| |
Jesse Alan Long wrote:
>
> I have two more questions to ask you, Jason. The first question is would
> Newtonian physics contradict or complement the laws of aerodynamics? If
> there are any contradictions or further explanations from these rules,
> please explain them to me, Jason. The second question is what would work
> for an antigravity device for space craft, that is what materials and
> options could we use for space craft? I am glad that the long ordeal about
> the eternal space craft ethical war is almost over in Lugnet.
> Jesse Long
Laws of aerodynamics (aero*dynamics*) are nothing but Newtonian physics.
The whole governing equation of aerodynamics, the famous Navier-Stokes
equation, is just a different representation of our well known F=ma.
By the way, is it a miracle or what? Our dear Jesse the
Confused/Confusing Man finally posted a well organized and worded
message(1). Even, without any clue of misunderstandings of basic
science, and even with clues about "making fun before".
So were I right about non-existence of The Jesse Character portrayed in
previous weird posts, instead, a real Jesse (or whatever) was making fun
of us?..:-)
Selçuk
(1) http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=9629
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> friction in outer
what the flipping space monster burgers are
you talking about?
friction in space?
NOT, noway, nohow
wings are useless in space, dude.
i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
(i'm sure this has been said elsewhere
but hey i don't have time to look it up)
-paul
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > friction in outer
>
> what the flipping space monster burgers are
> you talking about?
>
> friction in space?
>
> NOT, noway, nohow
>
> wings are useless in space, dude.
> i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
No! Surely not!
I had always thought all that space suit rubbish was about protecting soft
and squidgy spacedudes from the howling radioactive solar wind, encountered
near suns.
So if its not to protect them from the wind, why do spacedudes muck about
with space suits, or is that just Hollywood making everything unnecessarily
dramatic (like the guy falling onto the propeller in Titanic)?
Richard
Still baldly going...
(while being quietly comprehensively flabbergasted at what goes on in .space)
(and if any of the many builders who have millions of attennas is about, I'd
like to know what attennas are, and whether you could spare a couple of
hundred thou - I've never encountered a Lego piece I couldn't use for
something...)
|
|
| |
its for vaccum and sun. sun is lethal out in space without ozone to protect
you from ulkmate sunburn and blindness.
gonna need air up there too heh
--
And they said 'Computers will never be in general use'
"Richard Parsons" <richard_w_parsons@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GFEr0r.6rA@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > > Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there • is
> > > friction in outer
> >
> > what the flipping space monster burgers are
> > you talking about?
> >
> > friction in space?
> >
> > NOT, noway, nohow
> >
> > wings are useless in space, dude.
> > i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
>
> No! Surely not!
>
> I had always thought all that space suit rubbish was about protecting soft
> and squidgy spacedudes from the howling radioactive solar wind, • encountered
> near suns.
>
> So if its not to protect them from the wind, why do spacedudes muck about
> with space suits, or is that just Hollywood making everything • unnecessarily
> dramatic (like the guy falling onto the propeller in Titanic)?
>
> Richard
> Still baldly going...
> (while being quietly comprehensively flabbergasted at what goes on in • .space)
>
> (and if any of the many builders who have millions of attennas is about, • I'd
> like to know what attennas are, and whether you could spare a couple of
> hundred thou - I've never encountered a Lego piece I couldn't use for
> something...)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Richard Parsons writes:
> > wings are useless in space, dude.
> > i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
>
> No! Surely not!
Oh stop. You guys are just trying to drive the postcount of loc.au up
because the whinging poms might stay ahead of you, or something. :-)
Next you'll be asking why the sky is blue over in lugnet.town, then you can
ask if you have to hold RCX's upside down when programming them in the
southern hemisphere over in lugnet.robotics. And if that doesn't do the
trick. postwise, you can always put in a post or two in lugnet.lego.direct
decrying the lack of S@H... that should do the trick. (all crossposted to
loc.au of course)
GRIN.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Richard Parsons writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > > Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > > friction in outer space
> >
> > what the flipping space monster burgers are you talking about?
You know, Like the one in some movie or other that nearly eats that
spaceship after they've landed in a cave on an asteroid which isn't a cave
but still has bat-things in it and an atmosphere of sorts and really squishy
ground and when they shoot the ground it's uh-oh time and they have to
escape quick between pointy teeth or esle they'de be crunched and munched
and generally unhappy, you know?
Ask Jesse, he reckons they make a good burger...
> > friction in space?
> > NOT, noway, nohow
> No! Surely not!
> I had always thought all that space suit rubbish was about protecting soft
> and squidgy spacedudes from the howling radioactive solar wind, encountered
> near suns.
> So if its not to protect them from the wind, why do spacedudes muck about
> with space suits, or is that just Hollywood making everything unnecessarily
> dramatic (like the guy falling onto the propeller in Titanic)?
It's cold in space, there's a raging wind-chill factor that does the
proverbials off of brass monkeys, (colder even than the Southern Highlands).
It's probably 'cause modern minifigs are really wussy and can't stand the
cold that they need to wear those visor thingies. I remember when I had a
smiley faced figure, he was kept warm by the glow of going where no 'fig had
gone before, he didn't need no visor or no enclosed cockpit with heated
leather chair.
> > wings are useless in space, dude.
> > i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
I protest! Wings aren't useless, they serve the essential purpose of
increasing the sheer 'coolness' of the ship. A ship without wings isn't
funky, man, it hasn't got the mojo to cut it in a deep space mission. After
all, what self respecting 'fig is going to wander the galaxy, defeating
alien babes and winnin the affection of vicious enemies if his ship isn't
'cool'? It's got to have wings. And think of spiffy things you can do with
wings too, you could mount heaps of weapons on them. 'Cause there's no
gravity in space you don't have to worry about the wings snapping off under
the weight. Or you could strap political dissidents to the wings and watch
them shrivel with frostbite as you zoom through the cosmos. And to power all
those weapons some slick solar panels would come in handy, perhaps
tastefully decorated in your government's colours so others can see whether
you are a good guy or a target (or an alien-babe cruise ship). And finally
when threatened by pinko commie rouge mooners you can use the wings (and
political prisioners) to bat those rocks and garbage back at their sneering
faces.
Oh? You mean real life? Oh. Ignore all that then.
> (and if any of the many builders who have millions of attennas is about, I'd
> like to know what attennas are, and whether you could spare a couple of
> hundred thou - I've never encountered a Lego piece I couldn't use for
> something...)
Oh good, that means I can call dibs on a ton of bulky areas, just as long as
they're not glued together.
James (who is boggled at the thought of a tonne of LEGO bricks)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.au, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.space, Richard Parsons writes:
>
> > > wings are useless in space, dude.
> > > i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
> >
> > No! Surely not!
>
> Oh stop. You guys are just trying to drive the postcount of loc.au up
> because the whinging poms might stay ahead of you, or something. :-)
Hahah nice one Larry, the only prob is that you have also added to it
yourself :) (oh and me too :)... anyway I am sure quite a few of us are
whinging poms anyway :P
> Next you'll be asking why the sky is blue over in lugnet.town, then you can
> ask if you have to hold RCX's upside down when programming them in the
> southern hemisphere over in lugnet.robotics. And if that doesn't do the
> trick. postwise, you can always put in a post or two in lugnet.lego.direct
> decrying the lack of S@H... that should do the trick. (all crossposted to
> loc.au of course)
The sky is for sure blue where I am right now...
Yes, the lack of S@H... are you suggesting that you will be our American
counter part and order things for us until we get the S@H ourselves? :P
Actually I have recently shipped a number of items that some American's
can't seem to find over there... so I guess we too have some 'wanted' goodies!
hehe :P
> GRIN.
