I'm trying to understand how physics and wheels works. In these examples, does the wheel placement actually make a difference? As long as it is connected to the box in the middle?
I'm trying to understand how physics and wheels works.
I'm trying to understand how physics and wheels works. In these examples, does the wheel placement actually make a difference? As long as it is connected to the box in the middle?
Its mostly about where you want your center of gravity when heavy stuff gets put in the cart
And strength of what you are using to build your shit out of
Look at vehicle trailers
If you can't figure out if 1 and 3 are different, mechanical engineering is probably not for you.
>If you can't figure out if 1 and 3 are different
Also, if OP can't see that 1 and 2 are identical, assuming ideal materials, then ME is not in his/her future. OP: the topic you are looking for is Statics and Dynamics. Go look it up and learn, or stay here and face trolling.
>his/her
1 and 2 are not identical though, in 2 the strain on the box is on the end instead of the middle so likely to shear off
>so likely to shear off
Go learn what "assuming ideal materials" means. Many physics or mechanics exercises are simplified by this assumption, which clearly you are not familiar with.
not identical, 2 will have a higher center of gravity so back to statics for you too
Don’t stop learning at “wheels”. Learn about “levers” too.
Should begin with understanding levers, then it can be easily understood that a wheel on an axle is just a continuous lever.
>, then it can be easily understood that a wheel on an axle is just a continuous lever.
I've been in engineering for 24 years and I don't "easily understand" what the frick you are saying here.
1. How is a wheel on an axle a lever?
2. What is a continuous lever?
Then you need to go demand your money back from every educational institution you attended from fifth grade on; they failed you in teaching both basic science and language.
>Synonyms for FULCRUM:
>pivot...axle...hub...shaft...spindle
>CONTINUOUS:
>marked by uninterrupted extension in >space, time, or ***sequence***
Thanks for illustrating so perfectly the lack of life experience and curiosity that causes people "in engineering" to be the butt of jokes that center (ahem) on comical levels of obtuseness.
Explain how a wheel on a cart provides leverage. I can see how the ship's wheel acts as a lever, and it's not because it's a wheel; it is just a lot of levers attached in a convenient way.
Is your cart propelled by something like that ship's wheel? No. The wheel reduces friction and does not act as a lever. Tell me more about how engineers are stupid and you are smart.
>Explain how a wheel on a cart provides leverage.
Explain how it doesn't; a simple machine reducing friction and creating leverage are not mutually exclusive
>I can see how the ship's wheel acts as a lever, and it's not because it's a wheel; it is just a lot of levers attached in a convenient way.
A spoked wagon wheel is an identical arrangement of levers, and built strong enough such an assembly doesn't need a circular rim to function as a wheel, it's just less of a continuous motion.
>Is your cart propelled by something like that ship's wheel? No.
YES, motive force is applied either by the same guy pushing/pulling the cart that the FULCRUM is attached to, or by directly applying motive force to it...ever seen a wheelchair? And just to save you the trouble, YES a lever where force is applied to the fulcrum and not the levercarm is a type of lever.
>The wheel reduces friction and does not act as a lever.
Again, it is ludicrous to pretend that a machine that reduces friction cannot be a lever. moronic, actually.
>Tell me more about how engineers are stupid and you are smart.
Didn't sayvanytjing about engineers being "stupid", there"s that shitty reading comprehension and logic again...
But if thatcwete my goal there's really no need to, you are doing a fine job of it yourself.
NTA but engineers are fricking morons. Can't tell you how many times my company's engineers have told us to do literally impossible things or told us it's fine if a critical function doesn't work. Absolute fricking moron desk jockeys with no idea how shit actually works.
Yeah, they tend to have this weird myopia or tunnel vision where they focus too much on the details and don't see the big picture.
I use engineering drawings at work and sometimes you will get tolerances that would be impossible to achieve, or a hole in a spot that physically cannot be drilled, like right next to a wall or in a tight spot
ragie tradie, schould have stayed in school
>seething engineer
I have a degree, dumb c**t. Nearly every engineer I have ever met has some degree of what I described. Their personal lives are often in shambles
Any you shop boys tend to have a chip on your shoulder over engineers
Its pretty funny
Stop being fricking moronic aspies and people might actually like you. Why would I have a chip on my shoulder if you homosexuals weren't constantly doing stupid shit?
