574
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This gets pointed out everytime a variation on this graphic gets posted, but it can work if the gears are on different planes, like they’re not all grinding up with one another. So maybe two gears are actually touching, but you’ve got a shaft going from the center of one of those connecting to another gear that’s actually touching the conflicting gear. Or it could be one of the gears is actually wide enough that it’s spinning two of the other ones, but those two aren’t touching.

[-] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago

I would argue that we have to be constrained by what is actually shown by the illustration and what is implied by it. It is implied that they all work together at the same time and if we're just making up things that aren't shown like an extra plane, we can make up anything.

[-] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago

A planetary gear set would have illustrated the point without breaking the laws of assumption.

[-] ech@lemm.ee 11 points 11 months ago

Because the point of the illustration is that all of the gears are directly interacting with each other to achieve something. That gears don't work that way either didn't occur to the original creator, or they just didn't care.

[-] 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

Why not just use a chain to circle them all 🤷... it's even more fun to see that than this.

this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
574 points (98.0% liked)

Funny

6772 readers
422 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS