Jump to content

To and fro


syntax252

Recommended Posts

Does an object necessarily have to come to a stop before it can reverse it's direction?

 

Take for example a piston attached to a connecting rod, which is attached to a crankshaft.

 

Now--assuming that there is no side play of the piston in the cylinder, and assuming that the connecting rod would not either compress of stretch during the cycle, and assuming that this particular piston was not part of the fireing cycle, would it have to stop at the top before it started down?

 

Remember, the crankshaft does not stop, so once the throw on the crank reaches the top of the stroke it immediately starts down pulling the piston behind it.

 

If there is no clearance in the rod bearings, the rod didn't stretch or compress, how could the piston stop if the crank kept turning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

a 180 degree inversion of motion dictates that a full STOP must occur before reversing its previous direction of travel :)

 

It seems that way don't it?

 

But since the crank turns continually, that means that the throw on the crank is either going up, or it is going down. If the piston is attached to the rod and the rod to the crank, then why wouldn't the same thing that goes for the throw, go for the piston?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does an object necessarily have to come to a stop before it can reverse it's direction?

Is this is the same type of problem as throwing a ball vertically in the air? Or the problem of a bee hiitting the windscreen of a car? When the bee hits the car it bounces off (as bees usually do) and continues its flight in the same direction as the car. So the bee has to stop. And therefore the car has to stop. But does the bee stop the car or does the car stop the bee? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have an object undergoing a constant acceleration, then the v vs t curve will be continuous and pass through zero.

 

Unless you have infinite acceleration I don't think you can get away from having a point with zero velocity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have an object undergoing a constant acceleration, then the v vs t curve will be continuous and pass through zero.

Constant acceleration means that the acceleration has been measured during various time intervals and found to be unchanging. But it doesn't follow that there can be a process such as an acceleration at a point in time. Drawing a continuous curve is pushing the process to a limit which it can't sustain. Newton's calculus using limits is only a workable approximation to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have an object undergoing a constant acceleration' date=' then the v vs t curve will be continuous and pass through zero.

 

Unless you have infinite acceleration I don't think you can get away from having a point with zero velocity.[/quote']

 

A piston attached to a crankshaft that is turning at a constant rpm, slows down as it reaches either end of it's stroke. It accelerates from bottom to midway to the top, then decelerates the rest of the way to the top.

 

I don't see how it could help but stop either, but since the crankshaft is moving at all times, it would also seem that the piston is moving at all times. :confused:

 

There ain't any flat spots in the cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A piston attached to a crankshaft that is turning at a constant rpm' date=' slows down as it reaches either end of it's stroke. It accelerates from bottom to midway to the top, then decelerates the rest of the way to the top.

 

I don't see how it could help but stop either, but since the crankshaft is moving at all times, it would also seem that the piston is moving at all times. :confused:

 

There ain't any flat spots in the cycle.[/quote']

 

And yet there are points where the slope is zero for x vs t.

 

The problem is ill-defined until you say whether "comes to a stop" means for a finite time or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet there are points where the slope is zero for x vs t.

 

The problem is ill-defined until you say whether "comes to a stop" means for a finite time or not.

 

OK, what I am asking is, is there a time when the piston is neither rising nor lowering and if so, givin the rpm and the stroke I submitted above, what is the amount of time that it is motionless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it`s the design of the crank shaft.

it`s a "Converter" if you like, from linear to angular momentum.

 

just like the reverse, you have a pin in a slow rotating disc. you hook a wire over that pin, as the disc rotates the wire pulls away from you for 180 deg of the rotation and them pushes back at you for the rest of the 180 deg.

 

at the point of +180 and -180 there is a Zero.

 

as for how long it remains there is like trying to divide infinity.

IF we COULD have a unit of of infinately small time units (and we can`t) there would be a clear and distinct time presented.

this is NOT possible though.

 

if we say one revolution takes 1000 milliseconds, then you can bet that the Zero occurs somewhere around the 500 millisecond mark though (as a purely hypothetical example) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that way don't it?

 

But since the crank turns continually' date=' that means that the throw on the crank is either going up, or it is going down. [/quote']

 

except for that one instant at the very top where it is moving sideways and therefor neither pushing nor pulling the piston.

 

 

i swear one of these days im gonna read an entire thread before replying... : P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

except for that one instant at the very top where it is moving sideways and therefor neither pushing nor pulling the piston.

 

 

i swear one of these days im gonna read an entire thread before replying... : P

 

At the very top of it's arc, if it moves sideways, it also moves down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you could word it like that yeah :)

 

So, if the crank turned at high speed for many months, and all those "instants" when the piston was at rest were added up, it would still be zero, correct?

 

Now if that is correct, the question is, can an object in motion come to a stop and then start to move again without any time passing while it was at rest?

 

Is this what is meant by the old saying---"no time?" :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An object that changes direction must stop first...or the whole rectilinear motion section of Calculus would have to be thrown out the window...

 

Well OK, I am willing to admit that I do not see how it (the piston) could reverse directions without stopping.

 

However, since the time it is stopped (or the rime we think it is stopped) is incalculable, how can one really say for sure that it is stopped, and not constantly in motion, to and fro? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you understand what I was saying syntax? The crankshaft still rotates in the given direction. It always goes in the same direction, even when the car is in reverse. It's simply a matter of inserting or removing gears as necessary to reverse the motion of the shaft that turns the wheels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has answered his question.

...

...

 

Here's an excellent animation to illustrate what I mean:

 

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/transmission5.htm

 

the animation is really clear and instructive. I agree.

 

you can see the idler gear slide in when you shift into reverse

and the bottom shaft changes direction

 

but the top shaft, which comes from the engine, never changes direction

 

the order of the gears (except for Reverse) is from left to right, in the animation-----first second third fourth.

 

 

this was a funny thread. syntax says "how does reverse work, does the car engine---pistons valves intake exhaust and all really go into reverse?"

then there is a big discussion

at post #21 blike says: "Nobody answered his question yet!"

 

Syntax, a standard fourstroke piston internal comb. engine cannot run backwards. the timing of the valves would be wrong. they would open and close at the wrong time. the spark would come at the wrong time.

you could not get it to run in reverse direction without totally rebuilding the engine.

 

however transmissions are beautiful and one may benefit from understanding how they work

 

Blike, I am pining for LaTex to be restored. I hope hope hope it will be sooner rather than later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.