A. B. Hammer; Your job is to manage debris around a space station. Your tool is a 4 newton thrust jet pack that consumes 1 gram of fuel per second. You have a 1420 kg mass approaching the station at one meter per second and a 3 kilograms object approaching at 21.75 m/sec. How much fuel will be consumed from the jet pack to stop each object.
Stop here if you want to do the math yourself; or read on.
To get a 1420 kilogram mass (at rest) to achieve a velocity of 1 meter per second you would have to apply a thrust of 4 newtons for (1420 kg * 1 m/sec)/4 = 355 seconds. 1420 newtons of thrust would deliver the motion of one m/sec in one second; but you have only 4/1420 or 1/355th that much force so it will take 355 seconds. That would be 355 grams of fuel. Zero m/sec to one m/sec; and one to zero would use the same energy of course.
To get a 3 kilogram mass (at rest) to achieve a velocity of 21.75 meters per second you would have to apply a thrust of 4 newtons for (3 kg * 21.75 m/sec)/4 = 16.31 seconds. 65.25 newtons of thrust would deliver the motion of 21.75 m/sec in one second; but you have only 4/65.25 or 1/16.3125th that much force so it will take 16.3125 seconds. That would be 16.31 grams of fuel.
Did you know that NASA predicts that the 1420 kg mass at 1m/sec has the same energy as the 3 kilograms mass at 21.75 m/sec.
The average mass of the Dawn mission spacecraft was spinning about one meter per second, and NASA said that that motion could be stopped when the 3 kilograms masses on the unwinding tethers achieve only 21.75 m/sec. Really can such magic be preformed in the real world. NASA gave no data for the velocity of the 3 kilograms because that data did not match there predictions.
½ * 1420 kg * 1 m/sec * 1 m/sec; is equal to ½ * 3 kg * 21.75 m/sec * 21.75 m/sec. 1/2mv²
But you are in charge of the debris; and you have 40 grams of fuel in your pack; and the 1420 kg mass is headed for the station, do you go back inside and get more or do you trust 40 grams to stop it?
Newton would go get more; for the real energy of the object is mv.
KE tells us how much energy we can make (in a gravitational field); it does not set a boundary.
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
3130.56lbs object approaching the station at one meter per second
6.61387lbs object approaching the station at 21.75 meter per second
0.8992358lbs of thrust for 0.0881849lbs of fuel for 40 seconds of thrust.
Your station is traveling about 5 miles per second as you are, with the station.
The trajectory of each item is missing which also has to be part of the equation.
Also how much time to impact for you to do these actions?
How heavy is the astronaut in his or her outfit with jet pack with a fuel supply not much more than a bic lighter
Sounds more like you are running on empty and ill fated for the job at hand for that large of a pool game.
Sorry I just woke up for that kind of a math problem.
Alan
6.61387lbs object approaching the station at 21.75 meter per second
0.8992358lbs of thrust for 0.0881849lbs of fuel for 40 seconds of thrust.
Your station is traveling about 5 miles per second as you are, with the station.
The trajectory of each item is missing which also has to be part of the equation.
Also how much time to impact for you to do these actions?
How heavy is the astronaut in his or her outfit with jet pack with a fuel supply not much more than a bic lighter
Sounds more like you are running on empty and ill fated for the job at hand for that large of a pool game.
Sorry I just woke up for that kind of a math problem.
Alan
re: energy producing experiments
The earth surface has velocity as well but I have never seen a ballistic book that says you will get one set of data when you shoot east and another set of data when you shoot west. If 1/2mv² were true it would certainly matter. In fact you would have to have different ballistic charts for different hour of the day. So what form of trajectory are you talking about.
"Coriolis Effect
An annoying urban legend persists that the Royal Navy's shooting at the Battle of the Falklands was poor due to their equipment applying corrections for Coriolis effect in the wrong direction, as the action was in the southern hemisphere rather than the northern. The truth is, however, that no contemporary aspect of Royal Navy equipment or procedure took Coriolis effect into consideration, an extremely minor deficiency. For, even if the fable were true, if the action took place on a nearly constant bearing, and at a range that changed only slowly, even a blatant mistreatment of Coriolis effect such as its negative consideration would therefore have been a constant error, and one unlikely to be large compared to other factors affecting the proper deflection to use (such as the zig-zagging of a fleeing enemy). This fact implies that the remedy for such a miscue would have been a single spotting correction for deflection which, once made, would counteract the error for the remainder of the action.
