How do gears provide a mechanical advantage?

AI Thread Summary
Gears provide mechanical advantage by amplifying torque, allowing a small input force to move a heavier load. This is achieved through the relationship between the input and output gears, where one full turn of the input gear can result in a fraction of a turn on the output gear. The principle of levers also applies, as they pivot on a fulcrum, enabling force to be applied at different distances, thus changing the force required. The conservation of energy principle underlies these mechanics, indicating that while force may vary, the work done remains constant. Understanding these concepts clarifies how gears can effectively move heavy objects with minimal effort.
theBEAST
Messages
361
Reaction score
0
For example in this video at 5:00:


They show by turning the gear with little force allows for one to move a VERY HEAVY gate to operate the sea locks.

I don't understand how this is possible. Could anyone please explain the physics/theory behind this?

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you read this article? It explains what mechanical advantage is fairly well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_advantage

The short version is that the gears amplify the torque because they make each turn of the input gear equal a fraction of a turn on the output gear. So turning one gear 10 turns may only get you 1 turn on the other, which amplifies the torque.

The basic mechanism used for mechanical advantage is the Lever. From the linked article:

The lever is a movable bar that pivots on a fulcrum attached to or positioned on or across a fixed point. The lever operates by applying forces at different distances from the fulcrum, or pivot.

As the lever pivots on the fulcrum, points farther from this pivot move faster than points closer to the pivot. The power into and out of the lever must be the same, so forces applied to points farther from the pivot must be less than when applied to points closer in.

It boils down to the fact that when one end of the lever moves a shorter distance in the same time, the force must increase for the power to remain the same. Same with the gears.
 
As Drakkith said, gears are basically levers that can operate continuously. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever

They allow you to trade distance for force, or the other way around. For example this simple gear outputs less force, but more velocity than goes in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvyii6QBLtw

Here the lever mechanism is indicated as a red line:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufk6HVWdSzE
 
There is a law of "conservation of energy", not "conservation of force" and all "mechanical advantage" laws are based on that. If you have a cog of radius R m and turn it through on complete turn, 2\pi radians, by applying force F Newtons, then its surface has moved through a distance of 2\pi R m and so you have done 2\pi RF Joules work on it.

If a chain or other ratcheting mechanism causes another cog, of radius r, to turn through the same distance, by "conservation of energy" you have done 2\pi r f= 2\pi RF Joules of work on it also and so must have applied f= (2\pi RF)/(2\pi r)= (R/r)F Newtons force. "R/r" is the "mechanical advantage".
 
HallsofIvy said:
There is a law of "conservation of energy", not "conservation of force" and all "mechanical advantage" laws are based on that. If you have a cog of radius R m and turn it through on complete turn, 2\pi radians, by applying force F Newtons, then its surface has moved through a distance of 2\pi R m and so you have done 2\pi RF Joules work on it.

If a chain or other ratcheting mechanism causes another cog, of radius r, to turn through the same distance, by "conservation of energy" you have done 2\pi r f= 2\pi RF Joules of work on it also and so must have applied f= (2\pi RF)/(2\pi r)= (R/r)F Newtons force. "R/r" is the "mechanical advantage".

If the other cog, of radius r, turned through the same distance that the cog with radius R turned, then they must have the same work. Since work is F*d, then they both must have the same force? I am kind of confused by how you equated:

2\pi r f= 2\pi RF

instead of

2\pi R f= 2\pi RF

since they travel the same distance 2\pi R
 
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top