Torque on a square screw full with water

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the torque on a square screw filled with water, focusing on the forces acting on the screw due to hydraulic pressure and the geometry of the screw's design. Participants explore the implications of internal and external surfaces on torque, as well as the effects of gaskets and air gaps in the system.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the setup involving a square screw and questions how torque at the corners is canceled by other parts of the screw.
  • Another participant suggests simplifying the problem to a slab in water, implying that the forces due to hydraulic pressure are normal to the surfaces.
  • There is a discussion about the torque generated by external and internal surfaces, with some participants asserting that these forces create a net torque that needs to be accounted for.
  • Participants debate the role of gaskets and air gaps, with some arguing that these can effectively cancel out certain torques, while others express skepticism about this cancellation.
  • One participant mentions the need for calculations to determine the net torque, emphasizing that the external surface applies more torque than the internal surface.
  • Concerns are raised about the effects of rigid gaskets fixed to the water container and how they influence the torque on the screw.
  • There is a suggestion that the air gap must be pressurized to match the water pressure to achieve cancellation of forces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the cancellation of torques and the role of gaskets and air gaps. There is no consensus on how these factors interact or on the overall torque calculation, indicating that multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the problem, particularly regarding the assumptions about the pressure in the air gap and the effects of the gaskets. The discussion highlights the need for further calculations and clarifications on the geometry involved.

  • #151
Yes if we put the thread in water, we the buoyancy force do work for us. that's fine. But if the thread has a weight, we should consider it. If the thread is put in the water and the density is one, we should get the vertical force equal to the weight.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Maybe for understand what I said it's better to continue to have water up/down surfaces not external/internal surfaces. But add water at bottom of the square thread. Yes, with density of 1, the square thread has a weight equal to the up force give from sum of up/down surfaces and bottom surface (the small surface under the square thread). With water at up/down surfaces and water under bottom surface, the weight is cancel with up force from water. The torque is always here and turn down the square thread and give energy. Sure we need to remove water, but water is at the same height and this don't change the potential energy of water I think.

Edit: and another strange thing, it's the surface at bottom of the thread. If we stop the thread at corner or in the middle of a side, the top/bot surface is not the same. The up/down surface torque cancel the up force, ok. But if the surface at bottom change the up force change.
 
Last edited:
  • #153
I imagined 3 cases :

1/ Up and down surfaces only with water (the code case), like we calculated T=F for every d

2/ All system in water (fixed threads and square thread) except up and down surfaces with air. The square thread has a density of 1. The weight can’t be cancel by up and down surfaces. The small bottom surface change with d, so the up force change with d. So the torque give by external/internal forces must cancel the difference of up force. So torque T1= f(d)

3/ We put only square thread in water without fixed threads. The square thread can’t move up, it turn only. How T=T1 ? Because T is not function of d but T1 is function of d.

So if the case 3 is T=T1 how the case 2 can be exist ?

Edit1: it's ok for me, all is fine and all sum energy is 0 in all cases.

Edit2: Not really, in fact, the differential torque we calculated is aroudn 2% of total torque (example) but the surface increase more than 50% at bottom...

Edit3: With our code, for d=0 or d=pi/4 the torque is near the same=879805 or 879759. But the bottom surface is near 50% more. The surface at bottom when d=0 is Sd0=(c2-c1)*Δd*Rmoy=1*0.5*3.5=1.75 m². The bottom force is 1.75*6.28/10*100000=109900 N. 50 % more is 50000N more ! I will try to calculate with accuracy the bottom surface.

Edit4: why for d=-pi/8 and d=pi/8 we have not the same torque with our code ?

Edit5: The drawing show a square thread in water. The weight of the square is 0 (for simplified the study). The up/down forces are canceled with up forces like our code show. But it rest the another torque. I don't see where the system loss energy like that ? So I'm not sure the code is good.
 

Attachments

  • part of square thread in water.png
    part of square thread in water.png
    16.9 KB · Views: 571
Last edited:
  • #154
I think there is an error in the code because we can use the square thread in two cases:

1/ (first drawing) The square thread is in water all surfaces of the square thread are in contact with water. The thread can turn only around Z axis. The square thread can't move in Z axis or others. Our code said there is a torque Tu with up/down surfaces so the external/internal surfaces must give a torque Te which cancel this Tu torque because the thread can't turn alone in water !

2/ (second drawing) Like I said before, the thread pass through the water. We have only up/down surfaces and external/internal surfaces in contact with water. Our code said the square thread has a up force and the torque , this force cancel the torque. But we have Te=Tu (hypothesis 1/) which want to turn the square thread and this is not possible because the sum of energy must be 0.

I thought the code was good because we have compared it with known values. Have you an idea ?
 

Attachments

  • Hélice2.png
    Hélice2.png
    11.8 KB · Views: 540
  • part of square thread in water 2.png
    part of square thread in water 2.png
    13.9 KB · Views: 537
  • #155
For torque calculation. the code is for cases with no water on its external/external surfaces. If you want it for case 1 and 2, you should modify it.
 
  • #156
All seems ok, I understand my error(s), thanks

But for our code (with water only up/down surfaces), if the equation is:

x=v*cos(u-d);
y=v*sin(u-d);
z=u/2.0; // change the pitch

Torque = Force, but when we turn 2pi, we move up less than we turn.

Example:
d=0 => T=F=1319612
d=0.5 => T=F=1309722

Difference =9890

Energy torque = 9890 * 2 * pi = 62140 J
Energy force = 9890 * pi = 31070 J

There is a big diffenrece, it's my method ? I have change a lot of thing in the code but never I find Wt=Wf
 
Last edited:
  • #157
I understood my error, it's because the code don't take the pitch in parameters, we need to divided torque by 2 !
 
  • #158
For a pitch higher than 1, the normal vector is different. for a pitch of m ( z= m*u), the normal vector becomes:

normal=(-msinu, mcosu , -v)

If we normalize it we have

\vec{n}=(\frac{-msinu}{\sqrt{m^{2}+v^{2}}},\frac{mcosu}{\sqrt{m^{2}+v^{2}}}, \frac{-v}{\sqrt{m^{2}+v^{2}}})

In a general method we can write the dT as the cross product of dF and r:

\vec{dT}=\vec{dF} \times \vec{r}

where


\vec{r}=(vcosu, vsinu, 0)

The direction of dF is the negative of the normal vector and its magnitude is

\left|dF\right|=PdS=P v du dv /cos\beta =Pvdudv \frac{ \sqrt{m^{2}+v^{2}}}{v}


and \vec{dF}=-\left|dF\right| \vec{n}

and dF_{z}=-Pvdudv

For torque we have

\vec{dT}=-|dF|\vec{n} \times \vec{r} =P dudv( -v^{2}sinu, v^{2}cosu , mv)

so and dT_{z}=Pmvdudv
 
Last edited:
  • #159
in this case for d=0 and m=0.5, F=1.3e6 and T=2.6e6 it's not the contrary we must find ?
 
  • #160
Gh778 said:
in this case for d=0 and m=0.5, F=1.3e6 and T=2.6e6 it's not the contrary we must find ?

That's correct. The force and the torque are not the same but their work are the same.

Added: You are right. let me check the derivation.
 
  • #161
The mistake was in the normal vector. I think its correct now. can you verify the normal with your method? see post 158
 
  • #162
all is fine like that.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K