PDA

View Full Version : Acceleration experiments



JG14_Josf
05-26-2004, 09:13 AM
This experiment can be conducted in three ways:

1. Physical testing.
2. Mathematical calculation
3. Logical consideration.

I propose that the last example will suffice for my purposes.

Hypothesis:

Three objects of various sizes and weights will not all fall at the same speed. Although the force of gravity is constant another force is present. Drag is another force that exists on our planet. Air get's in the way of things
that are being accelerated by the force of gravity. Both weight and shape change this force of resistance or drag imposed upon objects by the atmosphere as they are being accelerated by the force of gravity.
Weight and shape effect acceleration and since gravity is a constant the obvious deduction is that weight and shape must therefore change the force of resistance or drag.

The following test is easy. This test is done within the confines of your mind. All that is needed to conduct this test is for the individual to use common sense.

Test: Imagine dropping three different objects of various sizes and weights all at the same time and consider the time it will take for each object to reach the ground.

Material:
Object #1: A ballon filled with one metric liter of Helium (http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/he.html)
Density g/mL 0.0001787
Atomic weight u 4.0026

Object #2: A one cetemeter block of Polypropylene (http://www.plasticballs.com/plastic.html) or instead: a ping pong ball.
Specific Gravity: .90

Object #2: A hollow arrow filled with one cubic centimeter of Lead (http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/pb.html)
Density g/mL 11.4
Atomic weight u 207.2
11.35 g/cc

Conclusion:

If the force of gravity is constant then all three objects will fall at the same rate. Since all three objects will not fall at the same rate; the obvious conclusion is that another force acts upon those objects to limit the force of gravity. Since helium is lighter than air the ballon has negative acceleration downward. The ping pong ball and arrow both fall to the ground but the force that slows them down is not the same. Where one is able to minimize that opposing force the other is not, where one is held back considerably the other is more able to cut through the restriction with relative ease.

From the above experiment it is obvious that things that are up will encounter difficulty on their way down. Air get's in the way.


The above experiment inspires two questions:

How does shape effect resistance to the force of gravity?

How does weight effect the resistance to the force of gravity?

The second question should be made clear if it is imagined that the ballon filled with helium (Density g/mL 0.0001787, Atomic weight u 4.0026) going up were to be filled instead with lead (Density g/mL 11.4, Atomic weight u 207.2). It then goes down. The shape of the ballon remains the same and therefore is a constant between the two examples. The reason the ballon changes acceleration is not due to changes in shape, leaving weight as being the varible responsible for changes in acceleration.

The first question is a little more complicated.

Now it may be that this post is discarded by most as being irrelevant to our common interest i.e. Air Combat Simulation. This post may find no readership nor any interest on this board.
I suspect that, instead, this post will generate at least one response. I can picture this particular individual like the Shark in the movie Jaws. My mental imagery includes the accompanying sound track.
Ignoring these types of people can be done with a certain amount of amusment http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif One must actively ignore, the word 'ignore' is a verb. It is not a coincidence that the word 'ignore' sounds a lot like ignorant. The least of two evils is my choice:
a) to be ignorant of my chief critic's propaganda or
b) suffer his abuse.
Rare is the case where ignorance is the better choice.
Nobody is perfect.



On the question of the effects of shape on resistance to the force of gravity, in our world, it occurs to me to site the last, in this post, of my experiments.

Imagine two guys preparing to jump from a plane at say 3,000 meters altitude. Both of these subjects register the same exact number on a instrument used to measure weight and therefore weight is held at a constant value. If these two objects do not fall at the same rate then the obvious conclusion is that weight is not a factor in determining the variance in values of resistance or drag. Shape instead is responsible for any differences in acceleration.
Back to the two guys in the plane:
They both jump from the plane at the same time. One of these guys has a parachute and the other has an equal weight of cheeseburgers digested into the form of fat distributed around his ample 'spare tire'. Suppose that the guy with the parachute takes the time to deploy his parachute in an effort to change the shape of his mass as he jumps from the plane, and imagine the relative effects of drag force acting against the force of gravity for the other guy who, perhaps, tries to eat his last cheeseburger before he realizes the true relationship that shape has upon the force of gravity.

Now, for those who like reading my posts, few as they may be, my next bit here is to make this post relevant to our common interest.

Heavy, well shaped planes, are not effected by the force of gravity (measurable as dive acceleration) at the same rate as lighter, less aerodynamic planes; in the real world.

On the contrary, WWII fighter planes, as described by the pilots who flew them, accelerated in dives at noticeably different rates and these differences were utilized to advantage in combat.

My hope is that the new sim models such differences more accurately and will better simulate what is desribed as Figther Combat in WWII history.

If you are reading this, I hope that you have had as much fun as I did and please excuse the off topic dive into preventative propaganda.

Here is a quote that I find useful. Perhaps you can too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"My point is that habitual indirection in speech supports and stimulates a habit of indirection in thought: and this habit, if not pretty closely watched, runs off into intellectual dishonesty."

Albert J Nock, Brussels, July, 1935

In other words, critisicm should be direct, with no hidden agenda.

For example:

I can't stand reading a post where the obvious intent is to hide behind the veil of apt criticism as if to counterfeit legitimacy; all for the mere purpose of obfuscation. Bad manners and insults generate the same type of responses i.e. more bad manners and more insults. It is difficult to believe that when bad manners and insults are the bread and butter of a persons communications that such a person doesn't see the inevitable responses coming and therefore, due to his continued usage of bad manners and unsults; that such a tactic is purpetrated willfully and specifically to generate those negative responses.

All true criticism is constructive.

For example: take someone crticizing my posts and mixing in just enough real information to hint at legitimacy, as if his real intent is to correct an error of mine, but for the most part the criticism is off-topic and directly insulting. Unfortunately, all too often these types of posts are baseless and filled with so much vile inuendo that my efforts to find the path toward higher knowledge both difficult and impossible. Such posts contain no relative information. However those types of replies to my posts do lead toward improvement. They contain some value. I learn the meaning of ignoring. How it is done and how this act can be made useful. I do not pretend that by ignoring someone that they will go away. On the contrary; I expect that such attacks will continue and become more obvious for what they really are, to a point where moderators will step in.

One more point on the subject of censure will complete my defense against undesirable elements that may infect this post topic titled 'Acceleration experiments'. Censure is not good. If anyone is to speak their mind on any topic it is a good idea to allow them to do so; the question is where do you allow them to speak their minds?

Please don't stray too far off topic here:

If you have a comment or criticism concerning my Acceleration experiments or a comment on my tactic to avoid cluttering my post with insults then please do so here in this topic thread.

If on the other hand you wish to insult me.

Do so in another thread, please.

You can title your post: "Insults toward JG14_Josf concerning his Acceleration experiments"

Please do this so I can more easily ignore your posts.

I may need help from the Moderators on this point.

Consider the need to avoid mixing the negative posts with the possitive ones.

I am so far able to remaining positive.

JG14_Josf
05-26-2004, 09:13 AM
This experiment can be conducted in three ways:

1. Physical testing.
2. Mathematical calculation
3. Logical consideration.

I propose that the last example will suffice for my purposes.

Hypothesis:

Three objects of various sizes and weights will not all fall at the same speed. Although the force of gravity is constant another force is present. Drag is another force that exists on our planet. Air get's in the way of things
that are being accelerated by the force of gravity. Both weight and shape change this force of resistance or drag imposed upon objects by the atmosphere as they are being accelerated by the force of gravity.
Weight and shape effect acceleration and since gravity is a constant the obvious deduction is that weight and shape must therefore change the force of resistance or drag.

The following test is easy. This test is done within the confines of your mind. All that is needed to conduct this test is for the individual to use common sense.

Test: Imagine dropping three different objects of various sizes and weights all at the same time and consider the time it will take for each object to reach the ground.

