this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
577 points (98.0% liked)
Funny
7196 readers
1738 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
A planetary gear set would have illustrated the point without breaking the laws of assumption.
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.
Why not just use a chain to circle them all 🤷... it's even more fun to see that than this.