Distance traveled by a rubber band powered car

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the distance traveled by a rubber band-powered car, with a focus on the relationship between kinetic and potential energy. The formula F*d=(k*x^2)/2 is mentioned, but it raises questions about its applicability since rubber bands do not follow Hooke's law linearly. The energy conversion from the rubber band to kinetic energy is complicated by friction and the non-linear nature of the rubber band. An alternative method proposed involves calculating the distance based on the number of wheel revolutions multiplied by the wheel's circumference, assuming no slippage occurs. Overall, estimating the distance requires careful consideration of the rubber band's properties and energy loss factors.
Joellll
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
okay guys I've been looking for ages and i just can't find anything that will help me with finding a distance that will be travel by a rubber band powered car. I've been playing around with kinetic energy= potential energy but i can't seem to get anywhere. Any help will be greatly appreciated

I found that F*d=(k*x^2)/2 so i can solve for a distance there but would that only give me the distance if i flicked the rubber band not if that band was powering the car.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The problem is that a rubber band is not hookian -- it does not exert force linearly based on the distance it's stretched. Another problem is that, assuming the car goes along a horizontal, all of the energy of the rubber band goes to kinetic, and everything ends up as friction.

I suppose you could cheat a little, and say that the number of revolutions you wound it up multiplied by the circumference of the wheel would be the distance it goes. As long as the wheels don't slip and the car stops immediately after the rubber band is completely unstretched, this would be a decent estimate.
 
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...
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/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top