Material:
Object #1: A ballon filled with one metric liter of Helium (http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/he.html)
Density g/mL 0.0001787
Atomic weight u 4.0026

Object #2: A one cetemeter block of Polypropylene (http://www.plasticballs.com/plastic.html) or instead: a ping pong ball.
Specific Gravity: .90

Object #2: A hollow arrow filled with one cubic centimeter of Lead (http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/pb.html)
Density g/mL 11.4
Atomic weight u 207.2
11.35 g/cc

Conclusion:

If the force of gravity is constant then all three objects will fall at the same rate. Since all three objects will not fall at the same rate; the obvious conclusion is that another force acts upon those objects to limit the force of gravity. Since helium is lighter than air the ballon has negative acceleration downward. The ping pong ball and arrow both fall to the ground but the force that slows them down is not the same. Where one is able to minimize that opposing force the other is not, where one is held back considerably the other is more able to cut through the restriction with relative ease.

From the above experiment it is obvious that things that are up will encounter difficulty on their way down. Air get's in the way.


The above experiment inspires two questions:

How does shape effect resistance to the force of gravity?

How does weight effect the resistance to the force of gravity?

The second question should be made clear if it is imagined that the ballon filled with helium (Density g/mL 0.0001787, Atomic weight u 4.0026) going up were to be filled instead with lead (Density g/mL 11.4, Atomic weight u 207.2). It then goes down. The shape of the ballon remains the same and therefore is a constant between the two examples. The reason the ballon changes acceleration is not due to changes in shape, leaving weight as being the varible responsible for changes in acceleration.

The first question is a little more complicated.

Now it may be that this post is discarded by most as being irrelevant to our common interest i.e. Air Combat Simulation. This post may find no readership nor any interest on this board.
I suspect that, instead, this post will generate at least one response. I can picture this particular individual like the Shark in the movie Jaws. My mental imagery includes the accompanying sound track.
Ignoring these types of people can be done with a certain amount of amusment http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif One must actively ignore, the word 'ignore' is a verb. It is not a coincidence that the word 'ignore' sounds a lot like ignorant. The least of two evils is my choice:
a) to be ignorant of my chief critic's propaganda or
b) suffer his abuse.
Rare is the case where ignorance is the better choice.
Nobody is perfect.



On the question of the effects of shape on resistance to the force of gravity, in our world, it occurs to me to site the last, in this post, of my experiments.

Imagine two guys preparing to jump from a plane at say 3,000 meters altitude. Both of these subjects register the same exact number on a instrument used to measure weight and therefore weight is held at a constant value. If these two objects do not fall at the same rate then the obvious conclusion is that weight is not a factor in determining the variance in values of resistance or drag. Shape instead is responsible for any differences in acceleration.
Back to the two guys in the plane:
They both jump from the plane at the same time. One of these guys has a parachute and the other has an equal weight of cheeseburgers digested into the form of fat distributed around his ample 'spare tire'. Suppose that the guy with the parachute takes the time to deploy his parachute in an effort to change the shape of his mass as he jumps from the plane, and imagine the relative effects of drag force acting against the force of gravity for the other guy who, perhaps, tries to eat his last cheeseburger before he realizes the true relationship that shape has upon the force of gravity.

Now, for those who like reading my posts, few as they may be, my next bit here is to make this post relevant to our common interest.

Heavy, well shaped planes, are not effected by the force of gravity (measurable as dive acceleration) at the same rate as lighter, less aerodynamic planes; in the real world.

On the contrary, WWII fighter planes, as described by the pilots who flew them, accelerated in dives at noticeably different rates and these differences were utilized to advantage in combat.

My hope is that the new sim models such differences more accurately and will better simulate what is desribed as Figther Combat in WWII history.

If you are reading this, I hope that you have had as much fun as I did and please excuse the off topic dive into preventative propaganda.

Here is a quote that I find useful. Perhaps you can too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"My point is that habitual indirection in speech supports and stimulates a habit of indirection in thought: and this habit, if not pretty closely watched, runs off into intellectual dishonesty."

Albert J Nock, Brussels, July, 1935

In other words, critisicm should be direct, with no hidden agenda.

For example:

I can't stand reading a post where the obvious intent is to hide behind the veil of apt criticism as if to counterfeit legitimacy; all for the mere purpose of obfuscation. Bad manners and insults generate the same type of responses i.e. more bad manners and more insults. It is difficult to believe that when bad manners and insults are the bread and butter of a persons communications that such a person doesn't see the inevitable responses coming and therefore, due to his continued usage of bad manners and unsults; that such a tactic is purpetrated willfully and specifically to generate those negative responses.

All true criticism is constructive.

For example: take someone crticizing my posts and mixing in just enough real information to hint at legitimacy, as if his real intent is to correct an error of mine, but for the most part the criticism is off-topic and directly insulting. Unfortunately, all too often these types of posts are baseless and filled with so much vile inuendo that my efforts to find the path toward higher knowledge both difficult and impossible. Such posts contain no relative information. However those types of replies to my posts do lead toward improvement. They contain some value. I learn the meaning of ignoring. How it is done and how this act can be made useful. I do not pretend that by ignoring someone that they will go away. On the contrary; I expect that such attacks will continue and become more obvious for what they really are, to a point where moderators will step in.

One more point on the subject of censure will complete my defense against undesirable elements that may infect this post topic titled 'Acceleration experiments'. Censure is not good. If anyone is to speak their mind on any topic it is a good idea to allow them to do so; the question is where do you allow them to speak their minds?

Please don't stray too far off topic here:

If you have a comment or criticism concerning my Acceleration experiments or a comment on my tactic to avoid cluttering my post with insults then please do so here in this topic thread.

If on the other hand you wish to insult me.

Do so in another thread, please.

You can title your post: "Insults toward JG14_Josf concerning his Acceleration experiments"

Please do this so I can more easily ignore your posts.

I may need help from the Moderators on this point.

Consider the need to avoid mixing the negative posts with the possitive ones.

I am so far able to remaining positive.

LobotomyGuru127
05-26-2004, 09:22 AM
I'm reading your post again... not sure I'm understand, but you out-smart me big time in physics http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Interesting topic.

SUPERAEREO
05-26-2004, 09:24 AM
I don't wish to insult anyone, but the considerations outlined above represent such a panoplia of truisms and tautologies that the only conclusion I can tentatively put forward is that their author must have smoked stuff far more potent of the one I had occasionally abused of in my twenties. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The ideas are valid in themselves, but they have been around since the time of Galileo and should be obvious to anyone with the most basic understanding of aerodynamics or just enough intuition or empirical experience of motion through a fluid.

So, why bother writing such a long post?

Or am I being dense..?

S!


"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yaeger

JG14_Josf
05-26-2004, 09:55 AM
Superaereo,

Why post...?

So I can look up words like 'panoplia' and 'tautologies' Thanks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You, sir, are a very good example of why I post here on this board.

LobotomyGuru127,

Please don't confuse my lack of ability in writing with your lack of ability in reading, or comprehending.

If I were good at writing my posts would have about 90 percent less words and as much more content.

What is striking, at this time, is the obvious differences between these first two responses. Is it not clear that at least some confusion exists concerning acceleration?

Is it not a good idea to share ideas on this subject, on this board?

At the very least, I am learning the limits of my current ability to communicate.

Am I alone in evaluating my efforts based upon the number of responses like this:
'Interesting topic'
or the number of genuine, sincere smiley faces?

ZG77_Lignite
05-26-2004, 11:02 AM
The veritable cornucopia of verboseness of Josf's posts often inspire vexing villainous diatribes in return. However, I no longer attempt that after being 'edumacated' the last time I debated the panopolies of gravity and friction with him.

Regardless of my lack of ability or talent, I will offer one criticism, with regards to WWII combat: Josf, I believe you are missing 1/3 of the 'falling' equation (whereas the other 2/3s are gravity and form per weight), that other 1/3 being thrust. Namely horsepower (and its efficiency of useage) as compared to the aformentioned form/density.