While I think it likely that later systems of firing incorporated Coriolis corrections, a system lacking such treatment which is designed primarily to bring fire upon a maneuvering enemy is not a sad system by any means. Taken in context, Coriolis errors are a constant source of deflection error and very small in degree. The need to fire repeated salvoes which for many reasons will require spotting to put them onto the target implies that a failure to handle Coriolis effect, or even handle it entirely backwards, would not prevent a shooter from hitting his target in a prolonged engagement."
An annoying urban legend persists that the Royal Navy's shooting at the Battle of the Falklands was poor due to their equipment applying corrections for Coriolis effect in the wrong direction, as the action was in the southern hemisphere rather than the northern. The truth is, however, that no contemporary aspect of Royal Navy equipment or procedure took Coriolis effect into consideration, an extremely minor deficiency. For, even if the fable were true, if the action took place on a nearly constant bearing, and at a range that changed only slowly, even a blatant mistreatment of Coriolis effect such as its negative consideration would therefore have been a constant error, and one unlikely to be large compared to other factors affecting the proper deflection to use (such as the zig-zagging of a fleeing enemy). This fact implies that the remedy for such a miscue would have been a single spotting correction for deflection which, once made, would counteract the error for the remainder of the action.
While I think it likely that later systems of firing incorporated Coriolis corrections, a system lacking such treatment which is designed primarily to bring fire upon a maneuvering enemy is not a sad system by any means. Taken in context, Coriolis errors are a constant source of deflection error and very small in degree. The need to fire repeated salvoes which for many reasons will require spotting to put them onto the target implies that a failure to handle Coriolis effect, or even handle it entirely backwards, would not prevent a shooter from hitting his target in a prolonged engagement."
Re: re: energy producing experiments
Well it is simple.pequaide wrote:The earth surface has velocity as well but I have never seen a ballistic book that says you will get one set of data when you shoot east and another set of data when you shoot west. If 1/2mv² were true it would certainly matter. In fact you would have to have different ballistic charts for different hour of the day. So what form of trajectory are you talking about.
1. The astronaut is not going to be floating outside the station waiting for the objects unless it was detected before hand.
2. The question then is how long for the astronaut to get suited up and out.
3. From what direction is the object coming from. Thus the statement of the pool game, for an angled direction is deflected easier than a direct.
4. In the question, you have 2 different items you have to deflect. If you have one coming from the opposite side than the other? Will you have the time to get in two positions with the slow rate you can move.
5. When doing a job that requires fuel in the jet pack. You better have what you need at all times. You may not have the time to refuel once the item/items are detected.
A ballistic book is the average for each type of round. Accuracy have many more variables. Shakiness, obstacles that may deflect, wind direction, rain, heat, and the cleanliness of our weapon as well as the condition of your bore.
Alan
"Our education can be the limitation to our imagination, and our dreams"
So With out a dream, there is no vision.
Old and future wheel videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/ABthehammer/videos
Alan
So With out a dream, there is no vision.
Old and future wheel videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/ABthehammer/videos
Alan
re: energy producing experiments
Why try to stop it instead of deflect it? What would you do with it after catching it? Fire to deflect it, not stop it!
Forget your lust for the rich man's gold
All that you need is in your soul
And you can do this, oh baby, if you try
All that I want for you my son is to be satisfied
All that you need is in your soul
And you can do this, oh baby, if you try
All that I want for you my son is to be satisfied
re: energy producing experiments
Lets say the jet pack is being used for the assembly, of the station.
I was looking on the internet for the rules and means for moving things around a space station; all I found was jet pack and F = ma. So apparently the 4 newton jet pack is a sound concept and the math was done correctly.
So the question is: Why does the fuel consumption (355 g and 16.3125g) of the jet pack correspond to the quantity of momentum (1420 *1, and 3 * 21.756) rather than the quantity for energy?
