Train Motion: Does it Really Move While Rotating Wheels?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pinestone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Track
AI Thread Summary
A train moving west at 50 km/hr has a wheel that rotates, causing the top of the wheel to move east while the bottom moves west. The bottom point of the wheel only moves if it is not sliding on the track, while the center of the wheel moves at the same speed as the train. If the velocities at the top and bottom of the wheel are equal, the train would not move forward, merely spinning its wheels. However, if the speeds differ, the train's movement is determined by the difference between the two velocities. Therefore, the train does indeed move, as long as the wheel's motion is not perfectly balanced.
pinestone
Messages
140
Reaction score
3
A train is moving west at 50 km/hr. In relationship to the tracks, the top point of the trains wheel is also moving east. However, the bottom point of the wheel is moving west. Assuming the wheel rotates at a constant speed, does the train really move at all?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the train is moving west then the top of a wheel is also traveling west but at twice the speed of the train. The bottom point of the wheel is moving neither west nor east unless it is sliding on the track. Of course, the center of the wheel is moving west at exactly the same speed as the train.

I can assure you that the train does move! :)
 
What Tide said, plus:

If the top of the wheel is moving east and the bottom is moving west, then no, the train does not move; it just sits there spinning its wheels. This of course assumes that the westbound velocity at the bottom and the eastbound velocity at the top are equal. If they're not equal, then the train moves at a rate equal to the difference of the two.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top