Physics rollercoaster track engineering

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the structural integrity of a miniature rollercoaster track made from clear plastic tubing with wire lining and rubber walls. The creator is considering cutting the tubing to allow a ball bearing to be partially visible above the track. Concerns are raised about whether this modification would compromise the tubing's strength and shape. It is suggested that while the tubing won't become flimsy, it may lose its semi-circular shape without support. Testing a small piece of the tubing is recommended to assess its performance before making significant cuts.
mike_302
Messages
102
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I've posteed about this rollercoaster already, so some of you may or may not recognize the whole idea but basically I have to construct a miniature rollercoaster for a ball bearing to run through. Now, my question here is much much differnt. I'm not looking for ideas or design tips, but rather, structural integrity input.

I'm using 1 inch (the hole in the center) clear plastic tubing that has wire lining the walls inside of a thick rubber wall, so as a full tube, the stuff is VERY strong, not SUPER easy to bend, but it will still bend without kinking. My question is this: If I were to half (or even quarter) the tubing in order to see at least half of the bearing above the walls of the "rollercoaster" track/tubing, would this tubing become extrmely flimsy t the point that I cannot use it? The thing is, I only have 70 feet of it in total so i don't want to risk wasting any of it, and plus, it's expensive stuff.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
It won't be flimsy, but what will probably happen is that the walls will not keep a nice semi circular shape like you would want. There will not be anything to hold the circular cross section shape when you bend it in any other direction. You can prove this by using a small piece and trying it. It would probably be OK for a straight section if you have one.
 
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