I was looking on the internet for the rules and means for moving things around a space station; all I found was jet pack and F = ma. So apparently the 4 newton jet pack is a sound concept and the math was done correctly.
So the question is: Why does the fuel consumption (355 g and 16.3125g) of the jet pack correspond to the quantity of momentum (1420 *1, and 3 * 21.756) rather than the quantity for energy?
re: energy producing experiments
In chemistry the quantity of energy that a molecule has is equal to the quantity of energy used to make that molecule from other molecules. And this is of course equal to the energy given out when that molecules is oxidized back down to the original components.
To remain consistent then; 355 grams of Hydrogen has more energy than 16.31 grams of Hydrogen. A 4 newton thruster using 16.31 grams of fuel will produce 3 kg moving 21.75 m/sec. Or you could go NASA’s Yo-Yo despin route and use up 355 grams of fuel to make the 3 kg move 21.75 m/sec.
NASA is wrong of course the 3 kg will actually be moving 473.33 m/sec when it has unwound from the spinning satellite. The conserved quantity is always going to be linear Newtonian momentum no matter how much NASA wants it otherwise. When they have work to do they go with Newton. The objects around a station are moved using F = ma.
And the 3 kg moving 473.33 m/sec is of great use, if you are within a gravity field.
To remain consistent then; 355 grams of Hydrogen has more energy than 16.31 grams of Hydrogen. A 4 newton thruster using 16.31 grams of fuel will produce 3 kg moving 21.75 m/sec. Or you could go NASA’s Yo-Yo despin route and use up 355 grams of fuel to make the 3 kg move 21.75 m/sec.
NASA is wrong of course the 3 kg will actually be moving 473.33 m/sec when it has unwound from the spinning satellite. The conserved quantity is always going to be linear Newtonian momentum no matter how much NASA wants it otherwise. When they have work to do they go with Newton. The objects around a station are moved using F = ma.
And the 3 kg moving 473.33 m/sec is of great use, if you are within a gravity field.
re: energy producing experiments
Interesting isn’t it! A Swiss/German ‘Euler’ invented “moment of inertia� (mr²) to support Leibniz’s mv²: another German? And all this was done in order to discredit a Brit and his mv?
They thus changed “Classic Mechanics� from Newtonian Mechanics into Leibniz/Euler Mechanics.
So lets test their theory: A 400 kilogram rim has two 4 newton thruster across the circle at 180°. Their thrust is pointed clockwise and tangent. They fire for 100 seconds. At the end of one hundred seconds the rim is spinning at; F = ma, 8N = 400kg v/100 sec = 8/400 *100 = 2 m/sec.
Now in a yo-yo despin move the 1 kilogram thrusters unwind and stop the rim (without firing). The thruster then fire and stop themselves without transferring any motion back to the rim. If Newton is correct the thrusters will be moving 400 m/sec and they will have to fire for 100 seconds to stop all the previous motion. This would be 100 seconds to produce the motion and; 100 seconds to stop the motion.
Leibniz/Euler mechanics predicts that they will be moving only 28.28 m/sec and the thrusters will only have to fire for 7.07 second. That is great Leibniz/Euler saved us 93% of the fuel.
Or we could check their theory by drilling a hole in a PVC pipe and inserting a bolas.
Â
Euler's angular momentum works about as well as his fountain (wiki).
They thus changed “Classic Mechanics� from Newtonian Mechanics into Leibniz/Euler Mechanics.
So lets test their theory: A 400 kilogram rim has two 4 newton thruster across the circle at 180°. Their thrust is pointed clockwise and tangent. They fire for 100 seconds. At the end of one hundred seconds the rim is spinning at; F = ma, 8N = 400kg v/100 sec = 8/400 *100 = 2 m/sec.
Now in a yo-yo despin move the 1 kilogram thrusters unwind and stop the rim (without firing). The thruster then fire and stop themselves without transferring any motion back to the rim. If Newton is correct the thrusters will be moving 400 m/sec and they will have to fire for 100 seconds to stop all the previous motion. This would be 100 seconds to produce the motion and; 100 seconds to stop the motion.
Leibniz/Euler mechanics predicts that they will be moving only 28.28 m/sec and the thrusters will only have to fire for 7.07 second. That is great Leibniz/Euler saved us 93% of the fuel.