No doubt you must agree that said Thrust has an even bigger influence than Mrs. Drag, though he (Mrs. Drag) may not be happy about it. If lead filled arrow raced a similarly weighted lead filled balloon that happened to be equipped with a 1800 horsepower BMW801D-2, VDM constant speed prop, and accoutrements to operate said BMW801D-2 such as fuel, (no doubt it would be an odd looking balloon, and a very large arrow) I would lay odds that the bulbous balloon would cross the 'finish line' first, even though Mrs. Drag and his blue high heels objects.

No comments please on the lifestyle of Mrs. Drag, he is his own person, and thus should be allowed to live as he sees fit, with a billowy blouse and purple pumps if he so wishes. No doubt the waters of understanding are muddied when Mrs. Drag contends with Thrust, even though Mr. Gravity is as constant as a stone (more so, even), but we muddle through as best we can. I stand back to be re-'edumacated', no doubt I require it like a fish needs water.

LEXX_Luthor
05-26-2004, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1. Physical testing.
2. Mathematical calculation
3. Logical consideration.

I propose that the last example will suffice for my purposes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JG14_Josf
05-26-2004, 12:38 PM
ZG77_Lignite,

I trust that the sarcasm in your expose of my tendency toward verbosity is harmless and is meant to incite humor. You have succeded in that with good effect. Your post inspired in me a case of the giggles. Thanks.

As to the effects of thrust (or for that matter even lift) on a fighter planes dive performance the question remains obscure in this thread, and in my own mind.

We may find it useful to keep our minds open enough to allow further 'edumacation'.

My intent, as far as I am able to realize, in posting these experiments is to limit the variables so as to minimize the confusion. As far as I can tell the arrow continues to win the race.

If it does us any good to strap on an engine we might as well add all the other things that make a fighter plane relatively more effective.

What can you say about a Spitfire filled with helium diving in an equal contest against the forces of gravity and drag compared to a P-47 filled with lead?

Please first imagine that contest conducted with the engines and wings removed.

Then add the wings.

Then add the engines.

If in the first case the P-47 manages to win the race and if in the last case the Spitfire (under any conditions whatsoever) wins the race (imagine a low starting altitude and a minimum initial velocity) then does the forces enabling the P-47 to win in the first case disappear during the later case?

I am inclined to return to a more simple, step by step approach to the problem.

I am going to try to summarize my experiment and do my best to be concise so as to make clear that which is not so clear.

I hope my inablilty to see clearly is understood for what it is and not what is imagined.

As far as I know, weight has no effect upon the force of gravity. Light things fall at the same rate due to the constant force of gravity as do things that are heavy.

If this can be visualized in ones mind it may help to see the helimum filled balloon dropped at the same time as the lead filled arrow on another planet somewhere out in space. If a planet exists in space where the force of gravity is equal to that which is found on earth and that equal gravity planet does not have an atmosphere then such an experiment would prove the hypothesis: Weight has no effect on acceleration due to the force of gravity.

We march ourselves up to the top of a simulated leaning tower of Pisa constructed on the planet we found it space. Our alien planet does not have an atmosphere but it has the same exact force of gravity found on earth. Once we are poised on top of the tower and as we lean over the side we drop a helium filled ballon and an arrow filled with lead. We drop these two things at the same time.

What happens?

Since confusion is bound to occur as this experiment moves toward the more relevant factors involved in this effort to understand what goes on in the real world where fighter planes battle, I am going to stop here and hope for more critical input.

ZG77_Lignite
05-26-2004, 01:33 PM
Apologies Josf, it honestly was a vain attempt at humor, mixed with the hopeful furthering of your original hypothesis. However I did not mean to derail the original experiment with extraneous (and possibly even useless or incorrect) information.

It seems to me that the helium balloon and the lead arrow will strike the planet together, will they not? Weight is irrelevant with the absence of atmosphere as the accelerations acting upon them is equal; that of the planets gravity (at least I think this is what my high school science teacher taught me, its just that he left out the effects of atmosphere too, much to my embarrassment the last time I debated this subject on these boards, oh I am an ignorant glutton for embarrassment, you'd think I'd learn).

Please continue, I believe no one can refute the effect of Gravity in a vacuum, at least I have never heard of it, though I am less familiar with the world quantum physics, I hear those guys are Weird with a capital W, luckily the rest of us are much bigger and easier to define.

flockzap
05-26-2004, 01:45 PM
Geeez...
I recomend that you guys should smoke legal stuff.. cigarretes, cigars and similar, cause the ones you are on right now will get u both in trouble

S! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

JG14_Josf
05-26-2004, 02:23 PM
ZG77_Lignite,

I would accept your apology if I thought there was a need for it. There is no need for such a thing. My fit of giggles after reading your post was priceless http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

More of the same would move our world to a much better place in, I expect, an exponential factor, in much the same opposite or mirrored way that insults drive us toward a crude baseness.

Moving one step along in the experiment it occurs to me to go back to our alien planet.

The helium filled balloon and the lead filled arrow have been dropped and I now place on the ground two individuals that I will call Mr. Drag one and Mr. Drag two. These individuals will be placed above the ground where the two objects land. Mr. Drag one is placed under the balloon, while Mr. Drag two is placed under the arrow.

Our alien planet ramains absent an atmosphere and it continues to sport a gravity force equal to the one found on earth.

For the purpose of imagining the significance of shape and weight upon the force of drag I am going to imagine that our Mr. Drag one and Mr. Drag two are real people. They are looking up watching the balloon and the arrow as these two objects continue accelerating unabated toward their faces.

At the very same time that the balloon strikes Mr. Drag one; the Arrow strikes Mr. Drag two.

How does Mr. Drag one fare compared to Mr. Drag two as they tend to decelerate the objects being forced downward by gravity?

horseback
05-26-2004, 02:30 PM
This discussion reminds me of a problem we were given in one of my old college calculus classes involving terminal velocity. It was sufficiently long ago that I don't remember the particulars (lucky you!), but I do remember this fact: terminal velocity of a falling body occurs during free fall when a falling body experiences zero accelleration. This due to air resistance eventually balancing the falling body's weight.

Logically, a diving fighter aircraft rarely reached terminal velocity without encountering compression effects; pilots would try to slow the aircraft's speed short of that speed at which their individual plane type reached compressability. They would 'corkscrew' down, take a shallower angle, use the prop pitch as a brake, or deploy dive flaps or brakes if so equipped.

Therefore, top dive speed is determined by how well a given aircraft is streamlined (compressability is caused by the shock waves of those bits of air reaching supersonic speeds by the way they are deflected over the airframe; logically, an aircraft that is aerodynamically efficient reaches compressability later than a 'bumpier' aircraft (Thunderbolt vs Lightning or Mustang vs Spitfire, for examples) and its weight.

How quickly it reaches that top dive speed is determined by those two factors plus the thrust from its engine/propellors. An engine/prop combination that is inefficient pretty much wastes the potential horsepower of the engine; the 'paddleblade' props on the Thunderbolt made the R-2800 much more effective than the original props that equipped early models.

Therefore, weight and aerodynamic efficiency appears to be more important than horsepower in determining a given aircraft's maximum diving speed. Big efficient airframes accellerate to the near compressability range more quickly than the light weight 'hotrod' (high hp to weight) designs in a headlong dive, and would have a later onset of compressability.

Hopefully, this has met the verbosity requirement.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

k5054
05-26-2004, 03:06 PM
Josf, all these things can be calculated. The component of the weight (in a non-vertical dive) is by far the most important factor in the acceleration. Say you have a 10,000lb a/c in a 45 degree dive, the weight component along the direction of travel is 7071 lb. The thrust (at 300mph, say) is maybe 1800 lb, the drag about 1000. So you have (on the order of ) 800 lb net thrust and 7071 lb weight. The net thrust, which differs between aircraft, is not very significant. (P-47, 2300lb thrust, 1440lb drag, net thrust 860 lb, weight component about 10,000 all at 300mph, 45 deg)
The thrust is equal to the drag at level max speed for the altitude, after which the net thrust is negative. Differences in speed and extension/closure build up slowly. When the drag goes up due to higher speeds, that's when the differences appear. That's why you can, and should, compare aircraft using the weight/CdA.
No helium balloons are required to do this.
Is anyone using devicelink to do dive testing?

