Re: Dyson's 100,000 Gs ?
From: Sylvia Else (sylvia_at_not.at.this.address)
Date: 11/29/04
- Next message: PhDs.org Webmaster: "New physical sciences/mathematics positions at http://jobs.phds.org, November 29, 2004"
- Previous message: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Painful but inevitable resignation"
- In reply to: Nehmo Sergheyev: "Dyson's 100,000 Gs ?"
- Next in thread: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Dyson's 100,000 Gs ?"
- Reply: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Dyson's 100,000 Gs ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:46:36 +1100
Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
> I'm skeptical about the claims of Dyson vacuum cleaners:
> http://www.dyson.com/nav/inpageframe.asp?id=TECH/DYSONCYCLONE/HOW/SPEED
> or
> http://www.ericseven.com?id=3921
>
> If I can summarize their illustration: They are claiming the G force
> inside a rotating vortex of a gas increases when the radius of the
> rotating gas decreases.
It does if the speed of the air doesn't change - the acceleration is
then inversely proportional to the radius.
> They also claim to achieve 100,000 Gs.
Let's suppose that at any given time, there's 1 litre of air being
subject to this acceleration. That's about 1.25 grams. So the force on
the air is about 100,000 * 10 * 1.25 * 10^-3 Newtons, or 1250 N, which
is about the weight of a reasonably well built man.
Doesn't sound untenable.
Sylvia.
- Next message: PhDs.org Webmaster: "New physical sciences/mathematics positions at http://jobs.phds.org, November 29, 2004"
- Previous message: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Painful but inevitable resignation"
- In reply to: Nehmo Sergheyev: "Dyson's 100,000 Gs ?"
- Next in thread: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Dyson's 100,000 Gs ?"
- Reply: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Dyson's 100,000 Gs ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
