Does Counterbalancing Weight Differ From Concrete Weight in a Spinning Mould?

AI Thread Summary
When forming a concrete utility pole with an aperture in a spinning mold, the weight of the counterbalance needed differs from the weight of the concrete itself. The counterbalance must account for the mass distribution and dynamics of the spinning process, as it is placed outside the mold. The required counterbalance weight is not simply equal to the concrete's weight of 403 lbs, as the external placement alters the centripetal forces at play. A calculation factor is necessary to determine the appropriate counterbalance weight, considering the physics of the system. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for achieving stability during the spinning process.
lwasmund
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I am forming a concrete utility pole centripetaly in the mould (lathe). I need to have it form with an aperature(box shaped hole). I need to place a box to form the hole for the aperature and it needs to be of proper weight. the weight the concrete would of been had there been no aperture. It is best if i place the box in without it being of the desired weight, and counter balance it on the outside of the mould. My question is would the wieght needed to counterbalance the pole when spinning need to be different then the aproximated weight of the concrete(403lbs). Since the weight is on the outside of the mould?

thanks
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I understand a little about physics. My main study is civil eng. I am looking for the factor that I can add to my equation to calculate for the difference with the counterbalance being on the outside. think of a ball on a string. except no the ball isn't on a string but held in orbit by the perimeter. How much mass/weight do I need to counterbalance. When it is to counter 403lbs of misplaced concrete.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top