*vegemite and cheese grin*
>
> ++Lar
Mel Brown Brick
|
|
| |
> (snip)
> wings are useless in space, dude.
> i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
Not if it's a small ship that can also fly in a planet's atmosphere. Someone
else who replyed to this said you can overload the wings with weapons, but if
you suddenly get near a planet's gravity, *snap* *snap*, and someones car gets
hit by 89 laser cannons.
NICK
|
|
| |
> (snip)
> wings are useless in space, dude.
> i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
Not if it's a small ship that can also fly in a planet's atmosphere. Someone
else who replyed to this said you can overload the wings with weapons, but if
you suddenly get near a planet's gravity, *snap* *snap*, and someones car gets
hit by 89 laser cannons.
NICK
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, James Howse writes:
> > > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > > > Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > > > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > > > friction in outer space
>
> > (and if any of the many builders who have millions of attennas is about, I'd
> > like to know what attennas are, and whether you could spare a couple of
> > hundred thou - I've never encountered a Lego piece I couldn't use for
> > something...)
>
> Oh good, that means I can call dibs on a ton of bulky areas, just as long as
> they're not glued together.
>
> James (who is boggled at the thought of a tonne of LEGO bricks)
Being the geek I am I wondered how many 2x4s that would be. Not having any
to hand (or a scientific scale) I looked it up. It's amazing, everything
geeky I could think of asking has already been thought, asked and answered.
Anyway from http://news.lugnet.com/market/shipping/?n=362
a 1x8 weighs some 3.06g which means a (metric) tonne 1000kg is around
327,000 bricks.
Some more work with the calculator...
which is a block 160 studs long, 160 wide and 120 high
or 1.28m by 1.28m by 0.96m
or if built into a one thickness wall, 3.2m high, about 2.016m long.
or if laid end to end, 2.6km
James (who's going to do some real work now)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > friction in outer
>
> what the flipping space monster burgers are
> you talking about?
>
> friction in space?
>
> NOT, noway, nohow
>
> wings are useless in space, dude.
> i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
>
> (i'm sure this has been said elsewhere
> but hey i don't have time to look it up)
>
> -paul
Does your title of an astrophysicist amuse me? Have you worked with such
people as Carl Sagan or Issac Asimov? I have not worked with these people
but then again, neither have you so I think I will become skeptical of every
aspect of outer space travel until it has been proven as a fact by science,
sound logic, and the truth in life. You are an astrophysicist, you should
know that, as with the complete absence of gravity, that the complete
absense of friction can never truly exist in outer space. There is LESS
friction and gravity in space but it is wrong to say that there can not
exist friction and gravity in space. Remember the Newtonic laws, Paul.
People at one point in our history many centuries earlier said that the
earth was flat and that we would fall off of the edge of the earth and we
had to accept those ideas as facts in our lives but, as we already know in
this modern age, those ideas were proven false by reason, logic, science,
and the truth in our lives. Please do not tell me that this concept is
another flat earth idea, Paul, because many aspects of these ideas are
theories, not actual facts, Paul.
Jesse Long
P.S. My large guns have a hinge piece that folds back when my space craft
enters the atmosphere, Paul.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > > Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > > friction in outer
> >
> > what the flipping space monster burgers are
> > you talking about?
> >
> > friction in space?
> >
> > NOT, noway, nohow
> >
> > wings are useless in space, dude.
> > i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
> >
> > (i'm sure this has been said elsewhere
> > but hey i don't have time to look it up)
> >
> > -paul
> Does your title of an astrophysicist amuse me? Have you worked with such
> people as Carl Sagan or Issac Asimov? I have not worked with these people
> but then again, neither have you so I think I will become skeptical of every
> aspect of outer space travel until it has been proven as a fact by science,
> sound logic, and the truth in life. You are an astrophysicist, you should
> know that, as with the complete absence of gravity, that the complete
> absense of friction can never truly exist in outer space. There is LESS
> friction and gravity in space but it is wrong to say that there can not
> exist friction and gravity in space. Remember the Newtonic laws, Paul.
> People at one point in our history many centuries earlier said that the
> earth was flat and that we would fall off of the edge of the earth and we
> had to accept those ideas as facts in our lives but, as we already know in
> this modern age, those ideas were proven false by reason, logic, science,
> and the truth in our lives. Please do not tell me that this concept is
> another flat earth idea, Paul, because many aspects of these ideas are
> theories, not actual facts, Paul.
> Jesse Long
> P.S. My large guns have a hinge piece that folds back when my space craft
> enters the atmosphere, Paul.
Jesse,
I have a couple of things to write about. The first is regarding friction in
space. I agree that there MUST be friction in space, otherwise anything held
together with a nut or bolt would come apart. The second is in regards to
your tone in your posts. I'm sure after reading most of you posts, that is
just the way you contruct your sentences, but it comes across as
condescending. Third, the way you construc your paragraphs. It becomes hard
to slog through a single block of text with no breaks. I know that several
people, myself included, have requested that you break up your text by
inserting a blank line between the paragraphs. Would you PLEASE humor the
Lugnet community by doing so? And the last point of my reply is your Lego
Universe. It seems to me that your universe is based heavily on real,
currently available technology. Not everyone who builds subscribes to that
notion. I personally have Faster-Than-Light speeds in my Lego Universe. Yes,
I know that it isn't possible, but growing up with Star Trek makes me want
it in my Universe. I'm sure that you wouldn't be taking as much flak about
your ship if we had something to look at. Remember, a picture is worth a
thousand words (and I'm sure we're waaaaaaaay beyond that point). Besides,
is it very descriptive to say that I currently have a six wheeled
terrestrial vehicle with fully articulated suspension and steering? How
about if I add that it has living quarters for four? What if I also add that
it carries two support vehicles with it? Working airlock? Hydroponics bay?
Cargo crane? Oh, it's also approximately 64 studs long and 20 studs wide.
I'm sure that you have a picture in mind, but as soon as I take some, you
can look and see for yourself and reform your opinion of what I've just
written. Talk to you later, Jesse.
-Duane
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> Does your title of an astrophysicist amuse me? Have you worked with such
> people as Carl Sagan or Issac Asimov? I have not worked with these people
> but then again, neither have you so I think I will become skeptical of every
> aspect of outer space travel until it has been proven as a fact by science,
> sound logic, and the truth in life.
Spare the attitude man, until you do, don't go wondering why people post
harsh replies to your stuff. You come off as a know-it-all, even if someone
who has education in a particular field counters your statement, you find a
way to try to make their words seem insignificant. That's not appreciated
by me, at least.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog writes:
> > > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > > > Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > > > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > > > friction in outer
> > >
> > > what the flipping space monster burgers are
> > > you talking about?
> > >
> > > friction in space?
> > >
> > > NOT, noway, nohow
> > >
> > > wings are useless in space, dude.
> > > i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
> > >
> > > (i'm sure this has been said elsewhere
> > > but hey i don't have time to look it up)
> > >
> > > -paul
> > Does your title of an astrophysicist amuse me? Have you worked with such
> > people as Carl Sagan or Issac Asimov? I have not worked with these people
> > but then again, neither have you so I think I will become skeptical of every
> > aspect of outer space travel until it has been proven as a fact by science,
> > sound logic, and the truth in life. You are an astrophysicist, you should
> > know that, as with the complete absence of gravity, that the complete
> > absense of friction can never truly exist in outer space. There is LESS
> > friction and gravity in space but it is wrong to say that there can not
> > exist friction and gravity in space. Remember the Newtonic laws, Paul.