JG14_Josf
05-26-2004, 09:38 PM
Thanks for that clarifications.


I want to return to the alien planet and check up on those two individuals who by now have suffered the consequences of standing underneath the Balloon and the arrow.


Since nothing other than those two guys stood in the way of the force of gravity the Balloon and the Arrow continued to accelerate from the moment they were dropped until the moment they contacted the two Mr. Drags.

Every second those objects fell their speed increased. As far as I know: absent a force or object in their way those objects would keep on accelerating until they were stopped by the source of the gravity. In other words the higher they were dropped the faster they will go. Well, I think the force of gravity decreases with increased distance from the source. Dropping something on the Moon, for instance is not going to fall to the Earth.

Back to the two Mr. Drags. Is it reasonable to conclude that Mr. Drag #2 will have a harder time dealing with the arrow than #1 will have dealing with the balloon?

So far we have two objects of different weights and shapes falling side by side in a vacuum and continuing to accelerate until these objects meet a form of resistance.

The Arrow penetrates the resistance with comparative ease compared to how the balloon penetrates the resistance.

I imagine that the arrow has gone right through Mr. Drag #2.

It is difficult to concieve that a Balloon filled with Helium is going to cause much damage even at 'higher speeds'.
I see no reason to be more specific when defining the forces involved. Moving arrows filled with lead penetrate more than moving Balloons filled with helium and this is even more clear when both are traveling at the same speed.

This experiment shows how the object called a Planet will generate the same force upon any other object of any size or shape. The effect of that force of gravity on our light round Balloon is the same as the effect of that force of gravity on the heavy narrow Arrow. They both accelerate at the same speed.

The next question that is raised by our Alien Planet experiment is:

What does the Arrow have that the Balloon doesn't have which allows the Arrow to penetrate better?

Since the planet treats both objects in the same manner, since both objects were dropped from the same distance above the planet's surface, and since both objects reached the resistances at the same speed, what then causes the Arrow to penetrate the resistance better than the Balloon? What forces the Arrow through Mr. Drag #2
What force is missing from the Balloon that simply bounces off Mr. Drag #1?

Red_Russian13
05-26-2004, 10:04 PM
Interesting read.

AdEridanus
05-26-2004, 10:24 PM
Neato! Now do it in the context of a graviton theory model! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Dolemite-
05-26-2004, 10:49 PM
http://www.dumbpics.com/pictures/20.jpg
woops, wrong picture

"Ready For Takeoff"
http://www.aviationpics.de/military/1999/20.jpg

___________________________________________
Flying on HL as -Dolemite-
http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf &lt;----- ya wont regret it

wayno7777
05-26-2004, 11:33 PM
Methinks there is too much information and not enough information. Not to take the air out of your sails, but take the air out of the equation and you have a mute point. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

World War Two Weekend June 4-6, 2004 Reading, PA
Over 70 planes including a P-38 (hopin' for GG)
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/wayno77-topcover2.JPG
Gen. Carl Spaatz: "I'd rather have an airplane that goes like hell and has a few things wrong with it than one that won't go like hell and has a few things wrong with it."
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one!

LEXX_Luthor
05-27-2004, 12:06 AM
Without the tools for real frontline environment generator in FB, they have nothing else to do.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Friendly_flyer
05-27-2004, 01:07 AM
A very entertaining read Gentlemen, but to what avail? I am still waiting for the relevance to our beloved game to come forth.

Fly friendly!

Petter Bøckman
Norway

Cragger
05-27-2004, 01:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Thanks for that clarifications.


How does weight effect the resistance to the force of gravity?

The second question should be made clear if it is imagined that the ballon filled with helium (Density g/mL 0.0001787, Atomic weight u 4.0026) going up were to be filled instead with lead (Density g/mL 11.4, Atomic weight u 207.2). It then goes down. The shape of the ballon remains the same and therefore is a constant between the two examples. The reason the ballon changes acceleration is not due to changes in shape, leaving weight as being the varible responsible for changes in acceleration.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It appears that you are confusing weight with mass here. Weight is not a measurement of mass, weight is the measurement of the effect of the force of gravity on the mass of an object. Two objects of equal mass and equal air drag coefficient, and equal density will fall at the same rate in a medium.

The only thing that effects the ballon with helium is its density, Helium being less dense than air is pushed upward because the higher density air displaces the helium pocket do to the force of gravity acting on the air.

The only thing that mass and therefore weight really effects on an aircraft is its acceleration and the ammount of thrust that has to be vectored into lift to counteract its weight. The more thrust directed into lift thru wings the more induced drag therefore less speed is obtainable, and acceleration is reduced.

Mass directly effects acceleration thru inertia. The more mass to an object the more inertia it has and the more resistant it is to forces acted on it. Thus a 'lighter' plane will accelerate faster and deccelerate (not scientific terms, but more generally understood) than a 'heavier' plane with identical drag.

Now here is the kicker. In a medium such as air two objects will fall at the same rate if their mass, desnity, and drag is identical. And what do you have if two objects have identical drag, mass, and density?... you guessed it two of the same object. Here is why:

Same mass & density = same volume

Same volume & density = same size

Same volume & mass & denisty = same material

Same volume & drag = same shape

Now you can have two objects of identical desnity, volume, and mass but have different shapes therefore having different drag. Which is the principle that things such as parachutes work on.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

EFG_Zeb
05-27-2004, 02:19 AM
Cragger, your post is the first sensible post in this thread...
Let's go to Josf alien planet which has no atmosphere, and therefor no drag... Climb on top of the tower of finite height. Mrs Josf weights 10kgs and Mr Josf weights 100kgs...They both jump off the tower at the same time... Mr Josf will reach the ground first (and make a bigger crater than Mrs Josf)...Because his mass is greater so his acceleration higher...

"See, Decide, Attack, Reverse or Coffee Break" E.H.

WTE_Ibis
05-27-2004, 02:23 AM
What a load of self indulgent wan@ing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Ibissix-schmile.JPG
www.uploadit.org/Ibissix/MOSSIE.jpg

Kuikueg
05-27-2004, 05:49 AM
I think that if we were to let Josf's posts fall along with the lead ballon, the posts would fall faster.

Kuikueg


http://server5.uploadit.org/files2/311203-Gaviota.jpg

Fehler
05-27-2004, 06:30 AM
My vote is for world peace. In the absence of that, I'll take a nice Winnebago!

Oh, and stop the sleep deprivation experiments... They make you all weird 'n stuff!

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

Willthisnamedo
05-27-2004, 07:04 AM
Also, of course, any such thought experiment must account for all relevant factors: you have correctly mentioned weight, mass, drag and density, and such aerodynamic factors as Reynolds and Mach numbers.

You have, however, failed to take account of the Maddox number. This is an overall effectiveness factor applied to any combat a/c, based on the rotational effect of the earth's spin (like 'coriolis' force, which has to be accounted for in long range gunnery).

The simplest algorithm for its calculation is MF = 1/Dist, where 'dist' is the distance in kilometers from the borders of Russia at which the plane was manufactured. Some believe the M number can even be applied 'negatively' according to how far inside these borders it was built, but this would produce insanely unrealistic values for Russian aircraft, and I discount this theory... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG14_Josf
05-27-2004, 08:18 AM
Thanks for all the kind words. Thanks for the precise and relevant critisicm.

I am left however lacking a direct answer to most of the questions I've posted.

So, please, if you are going to post in this thread then consider staying on topic.

If you are going to help me in my experiment then consider answering the questions I pose.

I am trying to communicate with people like me that don't know everthing. If you do know everthing and want to help me, then try answering the questions, directly. That would be very helpful.

If on the other hand a motive exists other than to help communicate these ideas presented in this post, then please find your own post to disseminate your message.

It seems obvious to me that some people are posting here, on this very limited subject, with off-topic messages. Your messages don't belong here, why post them here? (Answer that in your own mind or on your own post topic: 'Why I find reason to post messages that have nothing to do with the topic where I am posting')

Misery may love company but you won't find that type of company here in my post. Get out and stay out, find people who enjoy misery and have a good old time insulting each other, laughing, or whatever it is your kind do to have fun.

