Torsion Involving an Off Axis Thrust

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Devin-M
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force diagram Torsion
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the dynamics of a uniform rod being pushed horizontally while maintaining a vertical orientation. Participants explore the forces and torques involved, particularly focusing on the role of a counterweight to prevent rotation due to an off-axis thrust applied below the center of mass. The conversation includes calculations for required counterweight mass under different acceleration scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a scenario involving a 2m, 100kg rod with wheels, pushed horizontally 0.5m below its center of mass, and seeks to calculate the mass of a counterweight needed for specific accelerations.
  • Another participant questions the mass of the wheels, suggesting it could affect the center of mass of the rod.
  • Some participants propose that the push force from the car causes a clockwise torque, necessitating a counter torque from the counterweight to maintain verticality.
  • Calculations are presented for counterweight mass based on different push forces, with specific values leading to total mass and acceleration results.
  • Several participants emphasize the importance of posting Free Body Diagrams (FBD) to clarify forces and torques acting on the system.
  • There is confusion expressed regarding how to target a specific acceleration when the mass including the counterweight is dependent on the force applied.
  • One participant notes that if the counterweight is too light, it could lead to tipping over when the car is not pushing the rod forward.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for a counterweight to prevent rotation, but there is no consensus on the specific calculations or the implications of the forces involved. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to determine the necessary counterweight mass and the dynamics of the system.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of the problem, noting that the arrangement may lead to different behaviors under varying conditions, such as the mass of the wheels and the fixed torque-arm lengths. There are also concerns about the assumptions made regarding the system's motion and the effects of the counterweight.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in dynamics, mechanical engineering, and physics, particularly those exploring torque, force diagrams, and the balance of forces in systems involving rotational motion.

  • #61
A.T. said:
If thrust is controlled by thumb, what do you mean by "getting around 1g acceleration from leaning alone"?

For the board to accelerate the rider at 1g, the center of mass of the rider needs to be leaned 45 degrees forward from where their rear foot touches the board to avoid being “bucked” off the back of the board from rotation of the body induced by the off-axis thrust (assume their front foot is lifted during launch).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Devin-M said:
For the board to accelerate the rider at 1g, the center of mass of the rider needs to be leaned 45 degrees forward from where their rear foot touches the board to avoid being “bucked” off the back of the board from rotation of the body induced by the off-axis thrust (assume their front foot is lifted during launch).
Was the front foot is really lifted? How was that 45 degrees forward lean determined? For how long did that 1g acceleration persist? On what surface? What was the mass of rider + skateboard, and what was the maximal power output of the electric motor?

Note that it is trivial to measure the acceleration quite accurately with a smartphone (using its accelerometer directly, or a slow-mo camera mode and some markings on the ground). So there should better data on this than body lean angle estimations.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #63
A.T. said:
How was that 45 degrees forward lean determined?

I used jbriggs444’s post:

jbriggs444 said:
You say that a skater can pull over 1 g. The arc tangent of 1 is 45 degrees. So the lean angle will be over 45 degrees from the vertical. You measure that angle from the contact patch under the skateboard to the position of the center of gravity of the skater plus counterweight.

The 1g acceleration was measured with an accelerometer:

img_0197-png.png


img_0204-png.png
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Devin-M said:
The 1g acceleration was measured with an accelerometer:
View attachment 349116
View attachment 349117
You also have the speed there. Have you computed how much kinetic energy the rider + board gain during one second, and compared it to the power output of the electric motor?
 
  • #65
Well for peak power if we assume 100kg, 0m/s to 8.9m/s accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 and p = mav I get a peak power of 8.7kW, and an avg power of 1/2 the peak power or 4.3kW. Total time 0.91s and 4.3 kJ/S for total energy of about 3.9kJ.

Each of these is rated for 4kW, and you could put one on each rear wheel, but they could do a bit more power than that for a short time, either by spinning them faster with higher voltage or programming the controller to add more current for more torque:

https://flipsky.net/collections/e-s...ened-6384-190kv-4000w-for-electric-skateboard

IMG_0784.jpeg


Edit: This one rated for 5.5kw each x 2 rear wheels = 11kW

https://flipsky.net/collections/e-s...ess-dc-motor-battle-hardned-63100-190kv-5000w

IMG_0785.jpeg

IMG_0786.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • #66
Actually if you look at those specs and calculate what’s allowed for a short time (10Nm at 10000rpm) that comes out to 10.5kW each motor or about 21kW for just the back wheels (before we even start thinking about the front wheels).
IMG_0787.jpeg
 
  • #67
Devin-M said:
Each of these is rated for 4kW, and you could put one on each rear wheel,

Edit: This one rated for 5.5kw each x 2 rear wheels = 11kW
That should indeed be enough to achieve 1g. The only remaining limit is traction: A friction coefficient of 1 is possible, but for rubber on concrete it's usually lower.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
671
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K