> > People at one point in our history many centuries earlier said that the
> > earth was flat and that we would fall off of the edge of the earth and we
> > had to accept those ideas as facts in our lives but, as we already know in
> > this modern age, those ideas were proven false by reason, logic, science,
> > and the truth in our lives. Please do not tell me that this concept is
> > another flat earth idea, Paul, because many aspects of these ideas are
> > theories, not actual facts, Paul.
> > Jesse Long
> > P.S. My large guns have a hinge piece that folds back when my space craft
> > enters the atmosphere, Paul.
>
> Jesse,
>
> I have a couple of things to write about. The first is regarding friction in
> space. I agree that there MUST be friction in space, otherwise anything held
> together with a nut or bolt would come apart. The second is in regards to
> your tone in your posts. I'm sure after reading most of you posts, that is
> just the way you contruct your sentences, but it comes across as
> condescending. Third, the way you construc your paragraphs. It becomes hard
> to slog through a single block of text with no breaks. I know that several
> people, myself included, have requested that you break up your text by
> inserting a blank line between the paragraphs. Would you PLEASE humor the
> Lugnet community by doing so? And the last point of my reply is your Lego
> Universe. It seems to me that your universe is based heavily on real,
> currently available technology. Not everyone who builds subscribes to that
> notion. I personally have Faster-Than-Light speeds in my Lego Universe. Yes,
> I know that it isn't possible, but growing up with Star Trek makes me want
> it in my Universe. I'm sure that you wouldn't be taking as much flak about
> your ship if we had something to look at. Remember, a picture is worth a
> thousand words (and I'm sure we're waaaaaaaay beyond that point). Besides,
> is it very descriptive to say that I currently have a six wheeled
> terrestrial vehicle with fully articulated suspension and steering? How
> about if I add that it has living quarters for four? What if I also add that
> it carries two support vehicles with it? Working airlock? Hydroponics bay?
> Cargo crane? Oh, it's also approximately 64 studs long and 20 studs wide.
> I'm sure that you have a picture in mind, but as soon as I take some, you
> can look and see for yourself and reform your opinion of what I've just
> written. Talk to you later, Jesse.
>
> -Duane
I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
I must disagree, however, about the comment that I view space craft from a
realistic point of view, Duane. I do want to know how space craft would
really operate but I am not conscribing to the current designs of the Space
Shuttle of the typical designs of LEGO space craft. I believe that you
should add some support vehicles and a working airlock but that is simply
because there may exist hostile environments that the vehicle will travel
and these enviornments may not support oxygen or explorers so an airlock,
even in a space craft, is a good idea if you happen to travel to one of
those planets, Duane.
I am not sure that the people who say that faster than light speeds are
impossible are correct because I thought I saw a story on Yahoo many months
earlier that said that scientists HAD, in fact, caused an object to travel
FASTER than light but I do not remember the context of the story or where on
Yahoo News I heard the story. I believe that we must first work on the
current technology so that we can actually develop beter technology so that
we can actually produce better space craft. The reason that my ideas will
not probably work is because almost all that the politicians and
"scientists" in our government want is more money to produce more projects
that are destined to fail and because the government will not privitize the
space program, we will still probably use the Space Shuttle when I am 75
years old! I believe, however, that your vehicle is a very nice vehicle so
can you please show me your vehicle, Duane? Thank you and I hoipe that this
letter is to your standards, Duane.
Jesse Long
P.S. I also have craft that travel at speeds of faster than light speeds
and I have watched Star Trek (though Voyager was somewhat disappointing)
ever since The Next Generation was on television in the first season. I am
not sure what you mean by condescending but whatever that word means, I will
try not to become condescending to people. I also believe that adding some
living quarters would be considered a good idea because even large trucks,
the trucks that usually haul trailers, usually have a bed or two in the back
of their cabs and this is the reason why many of these vehicles are somewhat
large in structure, Duane. I am not saying that adding sleeping quarters is
a necessary idea, Duane, I am simply saying that maybe long missions require
some sleep.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tim Courtney writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > Does your title of an astrophysicist amuse me? Have you worked with such
> > people as Carl Sagan or Issac Asimov? I have not worked with these people
> > but then again, neither have you so I think I will become skeptical of every
> > aspect of outer space travel until it has been proven as a fact by science,
> > sound logic, and the truth in life.
>
> Spare the attitude man, until you do, don't go wondering why people post
> harsh replies to your stuff. You come off as a know-it-all, even if someone
> who has education in a particular field counters your statement, you find a
> way to try to make their words seem insignificant. That's not appreciated
> by me, at least.
>
> -Tim
Tim, in this statement, his words ARE insignificant because they are
incorrect, even though he IS an astrophysicist. This is what Mister Paul
Hertzog said to me, 'What the flipping space monster burgers are you talking
about? Friction in space? NOT, noway, nohow. Wings are useless in space,
dude. I'm an astrophysicist, I know whereof I speak (I'm sure this has
been said elsewhere but hey, I don't have the time to look it up.)
-Paul (Hertzog)'
If he was even concerned in the slightest part of his mind in disproving the
fact that there is friction in space he should at least TRY to make some
evidence disproving what I say, Tim. I am not a harsh person but I hate
stupidity and his reply is another prime example of stupidity, Tim.
Education does not necessarily mean a degree but rather using the degree to
a point where you actually know what you mean in your area of expertise and
people have graduated from high school without being able to read so he
should at least know about the aspects of gravity and friction in outer
space if he became an astrophysicist.
I feel insulted that he says that I am wrong and yet can not even prove his
own words and that, to my mind not only makes his reply appear stupid but
also lazy and cowardly, Tim. I work this way in life and so do you so
please do not argue this point to me but these people, as well as you, do
not know is that I AM willing to change my thoughts if people can, without
the shadow of a doubt, change my mind and show me their evidence for their
ideas in life. This is my way of saying that when I am proven wrong that I
will change the way that I think and I will have become the better person
for changing my ways of thought in life.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
<snip>
> I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
> that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
> bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
> or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
> you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
I'm sure that there are TONS of other laws and theories that we aren't
looking at when trying to design a "realistic" space craft. That's why I
have my own Lego Universe - it allows me to be creative, but not have to
think as much.
> I must disagree, however, about the comment that I view space craft from a
> realistic point of view, Duane. I do want to know how space craft would
> really operate but I am not conscribing to the current designs of the Space
> Shuttle of the typical designs of LEGO space craft. I believe that you
> should add some support vehicles and a working airlock but that is simply
> because there may exist hostile environments that the vehicle will travel
> and these enviornments may not support oxygen or explorers so an airlock,
> even in a space craft, is a good idea if you happen to travel to one of
> those planets, Duane.
My mistake then, I've mis-interpreted.
>
> I am not sure that the people who say that faster than light speeds are
> impossible are correct because I thought I saw a story on Yahoo many months
> earlier that said that scientists HAD, in fact, caused an object to travel
> FASTER than light but I do not remember the context of the story or where on
> Yahoo News I heard the story. I believe that we must first work on the
> current technology so that we can actually develop beter technology so that
> we can actually produce better space craft. The reason that my ideas will
> not probably work is because almost all that the politicians and
> "scientists" in our government want is more money to produce more projects
> that are destined to fail and because the government will not privitize the
> space program, we will still probably use the Space Shuttle when I am 75
> years old! I believe, however, that your vehicle is a very nice vehicle so
> can you please show me your vehicle, Duane? Thank you and I hoipe that this
> letter is to your standards, Duane.
> Jesse Long
There is currently a design that is being developed to replace the Space
Shuttle. I don't have specifics handy other than the NASA website, but
believe me, it has to be better than what we are using now. The current
shuttles seem to be held together with duct tape and bailing wire.
>
> P.S. I also have craft that travel at speeds of faster than light speeds
> and I have watched Star Trek (though Voyager was somewhat disappointing)
> ever since The Next Generation was on television in the first season.
