Calculate Power Needed to Run Conveyor Belt with dm/dt kgs-1

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter me189
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Belt Conveyor
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the power needed to run a conveyor belt that is receiving sand at a rate of dm/dt kg/s. Participants explore different approaches to derive the power equation, considering factors such as the velocity of the sand and the nature of its collision with the conveyor belt.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formula for power based on the force exerted by the sand on the conveyor, suggesting that power equals (dm/dt)v² Watts.
  • Another participant challenges this by arguing that the velocity of the sand is not constant and should be considered as increasing linearly, proposing that the average velocity during acceleration should be v/2 ms⁻¹.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of energy conservation in the context of inelastic collisions, with one asserting that the friend's solution is correct while another questions the application of P = Fv.
  • Concerns are raised about the definition of velocity in the power equation, with one participant suggesting that the average velocity of the sand should be used, while another insists that the velocity of the conveyor is what matters.
  • There is a discussion about whether the nature of the collision changes if the sand is placed gently on the conveyor instead of dropped, with participants expressing differing views on the elasticity of the collision.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct approach to calculating power, with no consensus reached on the validity of the various methods proposed. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of velocity and the nature of the collision.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on definitions of velocity and the assumptions regarding the nature of the collision (elastic vs. inelastic), which remain unresolved. The discussion also reflects uncertainty about the application of average velocity in the context of changing conditions.

Which of us is right in finding the answer??

  • My friend is right.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
  • Poll closed .
me189
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
sand is pouring on a conveyor belt in a rate of rate of dm/dt kgs-1
if the velocity of the conveyor belt is v ms-1,
what is the power needed to run the conveyor belt.

My friend arrived at his answer in this way

F = dp/dt = d(mv)/dt = v (dm/dt) N
Power = Fv = (dm/dt)v2 Watts

(however the velocity of the accelerating sand is not constant, right?? it should be increasing linearly if acceleration is constant, the average velocity of the sand during acceleration should be v/2 ms-1, right?)

But i arrived at a slightly different answer in this way

Total change in the KE of a mass m of sand after falling on the belt = 0.5mv2
Power
= dW/dt
= d(0.5mv2)/dt
= 0.5 dm/dt v2 Watts
 
Physics news on Phys.org
me189 said:
But i arrived at a slightly different answer in this way

Total change in the KE of a mass m of sand after falling on the belt = 0.5mv2
Power
= dW/dt
= d(0.5mv2)/dt
= 0.5 dm/dt v2 Watts
Your solution assumes energy conservation, but realize that the collision of sand and belt is inelastic.

Your friend's solution is correct.
 
But is applying P = Fv right?
for P = Fv, the v basically implys displacement over time, which is the average velocity of the sand during acceleration , isn't it?
but at the instant that the sand drops on the conveyor, the velocity must be smaller than the velocity of the conveyor. Then it seems to be strange to apply P = Fv by using the velocity of the conveyor as the average of the sand during acceleration.

Also, if i "put" the sand on the conveyor instead of "dropping" it onto the conveyor, it should yield the same result, isn't it??
 
me189 said:
But is applying P = Fv right?
for P = Fv, the v basically implys displacement over time, which is the average velocity of the sand during acceleration , isn't it?
but at the instant that the sand drops on the conveyor, the velocity must be smaller than the velocity of the conveyor. Then it seems to be strange to apply P = Fv by using the velocity of the conveyor as the average of the sand during acceleration.
Not sure what you're saying here. What matters is the rate of change of momentum of the sand. In every unit of time the change in momentum is (Δm)v. (All bits of sand have the same change in velocity.) So the rate of change of that momentum is (Δm/Δt)v = (dm/dt)v. That's the force required.

Also, if i "put" the sand on the conveyor instead of "dropping" it onto the conveyor, it should yield the same result, isn't it??
No. The height from which the sand is dropped--if that's what you're getting at--is not relevant. (It's not even mentioned in the problem.)
 
i understand that the force required is (dm/dt)v
but in the formula P = Fv, v means the velocity of sand when the force is applied, isn't it? However, the velocity of the sand bit is changing when the force is applied.
The initial velocity of the sand bit (when it is drop on the conveyor) is zero.
The final velocity of the sand bit is v ms-1, the same as the conveyor.
Shouldnt the v in P = Fv be [ (0+v)/2 ] ms-1??

If the sand bit is "put" on the conveyor "gently", will the collision become more elastic in this case?? (and ultimately become completely elastic??)
 
Last edited:
me189 said:
i understand that the force required is (dm/dt)v
but in the formula P = Fv, v means the velocity of sand when the force is applied, isn't it?
No, it's the velocity of what's applying the force, which is the belt.

If the sand bit is "put" on the conveyor "gently", will the collision become more elastic in this case?? (and ultimately become completely elastic??)
No. What's inelastic about it is the fact that the sand 'collides' with the moving belt. Its the horizontal speed that counts.
 
thx a lot!
i understand the case now^^
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K