Re: KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.

On Oct 8, 9:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 7, 6:31 pm, "dkel...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <dkel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Oct 7, 9:51 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 6, 1:41 pm, "dkel...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <dkel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 5, 4:10 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 3, 3:21 pm, "dkel...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <dkel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 2, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 1, 9:51 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 29, 9:48 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 25, 12:14 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 24, 11:10 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Dwight: The terminal velocity of PTFE is about 220 miles per
hour. A 12 foot drop is nowhere hear that fast! — NoEinstein —

Where on earth did you get that number?

Dear PD: The terminal velocity of a human body, SG = 1, is 110 mph.
So the terminal velocity of a ball of SG = 2 is twice as much, or 220
mph. — NoEinstein —

Here, let me help you. In terms of the specific gravity, the terminal
velocity is given by this relation:
[Terminal velocity] = sqrt{2 [specific gravity] [volume] g / [drag
coeff] [projected area]}
which we'll abbreviate this way:
Vt = sqrt{(2*d*V*g)/(Cd*A)}
So, if you want to find the ratio of terminal velocities between a
PTFE ball and a human body, here is how you find it:
Vt(ball)/Vt(human) = sqrt[d(ball)/d(human)] * sqrt[V(ball)/V(human)] *
sqrt [Cd(human)/Cd(ball)] * sqrt[A(human)/A(ball)]
Now, what you said you know is that d(ball)/d(human) = 2. So, by
itself this would make Vt(ball)/Vt(human) = 1.41.
However you haven't included what sqrt[V(ball)/V(human)] is..
And you haven't included what sqrt [Cd(human)/Cd(ball)] is.
And you haven't included what sqrt[A(human)/A(ball)] is.

Would you like to try your calculations again?

PD

Dear PD: To get a "grip" on science, throw away your textbooks, and
use your one-neuron brain to figure things out. — NoEinstein —

Hi
Use one of your many neurons and find where rain falls and 100 mph.
It is not even close.
Dwight- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Dwight: Rain which condenses closer to the Earth would be
slower. I used to hitchhike home from college in any weather. Some
raindrops do sting, but because its mass hits gradually, the high
speed isn't too apparent. To sense how speed affects your pain, stick
your hand out of a car window and let the car cause side impacts of
your hand to the raindrops. At 60 plus mph, you can definitely feel
the impacts, but you won't have to go to the doctor. — NoEinstein —

Hi
Most rain condenses in the clouds. Most conensation it several
thousand
feed above ground. It has more than enough distance to reach terminal
velocity.
This is one experiment that can be verified by most anyone with a
car.
drive through some rain while there is no wind or drive perpendicular
to the wind. Have an observer look out the window and note the angle
of the rain drops. 45 degrees means you are going as fast as the
drops.
An angle less than that relative to the ground means you are going
faster.
Face it, you are wrong and nothing you state will make it true. I
never
said that you'd need medical attention for 100 mph rain, only that
it would sting( and it would ). I have never had any rain, not driven
by wind, hit me that ever came close to hurting, ever. Nothing,
even close to 60 mph that wasn't wind driven.
Proving you wrong in this case is so easy, anyone on the web can
find your thinking incorrect. Did you even bother to go to the web
page that
Jerry posted of it your mind so closed that you won't except the truth
when it comes from different sources.
Rain does not fall at 100 mph. Do the car experiment again and note
the angle of the falling rain.
I'm sure you won't run this experiment, just as you refuse to run the
experiemnt with different sized balls or different heights. You are
so obviously wrong. You don't want to see anything that might change
your
thinking.
Dwight- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Dwight: The rain falling next to the window is already caught in
the high speed flow of air trying to get around the windshield. So,
even if you could 'see' the angle, that rain wouldn't have been
traveling vertically. A person standing in a 100 mph wind will be
knocked off of their feet. But falling rain isn't, also, falling
air. The effect is far less. Your likely experience in rain is with
an umbrella over your head. I have walked in many rains with just a
raincoat. Some raindrops do sting. I have said that most raindrops
have a terminal velocity of 100 mph. I DIDN'T say all raindrops have
reached such velocity. — NoEinstein —

Hi NoEinstein
As I stated before, did you even bother to look at the web page that
Jerry posted. Are you saying that these people don't know what they
are
talking about and you are the only person in the world that knows
the terminal velocity of rain drops?
As for the experiment with the car, I do agree with you that the air
flowing around the car would effect the direction of the drops, making
them seem to be going slower than they really are.
Of course, this also means that the drops were effected significantly
in a short period of time by an amount of air that was a fraction
of the amount of air that they'd just traveled from cloud to ground.
So, just the fact that the experiment wasn't right, doesn't support
your thinking. In fact, your statement proves that the rain drops
could
not have originally been traveling at anywhere near 100 mph or
they would have been little effected by the slight change in air
around the car, effecting it for just a few feet.
I have placed an anemometer outside the window. I've seen
wind speeds match within 1 MPH at arms length with my speedometer.
This air is close enough to see rain drops and only minimally
effected by air flow of the car( most air goes over the roof of the
car ).
It is interesting how nature works. You have just shown that the
drops could not have been doing 100 MPH. You can't have it
both ways. Either the drops were going slow and easily effected
by a change in air direction or they were going fast because they
were not easily deflected. Since the experiment showed them
going slow, they could not have been going fast. Thanks!
Dwight- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Dwight: If you have ever seen the smoke trails in wind tunnel
tests of autos, you should know that cars disturb air four or five
feet from the car itself. Stand on the side of the road when one
passes, and you will feel the flow. A 100 mph raindrop hitting
"Audubon Speed" air will be deflected in just one or two feet.
Raindrops aren't the same as pieces of lead. They are easy to
deflect. — NoEinstein —


Hi
There is no such thing as a drop of water with a terminal velocity
of 100 mph.
The smoke is not disturbed for 5 feet on the sides, more like
2 to 3 feet. You don't need to be moving at 60 mph to measure
the speed of rain. Even at 5 or 10 mph you will see a significant
change in angle of the rain drops, near and far from the car.
Some simple trig will tell you that the drops are not moving
anywhere near 100 mph.
In any case, no matter how it is measured, rain drops do not fall
at 100 mph. No way no how.
I will repeat DID YOU LOOK AT THE WEB PAGE POSTED BY
JERRY??? IT SHOWS THE TERMINAL VELOCITIES ACTUALLY
MEASURED FOR RAIN DROPS.
Are you saying they are not telling the truth and your the only
person that knows, without measuring, the speed of rain drops?
Back to the original problem, have you bothered to rerun your
original experiment using larger balls, that would not be effected
in the short drops you are using, by terminal velocity? No, of course
not. It is because your are just a troll and not a scientific thinker.
Instead of trying to find out why your experiment didn't produce
the expected values by getting a better understanding of all
the physics involved, you choose to blind yourself to any evidence
that you may have made a mistake( which you have ). You
have determined that your thinking can't be flawed.
Explain to me how if the kenetic enery equation is incorrect that
we can send a rocket to other planets? Explain how ballistic
tables used to calculate cannon shell paths could have been
created with enough accuracy to actually hit something at several
miles?
The only possible explanation I can come up with is that your
experiment was flawed. Your understanding of terminal velocity
indicates that you are not capable of understanding why your
experiment is flawed. You are also not capable of thinking
how to improve your experiment to show what caused the error.
Dwight

.

Relevant Pages