Here is a post topic for you:

'Post here and see who can insult better, or worse, I'm not sure how that part goes.'

Well, I thoroughly off track now, and still left with the need to explain what forces the arrow through Mr.Drag #2. Was it density like sectional density?

Anyway the arrow does go through, and as far as I know it will continue to go through because it can, while the Balloon cannot.

Willthisnamedo
05-27-2004, 08:24 AM
Actually, it's all down to brownian motion. Air molecules randomly bounce harder off different coloured aircraft (the so-called 'brehmstrahlung' effect), and so the national choice of camouflage scheme affects aircraft performance.

The Americans discovered this as a spin off from the Manhattan project, which is why they were the first to stop bothering to camouflage their aircraft, and leave them silver.

They put out a cover story about the weight of the paint, but this was actually how the P51d got its fantastic range: you'll notice that the earlier, painted versions could not get to Berlin and back...

JG14_Josf
05-27-2004, 11:39 AM
Friendly_flyer wrote:

"A very entertaining read Gentlemen, but to what avail? I am still waiting for the relevance to our beloved game to come forth."

Rejoice! A common interest, perhaps a kindred spirit speaking out and communicating, among other good things, a need to be relevant.

All through my study of Air Combat I have found a consistant experience reported by Fighter Pilots in WWII on the subject of relative dive and zoom performance.

My next effort is to site one of those specific historical examples.

Please note; anyone who is familiar with my past efforts on this type of communication to better understand the reality of comparative dive (and zoom) performance; that the following historical example is a new one.

Previously I have sited other striking, and perhaps more relevant examples. I am perfectly willing to repeat those, however, I stumbled upon this example and it will do quite well for the intended purpose.

The following example is not the best example to fit the current topic, however it does illustrate the basic premise that a contradiction exists between what is in the game and what is reported in historical accounts. This perception of 'contradiction' is the incentive behind this post and my efforts to explain, understand, and identify the reasons for 'contradiction'.

After reporting the following example I will try to explain why I think it is relevant.

The danger in reporting this historical example is that it will be picked apart as being irrelevant or worse; it will be used to support a contrary relevence, to which I must caution the serious readers to seek out the specific relevance my effort suggests. Maintaining relevance is my goal, others, who do not share my goal have their own reasons for posting in 'my' thread.

From Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw:

______________________________
'Actual combat accounts of the successful use of energy tactics are rare, but the following example is a beauty. Here John Godfrey's P-51B Mustang has probably 20 percent lower wing loading than the German Focke-Wulf 190D-9 opponent, and Godfrey increases his turn advantage further by skillful use of flaps. The Focke-Wulf, however, may have 20 percent better power loading. Here are two masters at work:
"A plane was approaching, and because of its long nose I thought it was a Mustang. Turning into it I received a shock: it was neither a Mustang nor an ME-109, but a new Focke-Wulf; its long nose was the latest improvement of the famed FW. These planes with the longer noses were rumored to have more horsepower than their predecessors, and were capable of giving a Mustang a rough time. We met practically head-on and both of us banked our planes in preparation for a dogfight.
Around and around we went. Sometimes the FW got in close, and other times, when I'd drop my flap to tighten my turn, I was in a position to fire; but the German, sensing my superior position, kept swinging down in his turn, gaining speed and quckly pulling up, and with the advantage in height he would then pour down on my tail. Time was in his favor, he could fight that way for an hour and still have enough fuel to land anywhere below him. I still had 400 miles of enemy territory to fly over before I could land. Something had to be done. Throwing caution to the wind I lifted a flap, dove and pulled up in a steep turn, at the same time dropping a little flap. The G was terrific, but it worked, and I had the jerry nailed for sure. Pressing the tit I waited, but nothing happened, not a damned thing. My guns weren't firing.
By taking this last gamble I had lost altitude but had been able to bring my guns to bear while flying below the FW. With his advantage of height he came down, pulled up sharp, and was smack-dab on my tail again. The 20 mm. cannons belched and I could see what looked like golf balls streaming by me. A little less deflection and those seemingly harmless golf balls would have exploded instantly upon contact with my plane. "Never turn your back on and enemy" was a byword with us, but I had no choice. Turning the plane over on its back I yanked the stick to my gut. My throttle was wide open and I left it there as I dove. The needle stopped at 600 miles per-that was as far as it could go on the dial. Pulling out I expected any minute to have the wings rip off, the plane was bucking so much. The last part of my pull-up brought me up into the clouds. I was thankful to have evaded the long-nosed FW, for that pilot was undoubtedly the best that I had ever met."

Practical Aspects of the Energy Fight. Although the foregoing tactics are academically sound in a sterile environment, there are some practical considerations which complicate matters in actual combat. One of these is the difficulty of maintaining sight of the opponent. Extension/pitch-back tactics result in great distances being generated between fighter and bogey.'
_______________________________________

Before moving on I wish to express my very serious need to communicate the value of that book: Fighter Combat. If my post here does nothing more than ispire one person to pick it up and read it then I will be satisfied that I am doing something worth while.

Look at the bold type (mine) on the last sentence in that quote from 'Fighter Combat'.

Next I will point to my sense of relevance between the quote from Fighter Combat and this post topic. If you see it then please consider responding, if you don't see the relevance or if you see that the quote is relevant to something else then please consider not responding here, instead, please post your own topic and do your best to communicate your line of thinking, in your own topic thread, and thereby avoid cluttering up this one.

When a balloon filled with Helium is dropped at the same time that an arrow with lead is dropped, on the planet earth, great distances are being generated between them.

Kuikueg
05-27-2004, 12:16 PM
I wonder if you will ever get to the point, mate.

Kuikueg


http://server5.uploadit.org/files2/311203-Gaviota.jpg

RedDeth
05-27-2004, 01:00 PM
Josf gets todays award congrats! "1ST Place most useless post of the day award"

and he actually got a double whammy ...its a new first on the forums! he also wins "BIGGEST Troll Of The WEEK award"

please enjoy these great awards while smoking a fine cigar and reading scientific american in your NEW porsche were giving you !!!

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

JG14_Josf
05-27-2004, 01:25 PM
It seems clear that an adjustment needs to be made in my request, previously written as:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if you don't see the relevance or if you see that the quote is relevant to something else then please consider not responding here <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, my request is as follows:

If you do not see the relevance between my experiments in acceleration and what is simulated in the game, and if you are curious enough to want to see this relevance, as I percieve it exists, then try to communicate what, if anything, is missing.

If on the other hand, you do not and will not participate in this edeavor, if instead your only incentive to respond is to refute any such notion then please consider posting elsewere.

Energy fighting, as described in various histrical and instructive references require that one plane has the capacity to gain relative energy over another plane.

Example:
Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw
One-versus-one Maneuvering, Dissimilar Aircraft
page 141

"In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent"


Notice the words: 'faster acceleration'.

Now going back to my topic title "Acceleration experiments"

The point may be made more clear by moving back to the alien planet.

Remember the question: What does the Arrow have that the Balloon does not have to enable the Arrow to penetrate Mr. Drag?

I tried to illustrate a relationship by filling the arrow with lead and then comparing the heavy arrow to the light balloon which was filled with helium.

The reason I used lead and helium is because the differences in their weight would be large and therefore the effect of this striking difference would be made more obvious.

Now it may help to illustrate a much larger difference in weight and then it may be more clear as to what is happening to allow the arrow to penetrate Mr.Drag better than the balloon.

It may also help to eliminate the differences in shape so as to concentrate more on the differences in weight, or mass, or density, I am not certain which word is more appropriate, however weight does show up on a scale and is therefore more easily measured.

Back on the alien planet without an atmosphere we can find two Mr. Drags standing in their places under the replicated Leaning Tower of Pisa. The force of gravity remains the same as it is on Earth.

Note: Mr. Drag #2 is no longer with us, he suffered an acute case of arrow penetration. In his place is Mr. Drag #3 and he appears to be very nervous.

