Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: "Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:09:08 -0400
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DqednSOznrN_YxjVnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
All are doomed to failure absent ejection of part of
the mass.
Would you like to show me such with this example please
A 100 gram ball is shot from inside a 1000 gram box.
The box is 10 cubic yards long and of course
all vacuum around and inside.
10 cubic yards long? Cubic yards are a measure of volume,
not length.
Ya big deal,
You know what I meant.
But of course you always need to show your superiority
without just thinking about what was stated.
:)
The ball is shot using an acceleration rate of 1 meter per
second/second.
For how much time is the ball accelerated? (This is
necessary to determine how fast the ball will be moving
when it strikes the far wall).
You should be able to find that out.
There is only 10 yards of travel time minus the box motions distance.
To make it easier
You can make the Box 10 cubic meters on the inside instead if you wish.
so it will have 10 meters to travel minus the motion of the box's distance
from the small masses force upon the box to move.
The device the "shoots" the ball will be in a smaller box embedded
in the wall so it will have the entire 10 meters to travel.
:)
Also, is the mechanism that accelerating the ball
anchored to the box?
Of course it is.
That is what this is all about.
Moving the larger mass of the box from the motion of the acceleration
of the smaller mass causing such.
Sheesh Greg.
Can you keep track of what we are talking about at all?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: Greg Neill
- Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- References:
- Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: Greg Neill
- Some propellantless propulsion fun
- Prev by Date: Re: Propellantless propulsion fun 3 (recirculative propelant)
- Next by Date: Re: Propellantless propulsion fun 3 (recirculative propelant)
- Previous by thread: Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- Next by thread: Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|