It's ALL about leverage. Calculations on tow capacity are based on brake torque AND wheel size. Small wheels can't tow. They just can't, not "slowly but surely".
There's a Tesla truck vs f-150 tug o'war debunk vid that explains it very nicely.
You belong on Quora
Holy mother of moronicness. It is actually you that needs to urgently get a refund from your pajeet uni, as you can't grasp something so basic as kinematics ≠ dynamics
A lever has frick all in common with the placement of an axle in kinematics, it only goes so far as to illustrate trigonometry and different rate of change in acceleration with linked mechanisms
>a wheel on an axle is just a continuous lever.
A lever gives you mechanical advantage, as in a 10:1 lever allows you to lift a 100 lb object with 10 lbs of force.
A wheel reduces friction. If you drag an ideal frictionless cart on an ideal frictionless surface, nothing is changed by adding ideal frictionless wheels, because wheels do not inherently provide any mechanical advantage.
Therefore, a wheel is not anything like a lever.
>A lever gives you mechanical advantage
Not necessarily, a lever with a 1:1 ratio doesn't gain any mechanical advantage yet it is still a lever and still transfers any force applied to one side to the other side in the reverse direction.
Examples: a see-saw, spokes in a WHEEL
>, spokes in a WHEEL
Sigh. Spokes in a wheel are no different that a solid wheel, in terms of lever behavior.
Is this thread full of trolls or morons?
>Spokes in a wheel are no different that a solid wheel, in terms of lever behavior
True, they are just a better illustration for morons who can't think beyond the simplest diagram of how levers work.
I think you are disagreeing with me, so allow me to rebut. If you are correct that spokes in a wheel provide leverage, then keep adding spokes until it becomes a solid wheel. At what point do the spokes stop being levers, or are you saying that a cart wheel is a lever?
For more fun, let's introduce gears, which actually are a wheel-like device that has leverage. This thread is gonna be fun. Then pulleys for extra credit.
But for now, the fact remains: an ordinary cart wheel is not a lever in any sense. It is nothing more than a friction reducer, which has nothing to do with leverage.
>an ordinary cart wheel is not a lever in any sense.
Well frick. Wikipedia says I am wrong: " The wheel and axle can be viewed as a version of the lever, with a drive force applied tangentially to the perimeter of the wheel, and a load force applied to the axle supported in a bearing, which serves as a fulcrum." and "The mechanical advantage of a simple machine like the wheel and axle is computed as the ratio of the resistance to the effort. The larger the ratio the greater the multiplication of force (torque) created or distance achieved. By varying the radii of the axle and/or wheel, any amount of mechanical advantage may be gained."
Oh well. Point at me and laugh.
He is talking a out the radius of the wheel which does change the leverage of the wheel if its being driven by the wheel. If not you won't notice but it is a still a lever
What could this bizarre device be for? Is it an electrical insulator?
T. Mechanical engineer of 300 years
yup, provides spatial insulation between belts and axles
Looks like a pipe bender.
>a wheel on an axle is just a continuous lever.
No.
Holding your breath and balling up your fists won't change reality.
Your image does not support your hypothesis.
t. thinks calling an analogy a "hypothesis" makes him look smart
Honestly do khan academy physics.
If this is supposed to be a cart, then the first on the left is the best and strongest. It really depends what you’re trying to do.
what is going on in the world now?
why are morons constantly coming here and questioning thousands of years of knowledge.
look dipshit build them and find out why one is best. or (you know) think about it.
also imagine you didn't have breakfast this morning... how would you feel?
Brainlet here, someone explain how 1 and 2 are the same?
Center of mass/balance are the same. There's a lot of torque o. The arm which is totally unnecessary to complicate your design with but assuming that arms was strong enough for whatever you're doing, it would behave like 1
They are not the same. The ground link of the wheel is lower in #2 and the COG is thus higher. The member it's connected to should be considered as a cantilever beam/spring.