I am on the ground looking at two new objects that are the same size and shape on the ground next to the two Mr. Drags and I need to carry these objects up to the top of the tower and drop them on my chosen forms of resisitance.

Each object is on their own scale. One object weighs in at .0000000000000000000001 pound.

The other object requires a very special scale. It weighs 10000000000000000000 pounds.

The obvious occurs to me that in order to get the heavy object in place for the experiment a whole lot of energy is going to be expended in that effort.

Somehow we manage to get the two objects in place.

Mr. Drag #3 did in fact draw the short straw and he is becoming very nervous as the enormous nuclear crane grunts and groans and lifts the little heavy object into place.

The objects are released from the same height at the same time.

Do they accelerate at the same rate?

Do these two objects contact our Mr. Drags at the same time?

What is the fate of Mr. Drag #3, is he able to resist the acceleration of the very heavy object?

What is the cause of differences in ability for the light object and the heavy object to penetrate resistance?

Cragger
05-27-2004, 01:48 PM
Without an atmosphere there is no resistance because there is no medium. Two objects dropped in a vaccum at the same distance from gravitational force greater than them will both contact the object generating the gravitational force at the same time. This has been proven repeatedly in vaccum chambers and is fact.

And again you miss the point, the weight of your helium in the balloon has nothing to do with the difference its purely in the density. By being of a lesser density it is displaced by a higher density fluid. This is why a suspension mixture of fluids of differrent density will stratify (seperate into layers).

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

tsisqua
05-27-2004, 02:00 PM
Uhhhh . . .



Never mind.

JG14_Josf
05-27-2004, 02:19 PM
Cragger,

Respectfully, I must point out that your first comment is appropriate while your last is not.

The line of thinking has moved on. The topic is now concerning two objects of the same size and shape. Disregard the Balloon for a moment.

Can I take it from your first comment that for the last experiment the following questions, that were generated by the last experiment, can be answered in the affirmative:

1. Do they accelerate at the same rate?

2. Do these two objects contact our Mr. Drags at the same time?

I think yes; that they can be answered in the affirmative.

Please consider that your statement as follows is quite in error and in fact is true if it is applied to your statement where this quote is found:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And again you miss the point <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is impossible for me to find any value in your criticism when it is so vague. This is why I have found, over time and experience, to move along in a deliberate, simple, step by step manner.

If I have not offended you to much; is it possible that you still have enough respect for the topic if not at all for me, to answer the last of the questions posted in my last experiment; as follows:

What is the cause of the differences in ability for the light object and the heavy object to penetrate resistance?

It occurs to me that the moderators job is a very difficult one. Idealy, for my own purposes, a moderator would pick out all the posts that contain an obvious mean spirited intent to do no more than insult, and they would then moderate that collection into a separate forum titled:
"Garbage"

Well that would be my title, perhaps the posters most prone to be moderated to that forum would lobby for a different title such as:
"Useful comments"

I would agree to a compromise title:

"Subjective humor"

Cragger
05-27-2004, 02:48 PM
Your expression of your setup is hard to understand.

Is your question what determines the ability of the falling objects of different weights to overcome the resistance of the terminal mass they meet?

If this is so then the key factors would be the inertia, shape, and density of the falling objects. Inertia is a product of mass and velocity in this instance and is generally expressed as kinetic energy. Inertia and denisty are dirrectly related to each other as that an object having a higher density but of the same size would have more mass therefore more inertia at a given velocity.

The second factor would be the ability of the terminal mass to resist the falling mass. This would be a product of several things, Inertia, mass, density, and molecular/atomic structure.

Now this is all complicated so lets reduce this down by elimanating variables. If I recall both your objects are of the same size/volume and shape but have different mass therby different density.

So we have two objects of different density thereby different mass but of the same shape, volume, velocity and are both impacting the same material at identical velocity.

So now the only difference in these two objects when they impact is kinetic energy (mass*velocity) where velocity is identical. Kinetic energy is Inertia expressed in measurement units (Joules).

Since the object of much larger mass has much more Kinetic Energy (Inertia) but the same size, shape and impacting the same material the object with more Kinetic Energy will be more able to overcome the resistance of the material they are hitting.

Now you are right in that lifting the objects takes energy and that energy is stored as Potential Energy (Joules) this is the resultant of mass times the distance from the gravitational force acting on it. PE is converted into KE by accellerating towards the body acting on it. In a vacuum no Energy would be lost due to friction thus PE=KE at impact.

Now if you've followed this thru to the end you probably realize both Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy are Inertia at different states. Thus the answer is Inertia is the deteriming factor.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

JG14_Josf
05-27-2004, 03:14 PM
Cragger,

Thank you very much. I feel like a starving dog that has just been given a hugh slab of fresh meat.

It is time to get busy with my chores and then I will seek out the JG14 IL2 bunch for our daily on-line fun. I hear that Greatergreen is back on-line.

Meanwhile, the steak is very delicous and I can only hope that what comes out, once it is digested, doesn't too much resemble feces. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

k5054
05-28-2004, 03:02 AM
Josf, the thing you are looking for is an established part of physics and you could look it up on a ballistics site. The factor which is used to measure the effect of air drag on free-falling bodies is the ballistic coefficient. It's the weight divided by the product of the drag coefficient and the cross-section area (for a bullet or rocket, in aviation we use a drag coeff based on the wing area, usually, but the result is the same).
Of course, aircraft with engines are not in free fall.

JG14_Josf
05-28-2004, 04:45 AM
k5054,

Something very curious happens when I post on these boards trying to communicate ideas, asking questions, and looking for answers.

What makes this phenomenon so curious is the consistancy of it.

People tell me what I want, or think, or need, or feel, and they even go as far as to tell me what are my motives. They don't bother to check or ask if what they conclude about me is true, the statements are made as facts, their confidence in their own sense of understanding must be enormous.

The problem is, since I do know what I want, feel, need, and since I do know what my motives are then I have a very reliable check on such statements made by others as to the validity of their statements.

"the thing I am looking for" is expressed in words to the best of my ability. If I fail in the job of communicating what I am looking for then I fail. If I can accept that failure for what it is then I may be able to improve that capacity.

OK, now I am curious enough to look back and re-read what I wrote to see where I went wrong.

I don't quite know how to proceed from here, I started reading my first post and found a bunch of preparatory stuff leading to a few questions. These questions were simple enough and with some thought the answers are clear enough.

Instead of going through the process of reading each progressive post along this thread in an effort to understand why you think what I am looking for is an established part of physics that I can look up on a ballistics site, which at this time, I assure you, I am not, I think it may be better to simply put that chore off for lack of current relevancy.

As far as this post is currently going; air hasn't been invented yet. It is at the moment too complicated. Thanks for the help, I can see that such information may become very valuable soon.

Meanwhile I need to chew on this inertia stuff a little longer.

That, my friend (if I can be so bold), is just what the doctor ordered at this time.

If you want to help in an up to date manner please consider answering the following question:

Does an object have inertia if it is not moving?

I ask that question because it occurs to me to make my small heavy object much heavier and instead of placing it on top of the leaning tower of pisa, my idea is to place that object motionless on top of Mr. Drag #4 and then let it go.

What this does for me; (really it does, I can see it clearly) is to picture an object for the thing that it is and not what it is doing.

If inertia must include velocity then that object doesn't have inertia until I let it go.

I am inclined now to wait for a clear answer before moving on.]

I can, and sometimes do, go looking for answers in books, and on the net, but one of my goals is to learn how to improve my ability to communicate with words and since this board is consistant in generating answers from generous caring people then this will do quite well for now.

Thanks again.

LEXX_Luthor
05-28-2004, 04:58 AM
Willthisnamedo:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Americans discovered this as a spin off from the Manhattan project, which is why they were the first to stop bothering to camouflage their aircraft, and leave them silver.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Troll. That's not it at all. By 1944 aircraft speeds were so great, the pilots could no longer enjoy the beautiful (non weathered) skins on enemy fighters. So they started leaving their aircraft unpainted, with only factory fresh voids.


