Velocity Ratio in Gears & Wheels Systems: Inverting?

AI Thread Summary
The velocity ratio in gears and wheels systems is defined as the diameter or number of teeth on the input wheel divided by that of the output wheel. This differs from levers, where the ratio is based on distance traveled by effort and load. The velocity ratio will always be lower than the mechanical advantage due to factors like dead weight and friction. Confusion may arise from textbook explanations, which might seem to invert the ratio; however, the underlying principles remain consistent. It's recommended to independently verify calculations and apply practical understanding to clarify any discrepancies.
Crissy
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi, if the velocity ratio is equal to the distance traveled by the effort divided by the distance traveled by the load, in a gears and wheels system, do you invert that in the case or gears? Making it number of teeth on driven gear divided by number of teeth on driving gear? Thanks
 

Attachments

  • 15415932352125415525632519995617.jpg
    15415932352125415525632519995617.jpg
    15.8 KB · Views: 381
Physics news on Phys.org
Crissy said:
Hi, if the velocity ratio is equal to the distance traveled by the effort divided by the distance traveled by the load, in a gears and wheels system, do you invert that in the case or gears? Making it number of teeth on driven gear divided by number of teeth on driving gear? Thanks
It's exactly the same but you need to read the small print about what VR really means. The velocity ratio is the diameter (or number of teeth) of the input wheel divided by the diameter of the output wheel. That follows the definition. You cannot compare it with the way VR is calculated for levers because, with rigid levers it's the angle change that stays the same but, for gears in mesh, it's the tangential distance.

It will always be lower than the Mechanical advantage due to dead weight and friction etc.
 
Thanks for ur reply. So how come in book it inverts it? I dnt quite understand
 

Attachments

  • 20181107_224454.jpg
    20181107_224454.jpg
    27.9 KB · Views: 373
Crissy said:
Thanks for ur reply. So how come in book it inverts it? I dnt quite understand
I can't read what the book actually says - it's too blurry with no contrast. But I think, if you read the book carefully (as I cannot) then you should find the distance moved by the Input and output teeth is the same but the input torque is Input Forcein times its radius and the output torque is Forceout times its radius. If you are still confused then, rather than trying to make sense of the book, work it out independently. Unless the book is actually wrong (never impossible to find a typo) your final result will agree with it.
Apply the 'does to make sense?' test against your experience of gears.

PS Read my earlier post again and digest the message; it shows how one could get things back to front.
 
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