I believe that there was an article in Popular Science on this subject not
that long ago. Unfortunately my copy is in my truck so I can't get too
specific right now. Maybe after I actually read it. Does anyone else reading
have information on the article?
> I am
> not sure what you mean by condescending but whatever that word means, I will
> try not to become condescending to people. I also believe that adding some
> living quarters would be considered a good idea because even large trucks,
> the trucks that usually haul trailers, usually have a bed or two in the back
> of their cabs and this is the reason why many of these vehicles are somewhat
> large in structure, Duane. I am not saying that adding sleeping quarters is
> a necessary idea, Duane, I am simply saying that maybe long missions require
> some sleep.
From Dictionary.com
con·de·scend
intr.v. con·de·scend·ed, con·de·scend·ing, con·de·scends
To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself.
To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.
-Duane
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> <snip>
> > I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
> > that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
> > bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
> > or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
> > you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
>
>
> I'm sure that there are TONS of other laws and theories that we aren't
> looking at when trying to design a "realistic" space craft. That's why I
> have my own Lego Universe - it allows me to be creative, but not have to
> think as much.
>
> > I must disagree, however, about the comment that I view space craft from a
> > realistic point of view, Duane. I do want to know how space craft would
> > really operate but I am not conscribing to the current designs of the Space
> > Shuttle of the typical designs of LEGO space craft. I believe that you
> > should add some support vehicles and a working airlock but that is simply
> > because there may exist hostile environments that the vehicle will travel
> > and these enviornments may not support oxygen or explorers so an airlock,
> > even in a space craft, is a good idea if you happen to travel to one of
> > those planets, Duane.
>
> My mistake then, I've mis-interpreted.
>
> >
> > I am not sure that the people who say that faster than light speeds are
> > impossible are correct because I thought I saw a story on Yahoo many months
> > earlier that said that scientists HAD, in fact, caused an object to travel
> > FASTER than light but I do not remember the context of the story or where on
> > Yahoo News I heard the story. I believe that we must first work on the
> > current technology so that we can actually develop beter technology so that
> > we can actually produce better space craft. The reason that my ideas will
> > not probably work is because almost all that the politicians and
> > "scientists" in our government want is more money to produce more projects
> > that are destined to fail and because the government will not privitize the
> > space program, we will still probably use the Space Shuttle when I am 75
> > years old! I believe, however, that your vehicle is a very nice vehicle so
> > can you please show me your vehicle, Duane? Thank you and I hoipe that this
> > letter is to your standards, Duane.
> > Jesse Long
>
> There is currently a design that is being developed to replace the Space
> Shuttle. I don't have specifics handy other than the NASA website, but
> believe me, it has to be better than what we are using now. The current
> shuttles seem to be held together with duct tape and bailing wire.
>
> >
> > P.S. I also have craft that travel at speeds of faster than light speeds
> > and I have watched Star Trek (though Voyager was somewhat disappointing)
> > ever since The Next Generation was on television in the first season.
>
> I believe that there was an article in Popular Science on this subject not
> that long ago. Unfortunately my copy is in my truck so I can't get too
> specific right now. Maybe after I actually read it. Does anyone else reading
> have information on the article?
>
> > I am
> > not sure what you mean by condescending but whatever that word means, I will
> > try not to become condescending to people. I also believe that adding some
> > living quarters would be considered a good idea because even large trucks,
> > the trucks that usually haul trailers, usually have a bed or two in the back
> > of their cabs and this is the reason why many of these vehicles are somewhat
> > large in structure, Duane. I am not saying that adding sleeping quarters is
> > a necessary idea, Duane, I am simply saying that maybe long missions require
> > some sleep.
>
> From Dictionary.com
>
> con·de·scend
> intr.v. con·de·scend·ed, con·de·scend·ing, con·de·scends
> To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself.
> To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.
>
> -Duane
By the way. Thanks for breaking out your paragraphs. It's much easier to read...
-Duane
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
> that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
> bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
> or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
> you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
I believe Paul was poorly communicating a correct idea.
The scientific law of friction is applicable everywhere, even in space. It
is a law, and going to space won't make it go away.
What you need to understand is how this law works. The friction that we are
used to calling drag is the friction of air particles on a jet, or water
particles on a submarine. The drag is much greater underwater because the
water is denser with particles. This is an operation of matter states, ie:
the density of a liquid state is more than the gaseous state, and the solid
state is greater than the liquid.
The reason drag is a moot point in space is because it is a near-vaccuum.
The amount of particles is so low that you rarely bump into them, and
therfore there is no effect. The lift a wing creates needs particles to
move around the wing (faster on the top and slower on the bottom, due to the
diffence in the surface areas of the top and bottom of a wing) and the
difference in speed this creates causes a pressure tension to literally pull
the wing up. I am just going by memory for this explaination right now...
there is a lot more to it than that, but thats the basic concept behind wings.
few particles in space = insignificant friction to the craft.
near vaccuum in space = no pressure and therefore no "lift" possible.
> I am not sure that the people who say that faster than light speeds are
> impossible are correct because I thought I saw a story on Yahoo many months
> earlier that said that scientists HAD, in fact, caused an object to travel
> FASTER than light but I do not remember the context of the story or where on
> Yahoo News I heard the story.
We cannot make anything go that fast right now. What you may have heard
about is scientists isolating a particle that they believe traveled FTL in
an atom smashing experiment. There are a few different theories right now,
and I personally view super string to be the most possible. I really don't
like the squishy science concepts behind quantum mechanics. but that's a
whole different thread. (excuse the pun)
cheers!
Joel Kuester
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> Tim, in this statement, his words ARE insignificant because they are
> incorrect, even though he IS an astrophysicist. This is what Mister Paul
> Hertzog said to me, 'What the flipping space monster burgers are you talking
> about? Friction in space? NOT, noway, nohow. Wings are useless in space,
> dude. I'm an astrophysicist, I know whereof I speak (I'm sure this has
> been said elsewhere but hey, I don't have the time to look it up.)
>
> -Paul (Hertzog)'
>
> If he was even concerned in the slightest part of his mind in disproving the
> fact that there is friction in space he should at least TRY to make some
> evidence disproving what I say, Tim.
Well then, politely ask him for evidence, don't disrespect him by trying to
diminish his experience in a field with smarta** remarks (eg. Does your
title of an astrophysicist amuse me? Have you worked with such people as
Carl Sagan or Issac Asimov? I have not worked with these people but then
again, neither have you...)
Those kind of comments are not appreciated around here in the least,
speaking for myself, and with the knowledge that others are annoyed at them
as well.
> I am not a harsh person but I hate
> stupidity and his reply is another prime example of stupidity, Tim.
Who are you to call his reply an example of stupidity? You don't know Paul
at all, you don't know his experience, etc. Yet you come here and ask
questions of everyone, then shoot them down with no proof yourself - like
you're right solely on the basis that you said so.
> Education does not necessarily mean a degree but rather using the degree to
> a point where you actually know what you mean in your area of expertise and
> people have graduated from high school without being able to read so he
> should at least know about the aspects of gravity and friction in outer
> space if he became an astrophysicist.
Uhm, this makes absolutely no sense at all.
> I feel insulted that he says that I am wrong and yet can not even prove his
> own words and that, to my mind not only makes his reply appear stupid but
> also lazy and cowardly, Tim.
Whatever. Its just you not wanting to be told you're wrong, IMNSHO.
> I work this way in life and so do you so
> please do not argue this point to me but these people, as well as you, do
> not know is that I AM willing to change my thoughts if people can, without
> the shadow of a doubt, change my mind and show me their evidence for their
> ideas in life.
