Rotational weight vs. dead weight

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyphaze
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rotational Weight
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the comparison between rotating wheels and stationary wheels in terms of weight and impact on fuel efficiency. It is clarified that both rotating and stationary wheels have the same mass, but the dynamics change due to the moment of inertia when wheels are in motion. Larger wheels can potentially decrease miles per gallon (mpg) because they require more energy to achieve angular velocity and acceleration. The concept of rotational mass being "heavier" refers to the additional work needed to move it, which can affect fuel consumption. Ultimately, the moment of inertia plays a crucial role in understanding how wheel size impacts mpg.
johnnyphaze
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am not sure if I am in the right section, but here goes my question.

Can anyone explain to me which one would be heavier. A rotating wheel or a wheel that is just sitting there?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why would you think there would be a difference?
 
well the main debate is "will bigger wheels cause my mpg to go down?"

my answer was is that at a constant rate it would actually increase.


a buddy of mine puts his 2 cents in and states that rotating mass is a lot heavier than dead weight. i am just trying to make logic of that.
 
The answer to you first question is that both still have the same mass.

To answer your "will bigger wheels cause my mpg to go down?" question, you would have to consider the moment of inertia of the wheel and work done.

~H
 
The weight of a mass is the same whether rotating or not.
 
The car not only needs tp propel the "dead weight" of the wheels, but also must generate an angular velocity and acceleration of the wheels, which is determined by calculating the mass moment of inertia. so a heavier "dead weight" would increase the moment of inertia, lowering gas mileage.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Torque required from powered roller to rotate cylinder
Replies
19
Views
2K
B Static friction needed for rolling without slipping
Replies
4
Views
2K
Golf club "Swing Weight" and club head rotation
Replies
8
Views
3K
A Modeling the damping of a physical rigid pendulum
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Question about an example in Newton's Principia
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Solving Wheel Coming to a Stop: FBD, Friction & Hysteresis
Replies
22
Views
4K
Does a Wheel with Movable Weights Require More Energy to Rotate?
Replies
26
Views
3K
B Calculate needed dimensions of table - Center of mass, levers etc
Replies
11
Views
2K
I How do I add "rotation" vectors (pseudo-vectors?)
Replies
9
Views
1K
I Will the spinning gyroscope make the plumb fall slower?
Replies
3
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top