Hill Question/Theory

I'm saying they should be identical on both sides. The primary change is at the bottom "corners" of the hill. the next change is at the top of the hill, in both those "corners" on either side of the crest. So in theory, you need only 4 supports for a hill. Of course, this also depends on the size of the hill, as you may need more supports if its bigger. But if its a hill made out of two sections of track, you'd have a low and high support for each side, and thats it.

Yeah. So, things have gotten so technical that I'm not even sure what the discussion was about...

I agree that the supports should be identical, though my initial thoughts were to the contrary. I was just curious about the thought process that was being used to reach that conclusion. I think its simply a matter of unique nomenclature being used. Your previous post mentioned that the track "pushed" the train down on its descent, whereas I consider it to be "pulling" it down. No real difference, other than our respective frames of reference.

It didn't push it down. It pulls it at the top (changing its direction from vertical-up to horizontal to vertical-down). Then at the bottom of the hill the track pushes again to make the train go horizontal again. If the track didn't push back here the train would smash into the ground.

Ahh... Okay, I see where you're coming from. I was focusing on the upper supports, whereas you were talking about the lower (or all?) supports.

Well, all. The lower ones help the track push, the other ones help it pull back down. The forces should be nearly the same on either side of the hill.

Gotcha. Wow, that was quite a dance for such a short song.

It wouldn't be any fun if we got right to the point.

And you didn't call me a jerk veteran when our ideas didn't mesh, WTH is wrong with you?

*** Edited 8/24/2006 3:01:30 PM UTC by JuggaLotus***

^ Lol

Is this two intelligent convos in one thread?

Well, it was, until John decided to call down the thunder. ;)

I would never clash with someone's ideas, provided they're based in reality. No points this round, John.

Jerk.

OK, I thought about this more. The train always wants to come down because of gravity. Going up causes the train to work against gravity. Going down it is assisted by gravity, therefore there are less forces on the track on the way down.

By the way I mean gravity as in the law of nature, not as in Gravity the PointBuzz member.

Until it hits the bottom of the hill and returns to horizontal, then the track has to force the train to go horizontal and act against gravity and inertia.

No, it will always be trying to go down. Gravity is going to assist the track (or the other way around). The train wants to be down, needs to be down, has to be down! :)

Until its time to go horizontal again at the bottom of the hill. Then it the track has to fight gravity and inertia. Unless your hill just keeps going to China.

Now that would be awsome! The world's deepest rollercoaster!

When the train meets the bottom of the hill than the stress is more on the other supports, not the one that is supporting the middle of the hill.

Have we beaten this to death yet?

Nope. I need to get a few more kicks in.

I see what you're saying about it, but I would think the forces would be more in the middle of the curve. Not only putting stress on the support under the horizontal, but also pulling down a bit on the one in the middle.

I'll try and draw something up when I get home.

By the way the other side of the world would be closer to Australia than China.

http://www.peakbagger.com/pbgeog/worldrev.aspx

Thats a pretty cool map.

Note to self: Abort digging to China plans.

But it'd be a cool way to fill your hottub. The water would be pre-heated.

^^ No, keep digging, just make a left at Albequerque.