Basically, nobody listen to the moron saying shit about "simple machines." That's not taught outside of elementary schools and is completely absent in the discussion of kinematics and machine design.
For illustrative purposes they are clearly supposed to be the same height. You're the dumb shot compal9ning about hot water jesters aren't you?
That's what engineers are like guys, they fixate on the stupidest shit (like this whole board) because they're autistic, have zero social ability, and no one, not even other engineers, want to be around them or ever even deal with them.
>Basically, nobody listen to the moron saying shit about "simple machines." That's not taught outside of elementary schools and is completely absent in the discussion of kinematics and machine design.
Only because you are supposed to have learned that shit in grade school.
>Keeps using elementary school talking points while presenting himself as an "expert."
You were better off not replying.
Never presented myself as an "expert", and while the old concepts surrounding simple machines may have been superceded by later study, the fact remains that they still exist and still do what they do and are still fundamental aspects of mechanical systems.
Your argument is as dumb as claiming that since advanced mathematics instruction doesnt ask what 2+2= , the entire equation and addition itself are meaningless and obsolete.
Instead of think about how it would be with a wheel, think about how it would feel if you tried to carry the box that way. 1 and 2 would perform similar. 3 is a wheelbarrow if you put handles on the opposite side of the wheel.
what I’ve learned is that anything capable of rotation is a lever lmao
bunch of dinguses itt
It's almost like the people who figured all this stuff out picked the word "leverage" for a reason.
isnt this completely ignoring the gear-ratio factor which is equally important on most Wheel applications?
Not really. The wheel itself is part of the gear ratio anyway.
>The wheel itself is part of the gear ratio anyway.
well that's what i mean. but it seems like most of this thread is focused on the operation of "leverage" in a system using a wheel.
but it seems to me the function of the gear-ratio principle are equally important to the usefulness of the wheel.
in this wheel use-case, it seems the two principles are integral to each other and both equally integral to the system
or is the principal of leverage merely a fundamental part of the principle of gear or pulley-ratios?
i never studied this stuff formally. but its fascinating
Leverage vs gear ratio is a pedantic issue. They're talking about the same thing.
ok. i see.
wheels can create leverage, that does not make them levers
trees can be made into furniture, that doesn’t mean there are chairs in every forest
if you roll a tire down a hill, is that still a lever or just a wheel?
>if you roll a tire down a hill, is that still a lever or just a wheel?
JFC, the morons in this thread.
a tire is a wheel when you roll it down a hill and not a lever. i don't give a shit that on cars a tire is a specific component on a wheel.
the point still stands that when you roll a tire down a hill it is not a lever and is in fact just a wheel
getting caught up in semantics has the opposite effect from making your argument convincing
Way to miss the point entirely, fricktard.
And repeatedly mischaractrizing what was actually said by leaving out key elements or the leverage equation and bringing up hypotheticals nobody was talking about and that don't apply also has the opposite effect from making your argument convincing.
>a wheel and axle...is actually a form of lever. The difference is that the effort arm can rotate in a complete circle around the fulcrum, which is the center of the axle.
>In fact, a wheel is a kind of first-class lever. The center of the axle is the fulcrum of the lever. The outer edge of the axle is the weight of the lever. And the outer edge of the wheel is the force pushing the lever (Often, that’s the friction with the ground. On a potter’s wheel, that’s the hand of the potter pushing the wheel.)
>...The wheel and axle can be thought of as simply a circular lever...Many common items rely on the wheel and axle such as the screwdriver, the steering wheel, the wrench, and the faucet.
https://www.clear.rice.edu/elec201/Book/basic_mech.html
Wow, you're even more stupid than me. Connect that "tire" to an axle, and NOW you have a lever turning the axle. Stupid.
I specifically said "wheel and axle" from the first post
that sent these homosexuals seething, including the moron who started talking about rolling tires down hills and edited out the axle part.
Try to keep up.
>Try to keep up.
I admitted my stupidity up front. Widen your focus, smaht guy.
>I specifically said "wheel and axle"
NTA but a free spinning wheel rotating independently of the axle is not a continuous lever. Think of front wheels on a RWD car. A free body diagram would only have one component of force. There is mathematically no leverage because only once force is applied, a lever requires two forces.
But a wheel affixed to an axle can be thought of as a continuous lever because torque applied to the axle will spin the wheel like the back wheels in a RWD car. When torque is applied to the rear axle the rear wheels push against the road and there is of course a constant leverage effect. There is a component of force from the wheel-road friction and a torque on the axle: opposing forces and thus a lever.
>a lever requires two forces
*actually 3 forces are required bc of the fulcrum but that's assumed already
>There is mathematically no leverage because only once force is applied, a lever requires two forces.
A non driven wheel is always subjected to two forces when the cart is pushed or pulled, the applief (thrust) force and the force of gravity.
Consider picrel; the rigid vaulting pole is a lever that pivots on the lower end due to gravity/friction holding it in place .
Note how the time lapse of the pole"s position as the jumper moves through the arc of motion is identical to the spokes on a wagon wheel.
If you create the same arrangement of poles as one unit that makes a complete 360° arc and place the jumper at the hub where those poles all converge, rather than the lever and jumper traveling through a roughly 180° arc and then having the move the fulcrum forward to begin again, the arc of travel becomes continuous as each spoke bears the load of the cargo and pivots though an arc just like the pole in the top half of picrel.
I guess he meant WRT torque from the hub. Ignore friction on the road and and there's no leverage/mechanical advantage to speak of.
As long as the spoke/hub/rim/wheel is all structurally sufficient for its task. Like if you have a wheel 20 ft wide the torque of the spoke on the rim from any movement or even just the force of gravity is going to be a serious concern .
>A non driven wheel is always subjected to two forces when the cart is pushed or pulled, the applief (thrust) force and the force of gravity.
The thrust is a force going through the fictitious "fulcrum", ie the axle, and thus not creating a lever. I mentioned 3 forces are present above in my correction. You are one force short and thus you are still wrong. A non driven wheel cannot be thought of as a lever.
>Consider picrel;
That is not acting as a lever because there aren't two opposing forces creating torque via a fulcrum. That is a pendulum, which is not necessarily a lever.
>move the fulcrum forward to begin again
There is no physical fulcrum in your picture. A pivot point is only a fulcrum if a rigid beam is acting as a lever. If there was an elastic rope tied on the pole below his feet and attached to the dock then the pendulum would act as a lever and the pivot point would be the fulcrum. Otherwise there aren't enough forces to satisfy the definition of a lever.
You need to review basic terminology. A lever is a simple machine that requires an input force and an output force and its obvious you don't realize that.
nova has an episode on Chinese carts, it compares roman Mongolian and chink farmers cart design, should get you a working understanding at an average American. It focuses on strain to the horse, but eh Potatoe Potatoe.
https://www.pbs.org/video/chinese-chariot-revealed-muk4qo/
>does the wheel placement actually make a difference?
dear god all the anons in this thread are just as moronic as you are. what do you mean? make a difference how?
you've provided no context. if the context is just "gravity is acting on these" then it still makes no sense. what do you want to know?
like is a giant 50,000 tonne object going to fall on these carts?
then no the wheel placement makes absolutely no difference. physics says the carts will be flattened because they are made of wood, probably.
get it? whats the question?
>the replies are even more moronic than the opener
This isn’t even about understanding principles of physics, this is plain common sense and a little power of imagination
If you can’t tell the difference between any of those three you might have serious cognitive issues
first of all, 1 is the only reasonably correct answer here
2 will give you a stupidly long lever thats waiting to snap on you after you throw something worth rolling into the cart
3 has a wheel thats litterally not supporting anything. if youve got a wheel that wont have anything heavy above it and wont have anything making the wheel move, youve got a pain in the ass, not a wheel.
thats not the correct answer because the question is 'whats the difference?'. OP and most of the anons itt are moronic.
Behold, it has been done