We don't know you're willing, because you certainly haven't shown that
you're willing.
> This is my way of saying that when I am proven wrong that I
> will change the way that I think and I will have become the better person
> for changing my ways of thought in life.
Its kinda nice to say something, but its a bit harder to do it. As for my
opinion on your willingness to be proven wrong, I'll take your attitude --
I'll believe it when I see it.
Perhaps if you could communicate better in writing, you would be understood
better here. I know of many people (because I've talked to them) who are
frustrated at your posts and the attitude contained within them. I've been
harsh too (and if you continue to be ignorant of others here, I'll still be
harsh, but if you show you're willing to learn here, I'll help you).
In general, Lugnet is a pretty welcoming place. People are patient with
newbies here. But when newbies don't respond to gentle correction or
suggestions and consistently keep up acting ignorantly of others, we don't
lie down and take it either.
For example, you continued to argue the point about Classic Space/Futuron,
when EVEYRONE here is at a concensus on an explanation of them. We've been
at that concensus for YEARS. Arguing the point on that when people tell you
the way it is here just gets people riled.
Since you said you don't subscribe to the 'normal' way of building LEGO
spaceships, I won't begin to argue the point on your space technology. Just
keep in mind the way you have described your ships is considered well in the
realm of fantasy versus reality based spaceships here (ie. weapon count/size
ratio, exhaust weapons, etc).
Anyways, my suggestion to you (if you're willing to learn how to carry
yourself here) is to take some time to formulate ideas. Don't go off on
tangents that make little sense to others too - this just throws people off
and gets them going 'WTF?' - from the people I've talked to.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> > I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
> > that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
> > bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
> > or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
> > you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
>
> I believe Paul was poorly communicating a correct idea.
>
> The scientific law of friction is applicable everywhere, even in space. It
> is a law, and going to space won't make it go away.
> What you need to understand is how this law works. The friction that we are
> used to calling drag is the friction of air particles on a jet, or water
> particles on a submarine. The drag is much greater underwater because the
> water is denser with particles. This is an operation of matter states, ie:
> the density of a liquid state is more than the gaseous state, and the solid
> state is greater than the liquid.
I've been reading the bundle of posts on the subject, so I am aware of the
type of friction that he was talking about. I just wanted to make a
tangental point since the "type" of friction had been dropped from the post.
>
> The reason drag is a moot point in space is because it is a near-vaccuum.
> The amount of particles is so low that you rarely bump into them, and
> therfore there is no effect. The lift a wing creates needs particles to
> move around the wing (faster on the top and slower on the bottom, due to the
> diffence in the surface areas of the top and bottom of a wing) and the
> difference in speed this creates causes a pressure tension to literally pull
> the wing up. I am just going by memory for this explaination right now...
> there is a lot more to it than that, but thats the basic concept behind wings.
>
> few particles in space = insignificant friction to the craft.
> near vaccuum in space = no pressure and therefore no "lift" possible.
I tend to agree with you. After all, isn't that along the same line of
reasoning as to why propellor driven (or drug depending on your point of
view) aircraft don't perform well at high altitudes? Air pressure is less,
rendering the propellor less effective. (let's not even get into the type of
engine.)
>
> > I am not sure that the people who say that faster than light speeds are
> > impossible are correct because I thought I saw a story on Yahoo many months
> > earlier that said that scientists HAD, in fact, caused an object to travel
> > FASTER than light but I do not remember the context of the story or where on
> > Yahoo News I heard the story.
>
> We cannot make anything go that fast right now. What you may have heard
> about is scientists isolating a particle that they believe traveled FTL in
> an atom smashing experiment. There are a few different theories right now,
> and I personally view super string to be the most possible. I really don't
> like the squishy science concepts behind quantum mechanics. but that's a
> whole different thread. (excuse the pun)
That sounds like the article that I was thinking of. Thanks. That's one
particle FTL. Now, if we could just get a massive amount of particles FTL....
>
> cheers!
> Joel Kuester
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Tim Courtney writes:
> Well then, politely ask him for evidence, don't disrespect him by trying to
> diminish his experience in a field with smarta** remarks
> [...]
> Those kind of comments are not appreciated around here in the least,
> speaking for myself, and with the knowledge that others are annoyed at them
> as well.
Tim, (and all),
I've come into this discussion late, and it occurs to me that this is the
best part of it so far. It is great advice, which most everyone involved in
this thread would to well to take.
i.e. if you don't want to perpetuate disrespect, then consider reigning in
your own disrespect first. There's been a hefty amount of it being flung
around from all sides, and it's getting pretty childish. Just a thought.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> [...] then consider reigning in [...]
And I would do well to consider spell-checking before I hit "send", but alas...
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> > I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
> > that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
> > bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
> > or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
> > you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
You're not seen as evil. It's just that if you're unsure of what you're
saying, don't try to make out that it's absoulutely right, and people won't
mind if your opinion differs from theirs.
> I believe Paul was poorly communicating a correct idea.
>
> The scientific law of friction is applicable everywhere, even in space. It
> is a law, and going to space won't make it go away.
> What you need to understand is how this law works. The friction that we are
> used to calling drag is the friction of air particles on a jet, or water
> particles on a submarine. The drag is much greater underwater because the
> water is denser with particles. This is an operation of matter states, ie:
> the density of a liquid state is more than the gaseous state, and the solid
> state is greater than the liquid.
Just to add to this, possibly blurring the arguments but hopefully drawing
nearer to a consensus. There is friction in space between a moving body and
the occasional particles it meets, but in a fluid such as air or water there
is also friction between adjacent particles (molecules) in the fluid. Fluid
molecules can not just move anywhere at any time and speed - they are
dragged by surrounding molecules - this is an explanation of the viscosity
of a fluid. This leads to various pressure effects which both lift and drag
aircraft, and cause swirls of turbulence as the fluid tries to rush in
behind a moving body. Turbulent (moving) air is at a lower pressure,
causing yet more drag behind an aircraft.
In space, molecules distributed sparsely throughout a vacuum have very
little interaction, and so have negligible viscosity. No matter how fast
you go, the molecules are still spread out. Quite simply, they do not
behave fluidly - merely as individual particles. So, a moving body would
only really impact with each one individually. This might cause it to roll
along the hull causing friction, or it may bounce off. Either will impart
some energy onto the hull, but neither case counts as viscous drag from a fluid.
> The reason drag is a moot point in space is because it is a near-vaccuum.
> The amount of particles is so low that you rarely bump into them, and
> therfore there is no effect. The lift a wing creates needs particles to
> move around the wing (faster on the top and slower on the bottom, due to the
> diffence in the surface areas of the top and bottom of a wing) and the
> difference in speed this creates causes a pressure tension to literally pull
> the wing up. I am just going by memory for this explaination right now...
> there is a lot more to it than that, but thats the basic concept behind wings.
[Okay, this is the geeky bit, and it goes way off-topic, but that hasn't
stopped anyone so far:]
Well, it was good enough for the Wright brothers, and everyone else up to
about 50 years ago. It's actually down to viscosity, and the angle of the
wing to the airflow, not it's shape. Have you ever questioned how even the
old barnstormers used to fly upside-down, if the curve of the wing had to be
on top to get lift?
If you just angle up a flat plate with rounded ends in a slow airflow, in a
wind tunnel with smoke lines, you see something quite interesting. You'd
expect air to be deflected downward by the plate, but it isn't. Forcing air
downwards creates pressure to force it back up again. What actually happens
is the air moves up to the wing, just under the leading edge, then the
airflow splits to go rearwards, but also circulates forward, up and over the
front. The lower airflow then curls around the trailing edge and meets up
with the upper airflow before drifting off rearward at exactly the same
height as it arrived. Overall, the air behind the wing is moving at the
same height and speed as it was in front, and there is no overall force
up/down or forward/back on the wing.
