How to input objects into the bottom of a water tank.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around designing a dispensing system for a game where children retrieve colored balls from a water tank. The proposed system involves a multi-atmosphere container that alternates between air and water to facilitate the balls' movement from a dispenser into the tank. Participants explore the feasibility, limitations, and potential improvements of this design.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the design could work with fine-tuning and appropriate parts, indicating a positive outlook on the concept.
  • Another participant raises a concern about the lack of incentive for the balls to enter the tank, proposing that angling the "airlock" tube upward could utilize buoyancy to assist the process.
  • A different viewpoint questions whether water leveling between the tank and dispenser might pose a problem for the design.
  • Some participants express a belief that the design might be over-engineered, questioning the necessity of keeping the ball container air-filled and suggesting that positioning it above water level could suffice.
  • One participant identifies a potential issue where balls floating in water would also float in the dispenser, complicating their transfer to the tank, and proposes using a piston or plunger for simpler dispensing.
  • There is a discussion about whether to analyze the current design as proposed or to explore simpler alternatives, with some participants indicating a willingness to modify the design for efficiency.
  • Participants emphasize the need for the balls to be released one at a time and express a preference for automatic mechanisms in the design.
  • Concerns are raised about the complexity of the components and whether a simpler solution could achieve the desired outcome.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the feasibility and complexity of the proposed design. While some believe it could work with adjustments, others suggest that it may be overly complicated and propose simpler alternatives. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the best approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the design's complexity and the necessity of certain components, such as the air-filled state of the ball container. There are also unresolved questions about the mechanics of ball release and the system's operational efficiency.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in mechanical engineering, game design, or fluid dynamics, particularly in the context of creating interactive systems for educational purposes.

  • #31
I am; unfortunately Dave is no longer a member of the PF community.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
Well, the post #20 design, with a return mechanism, would be one way to spoof a buoyancy pmm.
These things can be quite neat as art - a water-feature?

Dave's was a simpler idea which also addressed, indirectly, the main begged question: why not just push the balls in? Why gravity feed? (The grav feed is a common requirement for the buoyancy pmm designs.) Your's has the needed distractions.
 

Similar threads

Replies
50
Views
8K
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K