Trying to link linear and rotational dynamics

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the ideal roller mass for a dynamometer project aimed at simulating real-world conditions for radio-controlled cars. The user presents a numerical approach to calculate roller mass based on the car's mass, mechanical output force, and roller dimensions. They derive that a roller mass of 2 kg might be ideal to match the car's dynamics, ensuring realistic stress on the car's components during testing. The conversation highlights the importance of balancing roller mass to avoid under-stressing or over-stressing the car's electronics. Ultimately, the goal is to replicate the conditions the car would face on the road without accounting for aerodynamic drag or other complexities.
DamoPhys
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have been working on a dynamometer project for radio controlled cars. You can see my early (and somewhat crude) attempts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEhnFd8bwqM"

A question has come up in some of the discussions I have had with other enthusiasts. Given the diameter of the rollers and the mass of the car, what is the ideal roller mass needed to simulate "real world" conditions. (When I say "real world" it is assumed that we are not accounting for aerodynamic drag or the difference between track and roller friction or contact patch size differences etc).

I got a headache trying to directly relate the concepts of linear acceleration, rotational acceleration, moments of inertia etc, so I tried the following numerical approach. Given the caveats outlined above can anyone advise as to whether the following approach is valid for approximating the recommended roller mass?

Given
Mass of car = 1 kg
Assume car produces mechanical output force of 1 N for a time of 1 second (s)
Roller is a solid cylinder of radius 0.025 meters

Linear acceleration:
F = m.a => a = F/m = 1 m/s2

If the car on the road is accelerating at 1 m/s2 then, on the ideal roller, it should be accelerating the roller circumference at the same rate (1 m/s2).
Converting this acceleration to radians/s2 is 1 m/s2/0.025 m giving 40 radians/s2.

Torque(t) = F.r
The Force applied to the roller by the car is the same as the mechanical output of the car, i.e. 1 N.
Therefore the Torque (t) applied to the roller is 1 N x 0.025 meters = 0.025 N.m

Torque(t) is also moment of inertia x angular acceleration (t = I.a). We already know the Torque (0.025 N.m) and we know the angular acceleration (40 rad/s2) therefore the moment of inertia (I) = t/a = 0.025 N.m / 40 rad/s2 = 0.000625 N.m/s2 (units equivalent to SI units for I which are kg.m2)

Moment of inertia (I) for a solid cylinder = (mr2)/2 = 0.000625 kg.m2
Therefore. 2.I/r2 = m, which is 2 x 0.000625 kg.m2 / 0.000625 m2 = 2 kg

Is this approach valid? Is 2 kg the "ideal" mass for the roller to simulate "real world" conditions in this example?

Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Dyno's don't worry about matching angular inertia to a cars mass. Instead they just make sure there's enough angular intertia and friction (plus cars are strapped down) to deal with high powered cars. The higher the angular inertia in the roller, the less the angular inertia in all the cars rotating parts will have in the measurement.
 
Thanks rcgldr but that is not quite the question I was asking. I am not worried about the angular rotation of the car parts - I am trying to calculate what roller dimensions will offer the car the most realistic situation on the dyno. For example, with light rollers, the car will spool up to speed quickly without really challenging the batteries, speed control circuitry, motor etc. With rollers that are too heavy, the cars electronic components will be put under stresses that they otherwise would not encounter. There is an "ideal" roller setup that would put the car under the same stresses that it would experience on the road - that's what I am after (even though at higher speeds drag forces stat to become significant which I am ignoring for now).
 
For simple comparison, I think the same thought process can be followed as a block slides down a hill, - for block down hill, simple starting PE of mgh to final max KE 0.5mv^2 - comparing PE1 to max KE2 would result in finding the work friction did through the process. efficiency is just 100*KE2/PE1. If a mousetrap car travels along a flat surface, a starting PE of 0.5 k th^2 can be measured and maximum velocity of the car can also be measured. If energy efficiency is defined by...

Similar threads

Replies
69
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
11K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K