Hill Question/Theory

Nope, just too intelligent for newbies. ;)

I wish I knew more about no-limits (or the other coaster sim out there). I'd actually like to try and build something like this, if it would even let me.

You mean I started a usefull thread? Aww shucks.

Lol, Muggsy - Yep

Jugga,
I've been tinkering with NoLimits and I don't think you could do it :(

It's really funny how I brought up this SAME EXACT idea back in July, and it was rapidly debunked.

http://www.pointbuzz.com/cpplace.aspx?mode=thread&TopicID=18843&page=10#271693

I just looked and wow, some people were harsh. I never saw your post before. I rarely read that far into a thread because it usually is so far off topic.

It does bother me when you put a disclaimer in, like we both did, that some people choose to ignore it and rip away.

Do these same people ignore the warning on those little packets of Silica Gel that come in shoes and eat it anyway? How does it taste?

Wow, great minds think alike.

This Theory is Awesome. Sorry Gravity I haven't been here that long or I may have agreed with you then.

Awesome I have been here for 2 weeks only and I'm part of a convo considered to intelligent for newbies. Thank you for the compliment Jugga.:)

JuggaLotus said:
Nope, just too intelligent for newbies. ;) *** Edited 8/23/2006 6:17:50 PM UTC by Tonyblackjack***

Seems to me that the train weighs the same going out of the hill as it does going into the hill. Also, the speed lost going up the hill will be regained going down the hill. The back of the train on the down side will generate the same forces as the front of the train on the up side.

Why are the supports the same? Because they have to support the same weight!

What I don't get is the quantity of supports. To me it seems a bit overdone. But then I'm not really sure what the norm is for bunny hills of this size... I am somewhat confused, also, as to why one side would need more support than the other, as its the same weight just first decreasing speed then increasing somewhat again... Which would mean that the middle would have less force than the outsides but the outsides the same? Hrmm...

And yay I get to be intelligent cuz I'm joining this thread! Thanks Jugga, ya know all of the classes I'm in except one are advanced for my grade level :P

well, then you have to think of this way...if a train was going to be launched in two different directions, wouldn't people then just wait to go in the more "fun" direction? think of PT, you have two directions to get launched, but most people choose to get launched downward. you might have a problem with people riding in the less "fun" direction.

Pete - There would be more force going into the hill created by the inertia of the train. It wants to keep going straight and itis being forced to go up. On the way down it has 1. lost some speed and 2. it is creating negative or zero g's (airtime). it will weigh less.

Raging Wolf - That is a great point, I am not sure how they deal with that. Or it is just like anything, and there are enough enthusiasts that it will not be a problem.

I agree with Raging Wolf Bob. Creating something like this would create the "No you all go ahead of us. We are waiting for the other side of the coaster" diolouge. As long as it was constructed so that no matter which direction you launched it would still be equally fun I'm sure it wouldn't be too big of a problem. Take Dueling Dragons as an example. There are plenty of people for each side.

Again, this is a great idea but I'm still a bit weary of the capacity. I would love to see this put into action at some park since its just combining elements that already exist in coasters today.

Why is everyone so worried about the capacity of this?

Again, Storm Runner runs at 1200 riders per hour with only two trains. Xcelerator runs 1330 riders per hour with only two trains...at a Cedar Fair park. This concept is no different. It would have the same wait as a launch coaster that both trains go in the same direction, especially if you were to have four trains. The only lull would be when you have to wait for train 2NW to get off the brakes and past the switch track before sending train 1SE out to the launch and visa versa.

And, how would a side be "more fun" than the other, if you're riding the same track?

The only difference is the order you take the elements.. and the direction of them.. lefts become rights, etc.

Muggsy said:
Pete - There would be more force going into the hill created by the inertia of the train. It wants to keep going straight and itis being forced to go up. On the way down it has 1. lost some speed and 2. it is creating negative or zero g's (airtime). it will weigh less.

But Muggsy, on the way down the train is being forced straight again. Change in the rate of climb or decent generates G forces, it doesn't matter if it is going up or down. And, the train would generate the same amount of G forces going down as it did going up the hill, because it has regained the speed it lost. The low/negative G's are created over the crest.

I disagree. I'll let someone with a physics degree back one of us up.

Muggsy - As the train is going into the hill, the track is changing the trains direction from horizontal to some angle off vertical. As it comes back down, the track is pushing it off some angle of vertical back to horizontal.

The force required to lift the train, will be the same force released by the train as it comes back down (minus friction, which would be negligible for such a small distance unless they lubricate the wheel bearings with sand).

The forces would be equal on both sides of the hill. By no means do I have a degree in physics, but this isn't very advanced. Its simple forces. The energy required to lift an object, will be released when it comes back down (Potential to Kinetic energy).

True, but I think what he's getting at is that going into the hill, the forces are going to the left and down, while leaving the hill the forces are going right and up, relative to the track.

The track has to push against the train on both sides. When you come into the hill, the track pushes the train to make it bend up the hill. As you come back down, the track pushes to make the train go back to horizontal.

Think about when you enter a hill. You feel an increase in g's as you curve to go up the hill. Then over the top you have a bit of a float. Then when you exit at the bottom, you feel your g's pick up again as you accelerate out.

Remember, change in g's is change in acceleration. And acceleration can be changed by either direction or speed.

Yeah, I understand that aspect, and I'm not arguing the validity of the assertion that different supports are necessary, which is contrary to my initial thoughts.

As the train enters, it wants to remain horizontally low and heading to the left. Then, as it descends, the train wants to remain horizontally high(er) and heading to the left. So, the track pushes the train as it enters the hill (the vector would point "northeast"), then pulls it as it leaves (vector pointing "southeast").

So, I think what the argument was getting at is the supports would (ignoring the physical problems, of course) ideally be located on the top-left side of the track on the descent side of the hill, as opposed to the bottom-left on the ascent.
*** Edited 8/24/2006 2:16:44 PM UTC by djDaemon***