Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:58:37 -0400
"Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pamdnXch2tOwkxvVnZ2dnUVZ_uLinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:L76dne2W7qy7mxvVnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx
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.
Not unless you specify it. It could, for example,
accelerate for only half the trip across the container.
Or it could accelerate for the whole trip. You need to
be precise in order to get precise answers.
Why would it do such,
I am not placing anything else in the box to slow it
down this time.
Why are you so reluctant to use what is stated?
I'm not reluctant, I want to know precisely what the
problem is before expending time on it. In the past
you've exhibited a tendency to use physics terms without
precision, confusing velocity with force, acceleration
with velocity, etc.
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.
So this box is somehow able to keep pushing on the ball
for the whole trip, and is anchored to the wall of the
container. Okay.
No,
the box only pushes when the ball is "shot".
Why are you now making even more incorrect statements
about what is happening?
Because YOU SAID that the ball accelerates at a rate
of 1m/s/s but you didn't specify how long a time it
accelerates. You then stated that it accelerates for
the whole trip. That implies a constant force over the
duration of its flight, not for just some short launch
time. I specifically asked you how long the acceleration
lasted, and you said for the whole flight! Now you're
changing the problem and stating that the acceleration
occurs for only a short time.
So which is it?
Look, why don't you just say that the ball is given
a brief impulse that launches it at a certain velocity?
That would cut out all this business dealing with the
specifics of the acceleration mechanism.
You truly are showing your reluctance now.
:)
Now, one more thing. Is the stated acceleration with
respect to the little box attached to the container wall,
or with respect to the original rest frame prior to the
launch?
All motions should be considered from one frame
only and that frame should be a frame that could
detect motion, so it will not be in the box.
To find out if the box atually moves, you must look
outside the box.
Again it is pretty funny you can't grasp that simple
fact about finding out if a box is moving or not.
Since the ball launcher is attached to the container
it's a valid question. In order for it to be able
to apply a constant acceleration from the point of
view of an external observer, it needs to adjust its
force to compensate for the reaction movement of the
container its attached to; the force will not be
constant over time.
.
Also, would you consider changing the yards to meters to
keep all the units in the metric system for consistency?
Yes,
I actually stated that somewhere.
Make the box 10 cubic meters and place the firing
device for the ball in a smaller box embedded
into the wall that will shoot the ball so you will
have the entire 10 meters of motion minus the reverse motion
of the box.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: Spaceman
- 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
- Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: Greg Neill
- Re: Some propellantless propulsion fun
- From: Spaceman
- Some propellantless propulsion fun
- Prev by Date: Re: The opposing rockets and the box
- 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
|