Also, for the...ehem...Acceleration Characteristic Of Diving Aircraft In Downward Motion, one must consider the Delta Number. Planes with a higher delta would dive faster--I mean "delta wood" and not "delta would", sorry. Its related to the Maddox Number described above.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Inadaze
05-28-2004, 05:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flockzap:
Geeez...
I recomend that you guys should smoke legal stuff.. cigarretes, cigars and similar, cause the ones you are on right now will get u both in trouble

S! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hell, I'm as stoned as a house brick most of the time and I can't follow it either http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

What goes up usually comes down again. All you ever need to know. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif ~ Inadaze

moksha
05-28-2004, 05:57 AM
Would I be right in thinking object has inertia at rest (as an aside - but not momentum)?
Inert=not moving, not active.
inertia = resistance to change in velocity.
Inertia doesn't change with velocity but momentum does. (As long as velocity is such as to leave unaffected mass/density/volume..)
If you put object on victim's head the inertia of object will act as a tendency NOT to fall/accelerate-Mr Drag3 should be praying for lots of inertia?

Dem4n
05-28-2004, 08:56 AM
Very interessting.

To bring it to a psychological level: I would say Josf likes physical and mathematical discussions on subjects long theorized and prooven.
I think it's fine to try and rethink these, but I don't think this is the place.
Also you enjoy telling people off when they stray from the subject or start insulting (I don't see this reply as an insult) but you initially strayed with the topic.
I see no relevance what so ever to FB. I don't know how the physics are simulated, but the principal of "what goes up must come down" as stated above sound about right. How the engine effects the plane in diving in FB, forever lies hidden in the murky depths of Maddox minds (no offence intended).
As well as why this and that plane works differently and why some are capable of defying gravity alltogether. Generally this can be defined as cheating or stands in close relation to the Maddox coefficient mentioned before. Divespeed capabilities differing with the nationality of the a/c.
This throws up the question of wether a german or an american falls faster when thrown out of a window under the same surcumstances. This experiment - I will blithely call it murder - is totaly beside the point and makes no sense at all. Everyone reading this probably questions my sanity at this point and it's relevance to this post.
To wrap that up: FB has nothing to do with real life physics and thus this topic is off topic.

As I have absolutely no intention of reading my post again to find out why I posted in the first place I'm thoroughly confused and have suffered extensive brain damage in conceiving the relevance and relations of Josf to Mr. Gravity and the other way around. Since Mr Gravity is male, it is highly inappropriate I mentioned it in the first place. Getting together with the rather hot Mrs Drag sounds better to me.

Something tells me I should quit now while it is still possible. Better a horrible end than a non-ending horror.

And, as you will be stating correctly in your next post: I'm wasting time. Yours and mine.

Oh, and theres no power in drugs! Unless threy're at a higher altitude than groundlevel, which would make them energetic and surely unreachable. Yet the possibilities seem breathtaking. Imagine!

bazzaah2
05-28-2004, 09:29 AM
I don't know whether anyone above pointed out the following logical problem;

post boxes are red. Therefore, everything that is red is a postbox.

I believe, though would need to check, that Wittgenstein found this issue most troubling and devoted his 'Tractatus Logico-philospohicus' to it.

I hope that helps. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

SUPERAEREO
05-28-2004, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bazzaah2:
I don't know whether anyone above pointed out the following logical problem;

post boxes are red. Therefore, everything that is red is a postbox.

I believe, though would need to check, that Wittgenstein found this issue most troubling and devoted his 'Tractatus Logico-philospohicus' to it.

I hope that helps. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Far from it, bazzaah, it complicates the problem: some European countries have green or yellow postboxes.

This clearly demonstrates that sprouts and lemons are postboxes too.

Who's eating my mail?

S!

"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."
Chuck Yaeger

JG14_Josf
05-28-2004, 12:13 PM
This topic is a progression of ideas.

In order to further that along I am going to borrow a word that came from an unexpected source.
My daughter asked for my help with a mathematical word problem. She is 10 years old and the problem was simple enough to suggest that it would be easy for me to solve. I am, after all, much older and one would expect; more educated.
My daughter couldn't wait any longer for the answer.
She asserted that she would 'brainstorm' the problem and then did so.

Armed with this new word or idea; I have since set about 'brainstorming' the progress of this topic, specifically I have been chewing up the latest chuck of stuff that has been so generously provided by my new found associate (friendship may be too strong a word at this time).
Cragger used words in just the right combination that they struck me and they would not leave my being. It seems clear now that he is keeping one step ahead of me instead of the many steps ahead I estimated earlier.
Baby steps please Cragger.
I must crawl before I can walk.

To one of the words Cragger communicated I wish to add one more word and thereby express the product of my latest digestion.

Please, let me know if this smells like **** to you. It is smelling very sweet to me. But then again my nose doesn't work so well; if the comparison of my ability to that of a 10 year old's is any measure.

And the idea, the progression of ideas, is now expressed by these two words:

&lt;PLOP&gt;

Relative Density

There it is, don't get too close, you might get some on you.

Comprehension for me is often fleeting and the more so as I get older, so it may be appropriate to explain the progression of this idea while I still have a grasp on it.

To accomplish this task I need to get back to the alien planet where the experiment is currently being acted out.

Mr. Drag #3 is no longer with us, his relative density was very much less than the small heavy object and his relative density was not enough to keep him alive.

An object of incredible weight was dropped from a high place and it went down at a specific rate of acceleration, gaining speed with every passing moment until it contacted Mr. Drag #3's head. Due to a very high negative factor of relative density Mr. Drag was almost totally incapable of resisting the acceleration of that small heavy object. It was horrible. The small heavy object went right through Mr. Drag #3 like a hot knife through butter.

Now, it may be assumed that velocity contributed to the demise of Mr. Drag #3 and I have no reason to doubt this, however, for the purposes of this topic I see a need to eliminate that variable so as to more clearly identify just what that little heavy object has going for it. I really want to find out why that heavy object does what it does so well.

Mr. Drag #4, although a very reluctant test subject, is now placed next to Mr. Drag #1.

(Don't worry too much about our supply of Mr. Drags; Imagination is limitless. The Mr. Drags are here to add a sense of immediacy to the proccess of thought)

Mr. Drag #1 is already in place and actively representing half of this next experiment. The small light-weight ball already fell down, bounced a few times and is now resting comfortably on top of Mr. Drag #1's head.

What is required to finish this next test, to complete the other half of the test, is to place the small heavy object on top of Mr. Drag #4.

And then let it go.

The newest test eliminates the greatest possible amount of pervious movement. What is being done in this experiment is to eliminate as many of the variables that are possible and concentrate only on the last variable. I am reluctant as yet to label that variable, it may be called mass, or it seems to me now, the better label is density.

Two objects of the same size and shape are placed motionless at the same distance from a source of gravity. Between these objects and the source of that force of gravity is a medium of resistance. I think that the only variable left is what shows up on a scale as weight.

With all the other variables removed; what is left to conclude from the results of what happens during the test is directly attributable to this remaining factor.

In other words, if these two objects are going to do something dissimilar, when the test starts, then the difference in what happens will be caused by differences in that last remaining variable; measured as weight.

Wait a minute, I see a problem. Now I am skipping ahead too far so as to miss an important factor. I can't get to this experiment without adding another confusing variable. This latest experiment has an undesirable variable that is 'an addition' to the variable that is measurable as weight. The two objects are not only dissimilar in that they both measure a different weight but in addition to that variable they also have different amounts of energy.

Does this condition help define inertia?

Can it be useful to back up one step in the process?

What can be known if those objects were both placed back on the ground?

How can we measure those objects so as to better know the difference between them as they rest, motionless, on the ground?

Reaching back to Cragger's communication of knowledge is helpful, I think.

After some effort, looking back at the previous posts, I am left with a need for help.

Is it possible to measure the inertia of those two objects as they rest on the ground?

Those objects can exist in reality, the possiblity is real enough, however if they were to exist they would require real, instead of imaginary, construction.

