Pumpkin/bowling ball launcher questions:

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on optimizing a pumpkin or bowling ball launcher for a contest, specifically using elastic bands and compressed coil springs for propulsion. The proposed design involves four high-capacity springs to move the launch device, with a mechanism to release the elastic bands at the right moment. Concerns are raised about the efficiency of combining these methods, suggesting that experimentation is crucial for achieving the best results. Safety is emphasized, particularly regarding the handling of powerful springs, which can be dangerous if released unexpectedly. Ultimately, the effectiveness of this dual propulsion system in enhancing launch distance remains uncertain and requires practical testing.
R_Rose
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to figure out a way to get better results in a "pumpkin launching" contest. The goal is to
launch an 8-12 lb pumpkin (or bowling ball) as far as possible.One method is going to use elastic, bungee or large rubber/latex bands as the method of propulsion. The problem is there are limiting factors which impede this design the larger it gets (cost being one of them).

I was thinking of a way to help infuse more power into the system with other means of accelerating the projectile but am unsure if it will aid in the overall performance.

I have considered using compressed coil springs, each with a 2000lb compression capacity and 8-10 inches of expansion capacity. The springs (4) would be used to move the entire launch device in the same angle and direction of launch (obviously causing stress on the launch device upon reaching terminus). At some point during the expansion of the springs, the primary firing mechanism would release the elastic bands.

Obviously 8-10" of movement allows very little time to initiate launch so I have considered using a block and tackle with multiple pullies to increase distance & time of travel, reduce damage to launch mechanism.

As the springs decompress, the entire mechanism accelerates later initiating the final launch. My question is if this theory in using two methods to power the launch is scientifically sound. If the launch device is moving at say 3ft/.1 seconds = 30 fps = 20mph, how will this affect the item being launched?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF

Your question can't be answered by simple physical laws. You are trading one kind of inefficiency for other forms of inefficiency .

Experimentation, not calculation will lead you to the best design.

Good luck
 
R_Rose said:
I have considered using compressed coil springs, each with a 2000lb compression capacity and 8-10 inches of expansion capacity.
At the risk of stating the obvious... A spring of that size will do a lot of damage if it releases unexpectedly. If you try something along these lines, treat your compressed springs with the same respect you'd show a cocked handgun.
 
If you can make it all work then it should improve the distance. However I'm a great believer in KISS.

I believe you would need to ensure the launching apparatus is moving for the whole duration that the elastic is accelerating the ball. However springs tend to operate over a short distance.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top