But, as you sharpen the trailing edge, and speed up the air flow, the
viscosity of the air means it can no longer curve up around the rear edge.
The rear circulation is forced further back, dropping off the rear edge of
the wing and leaving some wash in its wake. The circular motion at the
front continues, and this is what gives you the speed (and pressure)
difference above and below the wing.
Not convinced? Look at footage of US Navy steam catapult launchers. You'll
see each aircraft leaving behind a roll of steam as it is launced, left by
the trailing edge of its wings. This is the rear circulation being left behind.
Now the really geeky / head-spamming bit is this. You also get circulation
around the wingtips (look at Concorde landing). This is the higher pressure
air under the wing leaking around the wingtip and onto the top. These are
all simple pressure effects, but they're desparately trying to restore the
air to a neutral position. These swirls actually link the leading edge
circulation with the trailing circulation left behind in one giant toroid,
like a smoke ring stretched out all the way from take-off to landing. In
reality, in our viscous fluid, it disperses behind the aircraft, but
mathematically that's what's happening.
Don't care? Ah well... :-)
> few particles in space = insignificant friction to the craft.
> near vaccuum in space = no pressure and therefore no "lift" possible.
Quite so. I'm amused by sci-fi that gets it horrendously wrong. Macross is
a great one - using air-brakes, and banking by about 30° to turn in space.
Jason J Railton
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> I'm amused by sci-fi that gets it horrendously wrong. Macross is
> a great one - using air-brakes, and banking by about 30° to turn in space.
Well the A-wing flight control system doesn't discriminate between air and
space flight either so it's control surfaces move in space as well,
producing little affect except a little momentum.
I think as a Valkyrie has 2 widely spaced engines which use thrust vectoring
(certainly in Macross Plus if not earlier). Then a roll might be required to
get both engines onto the correct 'plane' for a vertical roll (in relation
to the craft, there being no vertical in space). By pointing both nozzles
upward simultaneously you could then affect the maximum continuous change in
pitch at full throttle. This should bring you up behind whichever craft
pursues you. And in dogfighting whoever can turn more tends to win (although
this concept is becoming more and more outdated these days).
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Steve Lane writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
>
> > I'm amused by sci-fi that gets it horrendously wrong. Macross is
> > a great one - using air-brakes, and banking by about 30° to turn in space.
>
> Well the A-wing flight control system doesn't discriminate between air and
> space flight either so it's control surfaces move in space as well,
> producing little affect except a little momentum.
>
> I think as a Valkyrie has 2 widely spaced engines which use thrust vectoring
> (certainly in Macross Plus if not earlier). Then a roll might be required to
> get both engines onto the correct 'plane' for a vertical roll (in relation
> to the craft, there being no vertical in space). By pointing both nozzles
> upward simultaneously you could then affect the maximum continuous change in
> pitch at full throttle. This should bring you up behind whichever craft
> pursues you. And in dogfighting whoever can turn more tends to win (although
> this concept is becoming more and more outdated these days).
>
> Steve
Yes, but the point is you'd roll by 90° to turn, not just bank a little bit.
Jason J Railton
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> >
> > > I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
> > > that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
> > > bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
> > > or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
> > > you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
>
> You're not seen as evil. It's just that if you're unsure of what you're
> saying, don't try to make out that it's absoulutely right, and people won't
> mind if your opinion differs from theirs.
>
> > I believe Paul was poorly communicating a correct idea.
> >
> > The scientific law of friction is applicable everywhere, even in space. It
> > is a law, and going to space won't make it go away.
> > What you need to understand is how this law works. The friction that we are
> > used to calling drag is the friction of air particles on a jet, or water
> > particles on a submarine. The drag is much greater underwater because the
> > water is denser with particles. This is an operation of matter states, ie:
> > the density of a liquid state is more than the gaseous state, and the solid
> > state is greater than the liquid.
>
> Just to add to this, possibly blurring the arguments but hopefully drawing
> nearer to a consensus. There is friction in space between a moving body and
> the occasional particles it meets, but in a fluid such as air or water there
> is also friction between adjacent particles (molecules) in the fluid. Fluid
> molecules can not just move anywhere at any time and speed - they are
> dragged by surrounding molecules - this is an explanation of the viscosity
> of a fluid. This leads to various pressure effects which both lift and drag
> aircraft, and cause swirls of turbulence as the fluid tries to rush in
> behind a moving body. Turbulent (moving) air is at a lower pressure,
> causing yet more drag behind an aircraft.
>
> In space, molecules distributed sparsely throughout a vacuum have very
> little interaction, and so have negligible viscosity. No matter how fast
> you go, the molecules are still spread out. Quite simply, they do not
> behave fluidly - merely as individual particles. So, a moving body would
> only really impact with each one individually. This might cause it to roll
> along the hull causing friction, or it may bounce off. Either will impart
> some energy onto the hull, but neither case counts as viscous drag from a fluid.
>
> > The reason drag is a moot point in space is because it is a near-vaccuum.
> > The amount of particles is so low that you rarely bump into them, and
> > therfore there is no effect. The lift a wing creates needs particles to
> > move around the wing (faster on the top and slower on the bottom, due to the
> > diffence in the surface areas of the top and bottom of a wing) and the
> > difference in speed this creates causes a pressure tension to literally pull
> > the wing up. I am just going by memory for this explaination right now...
> > there is a lot more to it than that, but thats the basic concept behind wings.
>
> [Okay, this is the geeky bit, and it goes way off-topic, but that hasn't
> stopped anyone so far:]
>
> Well, it was good enough for the Wright brothers, and everyone else up to
> about 50 years ago. It's actually down to viscosity, and the angle of the
> wing to the airflow, not it's shape. Have you ever questioned how even the
> old barnstormers used to fly upside-down, if the curve of the wing had to be
> on top to get lift?
>
> If you just angle up a flat plate with rounded ends in a slow airflow, in a
> wind tunnel with smoke lines, you see something quite interesting. You'd
> expect air to be deflected downward by the plate, but it isn't. Forcing air
> downwards creates pressure to force it back up again. What actually happens
> is the air moves up to the wing, just under the leading edge, then the
> airflow splits to go rearwards, but also circulates forward, up and over the
> front. The lower airflow then curls around the trailing edge and meets up
> with the upper airflow before drifting off rearward at exactly the same
> height as it arrived. Overall, the air behind the wing is moving at the
> same height and speed as it was in front, and there is no overall force
> up/down or forward/back on the wing.
>
> But, as you sharpen the trailing edge, and speed up the air flow, the
> viscosity of the air means it can no longer curve up around the rear edge.
> The rear circulation is forced further back, dropping off the rear edge of
> the wing and leaving some wash in its wake. The circular motion at the
> front continues, and this is what gives you the speed (and pressure)
> difference above and below the wing.
>
> Not convinced? Look at footage of US Navy steam catapult launchers. You'll
> see each aircraft leaving behind a roll of steam as it is launced, left by
> the trailing edge of its wings. This is the rear circulation being left behind.
>
> Now the really geeky / head-spamming bit is this. You also get circulation
> around the wingtips (look at Concorde landing). This is the higher pressure
> air under the wing leaking around the wingtip and onto the top. These are
> all simple pressure effects, but they're desparately trying to restore the
> air to a neutral position. These swirls actually link the leading edge
> circulation with the trailing circulation left behind in one giant toroid,
> like a smoke ring stretched out all the way from take-off to landing. In
> reality, in our viscous fluid, it disperses behind the aircraft, but
> mathematically that's what's happening.
>
> Don't care? Ah well... :-)
>
> > few particles in space = insignificant friction to the craft.