In closing this latest post it may help to reclaim some relevance to our common interest in Fighter Combat.

Looking back at the quote from Robert Shaw's book Fighter Combat is found a description of two objects that did exist and at some point in time those objects must have been resting, motionless, on the ground, without fuel. Is it possible to quantify the relative inertia of a P-51B Mustang compared to a Focke-Wulf FW190D-9 as they rest on the ground?

There they are, two very lethal contructions parked on some runway in time. How do they compare? How can they be measured in that static state? What is the significance of thier relative density and their relative static energy state or perhaps their relative levels of inertia?

Is this 'acceleration experiment' in any way useful in explaining John Godfrey's statement:

"I was in a position to fire: but the German, sensing my superior position, kept swinging down in his turn, gaining speed and quickly pulling up, and with the advantage in height he would then pour down on my tail"

Is it possible that the FW190D-9 sitting on the runway has an advantage in inertia or perhaps an advantage in relative density, or both?

Could it be that once the FW get's going it tends to keep going more so than the Mustang?

Is it possible that for all practical purposes, due to a difference in relative density that the FW190 can be deduced reciprocally as flying through relatively less dense air?

So, this is most likely way too much all at once and liable to generate a lot of negative responses.

I assure you that my purpose remains simply to learn.

Please, if you must respond, do so with good manners or not at all.

If you cannot respond in a civilized manner then please moderate yourselves enough to post your response in your own topic.

If you feel the need to correct my errors in thinking then please start with an explanation of inertia. Measure the two objects resting on the ground. Describe them exactly and only then proceed to direct the course of this line of thinking in a more accurate direction.

I could use some specific help.

I am hungry for a specific item on the menu.

Inertia a la carte.

moksha
05-28-2004, 02:31 PM
Sitting on a runway the fw190 has inertia.
This is a product of its mass.
Moving it has more MOMENTUM if the sum of it's mass x velocity is greater than that of the mustang.
I think, only think, that you need to get clear in your head the difference between momentum and inertia.
Momentum is energy in a given direction. Inertia is resistance to change-how much energy is needed to deflect or start in motion an object.

jg14_Scot
05-28-2004, 04:28 PM
Man my head hurts.......



http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

JG14_Josf
05-28-2004, 04:58 PM
Moksha,

You have succeeded in feeding the 'self indulgent wan@ing' beast.

Thanks.

Is it then possible to measure the small object sitting on the ground with the factor of 0 velocity and the factor of less than - &lt; - Mass while a the same time the static measurment of the samll heavy object has the same 0 velocity but the heavier object has a higher or greater than - &gt; - factor of Mass and this then shows that the small light object (both objects are the same size and shape) and the heavy object have relative values for inertia as follows: the light object inertia is less than the heavy object inertia?


Is it true that while weight measures the effect that gravity (a force that is independent from the object)has upon the object; inertia measures a force contained in the object itself?

Moksha wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Inertia is resistance to change-how much energy is needed to deflect or start in motion an object. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't it reasonable to conclude that resistance to change is a force like, for example,: Drag force?

How are things going back on the alien planet you ask?



anyone?



Times up, the JG14 bunch are getting ready to RUMBLE!

moksha
05-29-2004, 04:18 AM
Josf,
"and the heavy object have relative values for inertia as follows: the light object inertia is less than the heavy object inertia?
"
to my mind-yes as the energy needed to change lighter object is less than that for greater.


"Is it true that while weight measures the effect that gravity (a force that is independent from the object)has upon the object; inertia measures a force contained in the object itself? "
Sort of-to split hairs but perhaps give better idea of inertia, inertia is not a "force" inertia is a measure of the energy needed to
punt a given object into motion/change of direction. Sort of like "potential" energy.
Inertia is a property consequent on objects mass. To overcome inertia you apply a force.



"Isn't it reasonable to conclude that resistance to change is a force like, for example,: Drag force?"
Again I'd tend to split hairs and say no-resistance to change can be measured as the force needed to change it but is not a force itself, it is a property-given relative meaning in one way by making forces act upon it and seeing what happens relative to other amounts/types of force acting on it or the objects orginal state.

ptegomerpyle
05-29-2004, 06:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Lignite:
The veritable cornucopia of verboseness of Josf's posts often inspire vexing villainous diatribes in return. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*nods knowingly*

wtf http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img3.photobucket.com/albums/v32/PrivatePyle/minge.jpg

JG14_Josf
05-29-2004, 01:44 PM
JG14_Jagr and I shot down 3 P-38s, one P-47, one Mustang and damaged a Sptifre, a P-63, and a few other planes. We lost one airfame but we both survived.

Back to the alien planet:

The Mr. Drags are in place.

The same size, same shape very light object is in place. There is still no atmosphere.

The same size, same shape very heavy object is in place.

Both objects are on the ground, or rather, they are both on a solid steel plate.

______________________
Relevance note:

Understanding relative aircraft performance is the intended purpose of this experiment. However there are so many variables involved in relative aircraft performance that a need exists to identify the more difficult to understand variables like relative density, mass, and inertia. I am trying to identify these things one at a time.

If I can offer another situation now to link this latest alien planet experiment to fighter combat then consider the following as such a link.
I am trying to illustrate a half way point between the simple objects placed on the alien planet and the much more complicated fighter planes. These new objects are chosen for their obvious extreme differences in relative inertia.

In Los Angeles there is a beach where I practiced landing my Hang Glider. This beach is located just south of LAX airport.

My Hang Glider is on the beach. It weighs about 65 pounds.

The 757 Airliner is on the runway. The fuel alone in that plane weighs more than I can imagine accurately.
Think about relative inertia between these two objects, look at them in your mind as they sit motionless.
Move these two objects around some in your mind.
The Hang Glider is easy to move around as long as the wind isn't blowing too much.
Now move the Airliner. We can use one of those little tractors.
Now put the Airliner onto the beach and the Hang Glider onto the runway, and try moving them again.
___________________________

Back to the alien planet and the two equally small objects having the same shape:

The next requirment is to move these objects and place them on top of the heads of a resistive density i.e. the Mr. Drags.

The light object was easy to move, it was not blown around all over the place by any wind, it is after all a very very light object.

After picking up the light object with my thumb and forfinger and after placing it on top of Mr. Drag #1's head I tried to lift the heavy object with my fingers.

It would not bulge.

I tried kicking it and only hurt my foot.

It didn't move at all.

In fact this object sank into the solid steel plate.

How is this obvious difference in physical capability to be described?

Both objects fall at the same exact speed.
Both objects are the same exact size.
Both objects are the same exact shape.
One object is easy to move. The other is most difficult.
One object is easy to stop moving.
The other is most difficult.
One object is determined to move down, the other is supported above Mr. Drags #1's head by a few of his hairs.

It has been said by our very helpful associates partipating in this experiment that these objects are not equal in mass.

It has also been determined that absent any velocity (The heavy object may have compressed the steel under it to a higher density; it has stopped sinking) that without any factor of velocity the mass and the inertia of the objects are now the same. Mass now equals inertia.

The planet is pulling these objects and these objects have different physical properties contained within them that cause that equal force of gravity to act differently on each of these objects.

Although these objects move at the same speed by the force of the planets gravity when nothing is in the way to stop them, there is an obvious difference in what is required to stop the force of the planets gravity acting upon these two objects.

One object has an enormous ability to be moved by gravity. It moves with relative ease by gravity, but it is very difficult to move by any other means.

The other object will not move very easily by the force of gravity yet it is easy to move otherwise.

How can this be so that an object that is very difficult to move does move easily and another object that is easy to move will not move?

Mr. Drag #1 uses hair spray. I push the object on his head down to help gravity out a little but the object goes back up.

I ckeck the object on the steel plate and find that it has sunk even further into the steel. It is slowing down but it has not stopped yet. Gravity continues to accelerate that object.

Mr. Drag #4 is looking a little better. The atomic crane is in the shop for repairs. It threw a rod.

moksha
05-29-2004, 04:13 PM
You're going to end up with a black hole soon..