Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Vibration and separation

  1. #1 Vibration and separation 
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,631
    Imagine you have a beaker of glass beads. You have two sizes, one size slightly bigger than the other. Not a big enough difference for the beads to fall in between each other.

    Which beads would end up on top if you put in a vibrating machine that makes them act as a liquid. Would the larger ones, or the smaller ones end on top? Or they would randomly disperse?

    Density and shape would be identical of course.


    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,091
    How "slightly" do you mean? Also are you ignoring other numbers for a perfect simulation? These things matter.


    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    How "slightly" do you mean? Also are you ignoring other numbers for a perfect simulation? These things matter.
    Slightly, say a 1% difference between diameter.

    Then i would first assume it is a vacuum, and that temperature is stable, gravity is 1g, or 9.81m/s2.

    Then i would do the same, but with a normal earth atmosphere. What kind of effect would the atmosphere have?

    ( my hypothesis is that the smaller ones will go down, and the larger ones will go up.. But vibration has a bigger and more energetic effect on the smaller ones, so maybe exactly the opposite will happen )
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman Rarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8
    The beads on the bottom of the beaker would be on a hard surface and so as they hit each other the smaller ones would have a net downward force on them and the larger ones a similar slight net upward force. I'd guess that this difference would permeate up through the beaker to make the larger ones rise. That's dependant on the hard surface at the bottom of course. I wonder if it would make a difference if the vibration was vertical or horizontal? Perhaps vertical vibration would tend to drive the smaller ones up? Without that hard base surface, sand on the beach or a desert usually has the lighter grains ones on top, as does the moon, though probably for different reasons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,631
    Maybe i should just test this in the lab...
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Rarry View Post
    The beads on the bottom of the beaker would be on a hard surface and so as they hit each other the smaller ones would have a net downward force on them and the larger ones a similar slight net upward force. I'd guess that this difference would permeate up through the beaker to make the larger ones rise. That's dependant on the hard surface at the bottom of course. I wonder if it would make a difference if the vibration was vertical or horizontal? Perhaps vertical vibration would tend to drive the smaller ones up? Without that hard base surface, sand on the beach or a desert usually has the lighter grains ones on top, as does the moon, though probably for different reasons.
    I should have thought that the amount of empty space per unit volume between small particles would be less than for large particles, which would allow an ensemble of small particles to assume a higher density. This would eventually lead, I would imagine, to the smaller particles congregating below the large ones due to this density difference. To look at it another way, a close packed arrangement with the smaller particles at the bottom will have a lower centre of gravity, and thus less GPE, than the other way round. Won't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman Rarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    I should have thought that the amount of empty space per unit volume between small particles would be less than for large particles
    With the same particle shape the percentage of the volume taken would be the same. So the percentage volume of randomly arranged spheres will be the same (about 65%) regardless of the size of the spheres, so the density would be the same. It's like the sugar lump problem where the question is about the volume taken by sugar cubes or cube shaped granules. They would occupy the same space. The only difference would occur at the edges but that's only significant if the space occupied is small compared to the size of the objects.

    As an example, suppose you want to know the percentage of a square that is occupied by a exact fitting circle, the answer (78.5%) doesn't depend on the size.

    But anyway, Zwolver is right, this is the sort of question that would be best to test out rather than guess wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Rarry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    I should have thought that the amount of empty space per unit volume between small particles would be less than for large particles
    With the same particle shape the percentage of the volume taken would be the same. So the percentage volume of randomly arranged spheres will be the same (about 65%) regardless of the size of the spheres, so the density would be the same. It's like the sugar lump problem where the question is about the volume taken by sugar cubes or cube shaped granules. They would occupy the same space. The only difference would occur at the edges but that's only significant if the space occupied is small compared to the size of the objects.

    As an example, suppose you want to know the percentage of a square that is occupied by a exact fitting circle, the answer (78.5%) doesn't depend on the size.

    But anyway, Zwolver is right, this is the sort of question that would be best to test out rather than guess wrong.
    Yes on reflection I suppose that must be right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. How To Prevent Impact Crusher Abnormal Vibration
    By linxiaomo in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 27th, 2013, 10:09 AM
  2. vibration and magnetism
    By itsallthesame in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 30th, 2012, 03:04 PM
  3. The visible vibration of life
    By jsaldea12 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 1st, 2010, 09:52 AM
  4. Dampening vibration
    By (In)Sanity in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 19th, 2008, 10:42 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •