this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
8 points (90.0% liked)

jet's interesting finds

54 readers
3 users here now

my journal

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Thanks to Galilean relativity it should be just as hard to run on an inclined treadmill as it is to run on a hill of the same incline. But you don't gain gravitational potential energy on a treadmill, so can it really be true?

summerizerSteve Mould explores whether running on an incline treadmill is as taxing as running up an actual hill of the same incline. Through reasoning and experiments, he investigates the energy expenditure involved in both activities, ultimately discovering that while the treadmill might initially seem easier, empirical results show that running uphill on a ramp requires slightly more energy than on a treadmill, accounting for various factors including air resistance and friction.

Key Points

Theoretical Considerations

Steve discusses the theory behind the energy expenditure of running on an incline treadmill versus running up a hill, questioning whether the lack of vertical lifting on the treadmill reduces the difficulty.

Galilean Relativity Argument

He uses Galilean relativity to defend the idea that running on a treadmill should feel just as hard as running on level ground, as the two scenarios, in terms of energy expenditure, are comparable.

Experiments Setup

To test the theory, Steve partnered with Jared Rebo to create a vehicle that could measure energy consumption while running either on a treadmill or uphill. They built a robot to gather quantitative data under controlled conditions.

Results Analysis

The tests revealed that going uphill on a ramp used about 10 watts of power, while running on an incline treadmill used about 9 watts, indicating the ramp is slightly more challenging.

Factors Influencing Results

Steve considers factors like air resistance and wheel slippage that may contribute to the difference in energy required, suggesting they need to conduct further experiments to refine the data.

Open-Mindedness and Empathy

Reflecting on the importance of being open-minded, Steve draws parallels between scientific understanding and the beliefs held by certain groups (like flat earthers) to emphasize the need for empathy in discussions about differing viewpoints.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Just based off of the thumbnail, it makes sense

I used to run rc cars and trucks back years ago, and battery life really was influenced by the combination of terrain/surface and the tires.

Let's say that with flat rubber tires on asphalt, you get five minutes of run time on a specific battery.

If you change the tires only, to something with a tread, you end up losing an almost unnoticeable amount of run time, but if you're timing your runs, the difference is there.

Leave the same tires on, but switch to something like packed clay, and not only do you lose run time, but you can clearly see the loss in traction; you'll be sliding more in the corners, and likely having some degree of spinning on starts (depending on your setup). Switch to treaded tires, your run time notches back up a little, and you're slipping less.

If you're doing hill climbing, or rock climbing, you'll see a similar shift in run times based on grass vs loose soil, vs packed soil, etc. no matter what tires you're running, with the tires serving to shift run times upwards depending on how little slippage you get during a run.

Now, you might not notice any of that in timed trials, but if you're just out there fucking around for fun, and you only bring X number of batteries, and someone else is running the same surfaces with different tires, but a similar build otherwise, there's a decent chance that one of you will run out of batteries sooner than the other consistently.

There's a shit ton of energy "wasted" when tires are slipping instead of gripping.

The same is true when you're out hiking, though it comes with a big safety issue as well. If you're on a surface, like mixed pebbles, soil, and it being fairly loose, your feet are going to have to dig in deeper, and will likely "waste" part of every step as the soil shifts and moves under you. The better the traction, the less effort each step up a hill takes. More of your energy is being directed into forward movement on a grippy surface than a loose one.

You don't even need to be slipping to feel the difference, just go try walking on a beach after walking on a sidewalk to get there. Every step takes more effort to move forward, and it's even detectable without paying much attention.

Treadmills are optimized for a stable surface out of the gate; for safety, and for the necessity of moving parts. Makes total sense that they're going to be more efficient to work on than a less controlled surface, even when all other factors are the same. You could do their experiment with a fan to mimic air resistance, and I guarantee you that it wouldn't account for more than a tiny fraction of the difference in power used.

There's more than one reason we pave roads and sidewalks

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

In their experiment they have different surfaces, painted wood, and a grippy treadmill - That alone with your observations could account for the 1W power difference they observed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Another element - going up a treadmill (even an unpowered one) only requires the force necessary to move the belt sufficiently fast - the weight of the mover is nearly irrelevant compared to a ramp where momentum is involved (especially starting momentum, or overcoming static inertia).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

So... where did the extra watt go?