Once everything is up to speed, no, assuming everything is lossless. The big wheel's angular momentum is conserved.
What's the real-world application? There is no such thing as 'no friction whatsoever'. Beware, this could turn into another conveyer-belt thread.
Max
Max
maxro said:
😀 😀
nah , SV allready answered the question 😉 (thanx btw!)
but , i forgot 🙄 ,there must be a static friction between the chain and the wheels , if not then the chain wont move 😱
There has to be a force on the chain. If there was no force, the momentum of the links that are going straight would keep them going straight. But as you illustrated, they go around the sprockets. The centripetal acceleration of the links makes chain want to come off the sprocket as it goes around. The chain, being a loop, prevents this because the other side of the chain going around the other sprocket wants to come off in the opposite direction. All this results in tension in the chain.
If the chain was a perfect circle, then there would be no force on it.
If the chain was a perfect circle, then there would be no force on it.
But even if the chain was a perfect circle wouldn't there be an amount of centrifical force on each chain link as it moved around?
quasi said:
You're right. Either way, there would be tension in the chain. I don't know how I missed that part.
if the chain got no weight to it then there will be no tension if the wheels are spinning at constant speedxplod1236 said:
No, but force is expended changing the direction of the chain links as each link can be considered a separate entity (no friction).
-Chris
-Chris
Relative to what?
Is the chain moving?
Imagine an observer travelling around a stationary sprocket / chain system. To the observer the chain would appear to be moving and there would be forces on the chain relative to the forces on the observers vehicle that would be zero relative to the chain.....
Here we go....
Is the chain moving?
Imagine an observer travelling around a stationary sprocket / chain system. To the observer the chain would appear to be moving and there would be forces on the chain relative to the forces on the observers vehicle that would be zero relative to the chain.....
Here we go....
Hi quasi,
You know, you are truly evil at heart! 😉
Before you know it, this thread will pass 500 pages with everyone crying uncle!
Poobah!, where are you right about now?
-Chris
You know, you are truly evil at heart! 😉
Before you know it, this thread will pass 500 pages with everyone crying uncle!
Poobah!, where are you right about now?
-Chris
Guys,
Instead of a chain, picture a rail road track of the same shape. Fill the track ALMOST entirely with cars, frictionless of course, in an airless world, with an inch or two between them.
Now set all the cars in motion... exactly the same speed... yada... yada... yada. Any tension in chain?
When you say "tension in the chain"... where exactly in the chain are you talking about?
There is no net work being done... that doesn't mean there isn't tension somewhere.
Instead of a chain, picture a rail road track of the same shape. Fill the track ALMOST entirely with cars, frictionless of course, in an airless world, with an inch or two between them.
Now set all the cars in motion... exactly the same speed... yada... yada... yada. Any tension in chain?
When you say "tension in the chain"... where exactly in the chain are you talking about?
There is no net work being done... that doesn't mean there isn't tension somewhere.
.....and the cars are stationary relative to each other .....so what is the relative force....
Oh no! this means the rail tracks move and not the cars.....
(please don't rip my arms out of their sockets)
Oh no! this means the rail tracks move and not the cars.....
(please don't rip my arms out of their sockets)
There is tension in the train tracks...
Is there a speed where the system could run that break the chain?
😀
Is there a speed where the system could run that break the chain?
😀
If you replace the chain with a railroad track and put cars on it, and then set the cars in motion (I'm assuming the cars are following the track), then the cars will fly off the track as the track starts to curve around the sprocket. You never said to set the track in motion too, so I assumed that was stationary. 😉
Now let's say that you mount the cars to the track, and set the whole thing in motion, then the cars will want to pull the track (chain) off the sprockets due to centripetal acceleration. The track (chain) is designed to not come apart, therefore, the cars will produce tension in the track (chain). The straight parts of the chain, connecting both sprockets, will have tension in them too, because the two parts of the chain, around the sprockets, are trying to separate from each other.
Now let's say that you mount the cars to the track, and set the whole thing in motion, then the cars will want to pull the track (chain) off the sprockets due to centripetal acceleration. The track (chain) is designed to not come apart, therefore, the cars will produce tension in the track (chain). The straight parts of the chain, connecting both sprockets, will have tension in them too, because the two parts of the chain, around the sprockets, are trying to separate from each other.
We have a winner!
There is tension in the chain... and it increases with speed.
😎
I never said you were supposed to wrap the train tracks around the sprockets though... just nailing 'em to those big boards on the ground would be fine.
There is tension in the chain... and it increases with speed.
😎
I never said you were supposed to wrap the train tracks around the sprockets though... just nailing 'em to those big boards on the ground would be fine.
You got me. I thought you said replace the chain with the railroad track.
If the chain were massless, then there would be no tension. There would be no momentum to keep the links moving in a straight line and it would take 0 force to rotate the links as they move around the sprockets.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.