics and relativistic physics? Anyone? Anyone?

:stirthepot:

Go play on your tractor! You need to do more of something that is good for you.:laughing:

 

[SPYDERLK]

So, lets just say I'm the OP and I'm looking for more than ad hominem, conjecture and the occasional straw man. Would anyone have any suggestion that involved something less than a challenge between Newtonian physics and relativistic physics? Anyone? Anyone?

:stirthepot:

Hitch to a rigid drawbar below the axle. Pretty safe. Dont jerk. Lengthen the bar to its longest setting for most safety. If the tires dig down be careful climbing out.

... Its mystery vs Newtonian Physics actually.
larry

 

[Raised on a Deere]

Hitch to a rigid drawbar below the axle. Pretty safe. Dont jerk. Lengthen the bar to its longest setting for most safety. If the tires dig down be careful climbing out.

... Its mystery vs Newtonian Physics actually.
larry

Amen to the climbing out of the hole thing. Both rear wheels in a hole can topple you. As a youngster I did not have the sense to cross a ditch at a slight angle. I went down a highway, country road that is, and decided to cut into our field at a place where the bank was pretty low, not much of a bank at all but I liked making sharp turns, -- tricycle thing and using brakes to turn, feeling my oats, I was perpendicular to the ditch as the rear wheels reached it. On top of that I stopped to check my wagon load. When I engaged the clutch the front end came up immediately before I could in my surprise decide to get off the power. Bent the wagon tongue and had the tractor balanced on the drawbar front end sticking straight up in the air. The drawbar was slowly sinking into the ground and I guess wagon tongue was beginning to slow down the sinking in. The drawbar was at its maximum length, thankfully. Two neighbor men who were working with us that day standing on the bank pulled the tractor off balance back onto the ground.

The rearing up did not result from the wagon load, but the traction point being shifted toward the front of the wheels and vectored upward such that the tractor was having to lift its own weight vertically in order to move forward. Be careful and pay attention. A few other close calls and I eventually became a pretty smart tractor driver, but never smart enough to be able to do everthing instinctively. Still have to think about what is going on, especially new to me is the whole different balance thing with a loader. One of our neighbors was not so lucky. His tractor flipped backward and killed him instantly.

 

[ovrszd]

I've resisted appending to this thread, but I think I see an issue here. If we follow through on this scenario, the front end comes up. As it comes up, the drawbar is going to go down, staying in line with it's original position relative to the front end of the tractor. At some point however, if the tractor is going to go over the top, the drawbar is going to go under the bottom (if we assume it does not bend/break in any way). In order for the drawbar to go under the bottom, it would then be in front of the rear axle (front end straight up, at a right angle to the ground) because it started below the axle (add 90 degrees rotation from it's original position). And now we arrive at the problem: if the drawbar is now in front of the axle, it had to move forward relative to the starting position. The load didn't move, the tires have infinite traction, so it didn't slide backwards, and torque applied. The drawbar didn't bend, so....as the only component left, we had to stretch the chain/cable/rope by a couple feet to account for the forward movement of the drawbar, even if the rear axle didn't move forward a millimeter.

This is a classic case of the irresistable force meeting the immovable object.

I concur. The tractor spinning like a wind mill around it's axle center would not happen.

And it appears you concur that in the beginning the front of the tractor will truly rise?