Or we could check their theory by drilling a hole in a PVC pipe and inserting a bolas.
Â
Euler's angular momentum works about as well as his fountain (wiki).
-
triplock
re: energy producing experiments
Hi,
If I may just interject into your discussion for a moment. All these formulas and numbers are attracting me, but for the wrong reasons because, what you are doing is bashing the dust out of the same old carpet.
Mechanics, and the laws within were written by man in an attempt to lineate everything around us, and to shoe horn everything else that didn't fit.
The mathematical laws, although in the most part correct, are an attempt by man to dominate and control nature and define it by way of the sciences .
The problem with this is that he places everything and thinks everything thing exists on a single flat plane or piece of paper.
Even when we refer to the Z axis, this is still the very same flat plane in the x&y. It is just folded about the Y axis that's all.
Anyway, that's all :-p
Chris
If I may just interject into your discussion for a moment. All these formulas and numbers are attracting me, but for the wrong reasons because, what you are doing is bashing the dust out of the same old carpet.
Mechanics, and the laws within were written by man in an attempt to lineate everything around us, and to shoe horn everything else that didn't fit.
The mathematical laws, although in the most part correct, are an attempt by man to dominate and control nature and define it by way of the sciences .
The problem with this is that he places everything and thinks everything thing exists on a single flat plane or piece of paper.
Even when we refer to the Z axis, this is still the very same flat plane in the x&y. It is just folded about the Y axis that's all.
Anyway, that's all :-p
Chris
Last edited by triplock on Sat Feb 14, 2015 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
re: energy producing experiments
You are correct; science is man's attempt to control his environment. And thankfully he does a pretty good job of it.
A current debate in the USA is whether or not parents can refuse to have their children vaccinated. They need to get a history book and read about yellow fever, bubonic plague, polio, and a dozen others. I don't know what they think made these recede in dominance but it was science.
In science you first observe and collect data. A lever arm of one to four makes an object four times harder to move not 16. If you can't get that then it is no wonder that Euler could not build a pump for the Kings fountain.
A current debate in the USA is whether or not parents can refuse to have their children vaccinated. They need to get a history book and read about yellow fever, bubonic plague, polio, and a dozen others. I don't know what they think made these recede in dominance but it was science.
In science you first observe and collect data. A lever arm of one to four makes an object four times harder to move not 16. If you can't get that then it is no wonder that Euler could not build a pump for the Kings fountain.
-
triplock
re: energy producing experiments
Pequaide,
The problem with levers and the 3 classes defined is that this tidy little arrangement and premature classification is not complete.
There are, in fact, as a minimum, 6 classes of lever; 7 at a push. if you don't count a fluid lever, such as a whip ,then, as it stands at the moment, I propose, there are 6 classes.
Don't ask me to name the 5th, 6th and 7th class because, as their validity has been verified by 3 physicists, they are now subject to pending patent applications.
Chris
The problem with levers and the 3 classes defined is that this tidy little arrangement and premature classification is not complete.
There are, in fact, as a minimum, 6 classes of lever; 7 at a push. if you don't count a fluid lever, such as a whip ,then, as it stands at the moment, I propose, there are 6 classes.
Don't ask me to name the 5th, 6th and 7th class because, as their validity has been verified by 3 physicists, they are now subject to pending patent applications.
Chris
re: energy producing experiments
The high speed video camera reveals a significantly higher speed for the spheres when the cylinder is stopped. It also shows the cylinder being returned to its original velocity after the tethers of the spheres have crossed the holes and have restarted the cylinder. Only linear momentum can restart it; angular momentum and kinetic energy will lose 75% of the motion by their own definitions.
Newton expected linear momentum conservation; and he was correct.
Euler predicted a 75% loss in motion; Euler and Leibniz were incorrect.
If any of you have expertise with high speed video; please let me know. Such equipment is now entering my price range.
Newton expected linear momentum conservation; and he was correct.
Euler predicted a 75% loss in motion; Euler and Leibniz were incorrect.
If any of you have expertise with high speed video; please let me know. Such equipment is now entering my price range.
re: energy producing experiments
The loss is to air resistance, which is not part of either formula. They were not in any way right.