> > near vaccuum in space = no pressure and therefore no "lift" possible.
>
> Quite so. I'm amused by sci-fi that gets it horrendously wrong. Macross is
> a great one - using air-brakes, and banking by about 30° to turn in space.
>
> Jason J Railton
The first problem I have, Jason, is that I am not sure that everyone else is
right, either on these bulletin boards and I know for a fact that I am not
probably right in my ways of thought in my life. Would an overheated engine
become a problem in outer space because if it does become a problem in outer
space, you could always use some Castrol (variant GTX) and some Gumout Warp
Coil Cleaner (I saw that last product in an advertisement) on your
engine(s). I believe that poor communication leads to miscommunication
between people and this was certainly an example of this problem, Jason.
We have established that there is LESS friction and gravity in outer space
but now a new question occurs to my mind. You say that gas provides the
least friction and gravity, solids provide more gravity and friction, but
that liquids provide the most gravity and friction. (The increase of
gravity and friction therefore, at least to my mind, must also increase the
amount of drag that an object uses in that type of armosphere.) What
comprises of the most molecules in outer space and if outer space includes
particles from all three types of matter (five in you include gels and
plasmatic materials but they are more of a transitionatory element than an
actual object), then how would the mixed particles react to an object that
is moving through that domain of existence, that is how would a space craft
be affected in terms of drag in space if all three types of objects exist in
outer space?
I believe that the pilots of those old airplanes simply wanted to have fun
so they flew upside down in order to appear as though they were really some
big hot shot, that and bacck in those days, there were not that many ways to
impress women so these pilots flew upside down to get dates with women. I
am not sure that all of my information is correct on this subject but due to
those first pilots, stunt flying is a fairly large business today. The Blue
Angels (not to be confused with a Wing Commander squadron of the same name)
and the Thunderbirds are the most modern example of this type of flying with
aircraft.
I have three last questions to tell you, Jason. The first question is with
air pressure on space craft. Am I right by saying that the air spilts to go
under and over the wing but ends up meeting at the back of the wing or is it
more complicated than that conclusion to the information, Jason? The second
question is what happens as a result of the more sharpened trailing edge
creating a wake from the wing? The final question is are toroids those
white trails that we see in the sky when jet craft are in the sky that are
made of this steam and are also composed of those rear circulations behind
these aircraft? I thank you for answering my letter, Jason.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> I've come into this discussion late, and it occurs to me that this is the
> best part of it so far. It is great advice, which most everyone involved in
> this thread would to well to take.
>
> i.e. if you don't want to perpetuate disrespect, then consider reigning in
> your own disrespect first. There's been a hefty amount of it being flung
> around from all sides, and it's getting pretty childish. Just a thought.
Jeremy,
Thanks for posting this. I think you got it exactly right.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
>
> > I've come into this discussion late, and it occurs to me that this is the
> > best part of it so far. It is great advice, which most everyone involved in
> > this thread would to well to take.
> >
> > i.e. if you don't want to perpetuate disrespect, then consider reigning in
> > your own disrespect first. There's been a hefty amount of it being flung
> > around from all sides, and it's getting pretty childish. Just a thought.
>
> Jeremy,
>
> Thanks for posting this. I think you got it exactly right.
>
> Steve
All I simply said was I got tired of the same basic designs in large space
craft. I have seen these same, cigar shaped designs ever since the science
fiction serials on television around six or seven decades earlier in our
country. I like the features, the compartments, the engines, the technology
but I simply do not like the styles of most of these space craft. These
space craft are too open for weapons, at least some of these space craft,
for the enemy space craft to simply blow the space craft into oblivion. If
you wanted a part in this discussion, then please do not assume that I am
immature because I am not the instigator of all of the immaturity of these
letters, I am simply discussing flaws with the elemental designs of most
space craft and I can not help that with some of these letters that I view
some of these responses as hostile and that with some of the information
that I do not understand the views of some of these people and that is what
frustrates me about this bulletin board.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> All I simply said was I got tired of the same basic designs in large space
> craft. I have seen these same, cigar shaped designs ever since the science
> fiction serials on television around six or seven decades earlier in our
> country. I like the features, the compartments, the engines, the technology
> but I simply do not like the styles of most of these space craft. These
> space craft are too open for weapons, at least some of these space craft,
> for the enemy space craft to simply blow the space craft into oblivion.
That's neither here nor there. Simply build them. Some people will like
them, some will dislike them. But that's not what I'm annoyed by...
> If
> you wanted a part in this discussion, then please do not assume that I am
> immature because I am not the instigator of all of the immaturity of these
> letters, I am simply discussing flaws with the elemental designs of most
> space craft and I can not help that with some of these letters that I view
> some of these responses as hostile and that with some of the information
> that I do not understand the views of some of these people and that is what
> frustrates me about this bulletin board.
Uh, yeah. Against my better judgement, which I'm having to temporarily shut
down because it's screaming so loud, I'm going to throw in another word or ten.
Folks, take a breather. This discussion is getting worse by the minute.
Sit back, be quiet for a week or so, and let this thread die the horrible
shuddering death it deserves. No one else seems to want to, so take the
initiative to do so yourself. I think we all need a reminder of how to be
civil.
Certainly, some here need to remember to think twice before hitting "send".
Jeez, and people wonder why Moulton gets so much attention -- we're so
damned EAGER to prove that someone else is somehow the lesser.
Cheers,
- jsproat
/me puts .space into my skip filter
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> The first problem I have, Jason, is that I am not sure that everyone else is
> right, either on these bulletin boards and I know for a fact that I am not
> probably right in my ways of thought in my life. Would an overheated engine
> become a problem in outer space because if it does become a problem in outer
> space, you could always use some Castrol (variant GTX) and some Gumout Warp
> Coil Cleaner (I saw that last product in an advertisement) on your
> engine(s). I believe that poor communication leads to miscommunication
> between people and this was certainly an example of this problem, Jason.
And I thought I'd drifted off the subject... :-)
I don't know of any form of reciprocating or rotating engine that could
propel you through space, so engine oil seems a bit pointless. As for
overheating, the only way to disperse heat in space is by radiating it -
there's nothing to conduct it away, and I don't know enough to say how you'd
improve a radiating heat exchanger. I can suggest that you would design
your engine to transfer as much heat as possible into your propellant.
> We have established that there is LESS friction and gravity in outer space
No. There is negligible friction, but there is plenty of gravity - at least
within the solar system. The only reason things stay up in space is because
they're orbiting at extremely high speeds. They're constantly pulled
towards the various bodies (sun, planets, moon), but they just keep going
round and round. To travel between bodies you have to carefully calculate
trajectories to take you on paths around them, not straight towards them.
Astronauts experience 'weightlessness' or 'microgravity' because they're
falling and moving at the same speed as their capsule, not because there's
no gravity acting on them. They're actually in 'free-fall'. If their craft
came to a dead stop, it would fall to Earth. As would the moon, if it came
to a halt in its orbit.
> but now a new question occurs to my mind. You say that gas provides the
> least friction and gravity,
I said nothing of the sort.
> solids provide more gravity and friction, but
> that liquids provide the most gravity and friction. (The increase of
> gravity and friction therefore, at least to my mind, must also increase the
> amount of drag that an object uses in that type of armosphere.)
Nor that. On what do you base these statements? Gravity depends on the
mass of an object. The more massive, the more gravity. As for friction, I
made no such comparitive statements. Friction depends on the properties of
both surfaces in contact. Some liquids are very viscous and some solids are
very hard and smooth.
> What
> comprises of the most molecules in outer space and if outer space includes
> particles from all three types of matter (five in you include gels and
> plasmatic materials but they are more of a transitionatory element than an
> actual object), then how would the mixed particles react to an object that
> is moving through that domain of existence, that is how would a space craft
> be affected in terms of drag in space if all three types of objects exist in
> outer space?
This is ridiculous. You're clearly aware of advanced states of matter such
as plasma, but write in a way that shows such a fundamental lack of
understanding of simple concepts such as friction and gravity. To answer
the point, liquids do not exist in space - with no pressure around them,
they boil instantly into gas. So, you either encounter gas molecules or
solid lumps - from specks of dust to asteroids and planets. Both are so
dispersed as to act like individual particles, impacting your vehicle one at
a time.
The heat of stars, or the compression around black holes can generate
plasma, but both of these areas are bad news for your spaceship.
> I believe that the pilots of those old airplanes simply wanted to have fun
> so they flew upside down in order to appear as though they were really some
> big hot shot, that and bacck in those days, there were not that many ways to
> impress women so these pilots flew upside down to get dates with women. I
> am not sure that all of my information is correct on this subject but due to
> those first pilots, stunt flying is a fairly large business today. The Blue
> Angels (not to be confused with a Wing Commander squadron of the same name)
> and the Thunderbirds are the most modern example of this type of flying with
> aircraft.
The point was physically how the wing continues to fly inverted, given the
schoolboy model of airflow over a wing. You seems to have missed this
entirely, and I suspect deliberately.
> I have three last questions to tell you, Jason.
That's 'ask you', not 'tell you'.
> The first question is with
> air pressure on space craft. Am I right by saying that the air spilts to go
> under and over the wing but ends up meeting at the back of the wing or is it
> more complicated than that conclusion to the information, Jason?
If it's in an atmosphere, and if it's got wings, then yes. But, obviously
the air has to go over and under the wing - it's not going to pass right
through it. The point is the way the pressure is distributed, and how the
ideal balanced flow is altered by the air's viscous behaviour.
Fundamentally though, there's no force that links a point in the air above
the wing with one underneath it, so there's no reason why the air above
should keep pace with the air below - which is what the 'it has further to
go around the curve' explanation relies on.
> The second
> question is what happens as a result of the more sharpened trailing edge
> creating a wake from the wing?
You get a wake - downwash and turbulence behind an aircraft, which makes
flying another one behind it much harder. In Newtonian mechanics, you force
air downward and so get lift upward. It doesn't work out exactly, but it's
close. So, a Harrier jump-jet creates roughly as much downdraft from its
engines when hovering as you get from its wings when its flying forward. An
aircraft flying behind, in the downdraft, must generate even more lift to
stay up because the air it is flying through is moving downward.
Helicopters have a hell of a time staying up, because each rotor blade is
passing through the downwash of the one in front.
> The final question is are toroids those
> white trails that we see in the sky when jet craft are in the sky that are
> made of this steam and are also composed of those rear circulations behind
> these aircraft? I thank you for answering my letter, Jason.
> Jesse Long
Not exactly. A toroid is just a donut shape. A smoke ring is a toroid.
It's just a cylinder bent around so that the ends meet up and enclose a
space, shaped like a donut. The air flows around the front edge of a wing,
leaves two swirls in a long trail behind the aircraft, and a swirl on the
ground where it took off. If you think of these swirls as tubes of rotating
air, and join them up, you get a huge stretched out smoke ring or donut.
More like a rubber ring stretch out to several miles long, but still a loop.
You never really see a complete loop like this, as the swirling air
disperses after the plane has gone by. You only get it if you take a
snapshot of each bit of air as the aircraft passes through it. But, the
trails behind an aircraft are part of this phenomenon. Trails from the
wingtips are caused by water condensing in the middle of these swirls
('vortices' - plural of 'vortex', like a whirlpool), and the long trails you
see in the sky are water vapour from the engine exhaust condensing in the
wake of the aircraft.
Jason J Railton
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > The first problem I have, Jason, is that I am not sure that everyone else is
> > right, either on these bulletin boards and I know for a fact that I am not
> > probably right in my ways of thought in my life. Would an overheated engine
> > become a problem in outer space because if it does become a problem in outer
> > space, you could always use some Castrol (variant GTX) and some Gumout Warp
> > Coil Cleaner (I saw that last product in an advertisement) on your
> > engine(s). I believe that poor communication leads to miscommunication
> > between people and this was certainly an example of this problem, Jason.
>
> And I thought I'd drifted off the subject... :-)
>
> I don't know of any form of reciprocating or rotating engine that could
> propel you through space, so engine oil seems a bit pointless. As for
> overheating, the only way to disperse heat in space is by radiating it -
> there's nothing to conduct it away, and I don't know enough to say how you'd
> improve a radiating heat exchanger. I can suggest that you would design
> your engine to transfer as much heat as possible into your propellant.
>
> > We have established that there is LESS friction and gravity in outer space
>
> No. There is negligible friction, but there is plenty of gravity - at least
> within the solar system. The only reason things stay up in space is because
> they're orbiting at extremely high speeds. They're constantly pulled
> towards the various bodies (sun, planets, moon), but they just keep going
> round and round. To travel between bodies you have to carefully calculate
> trajectories to take you on paths around them, not straight towards them.
> Astronauts experience 'weightlessness' or 'microgravity' because they're
> falling and moving at the same speed as their capsule, not because there's
> no gravity acting on them. They're actually in 'free-fall'. If their craft
> came to a dead stop, it would fall to Earth. As would the moon, if it came
> to a halt in its orbit.
>
> > but now a new question occurs to my mind. You say that gas provides the
> > least friction and gravity,
>
> I said nothing of the sort.
>
> > solids provide more gravity and friction, but
> > that liquids provide the most gravity and friction. (The increase of
> > gravity and friction therefore, at least to my mind, must also increase the
> > amount of drag that an object uses in that type of armosphere.)
>
> Nor that. On what do you base these statements? Gravity depends on the
> mass of an object. The more massive, the more gravity. As for friction, I
> made no such comparitive statements. Friction depends on the properties of
> both surfaces in contact. Some liquids are very viscous and some solids are
> very hard and smooth.
>
> > What
> > comprises of the most molecules in outer space and if outer space includes
> > particles from all three types of matter (five in you include gels and
> > plasmatic materials but they are more of a transitionatory element than an
> > actual object), then how would the mixed particles react to an object that
> > is moving through that domain of existence, that is how would a space craft
> > be affected in terms of drag in space if all three types of objects exist in
> > outer space?
>
> This is ridiculous. You're clearly aware of advanced states of matter such
> as plasma, but write in a way that shows such a fundamental lack of
> understanding of simple concepts such as friction and gravity. To answer
> the point, liquids do not exist in space - with no pressure around them,
> they boil instantly into gas. So, you either encounter gas molecules or
> solid lumps - from specks of dust to asteroids and planets. Both are so
> dispersed as to act like individual particles, impacting your vehicle one at
> a time.
>
> The heat of stars, or the compression around black holes can generate
> plasma, but both of these areas are bad news for your spaceship.
>
> > I believe that the pilots of those old airplanes simply wanted to have fun
> > so they flew upside down in order to appear as though they were really some
> > big hot shot, that and bacck in those days, there were not that many ways to
> > impress women so these pilots flew upside down to get dates with women. I
> > am not sure that all of my information is correct on this subject but due to
> > those first pilots, stunt flying is a fairly large business today. The Blue
> > Angels (not to be confused with a Wing Commander squadron of the same name)
> > and the Thunderbirds are the most modern example of this type of flying with
> > aircraft.
>
> The point was physically how the wing continues to fly inverted, given the
> schoolboy model of airflow over a wing. You seems to have missed this
> entirely, and I suspect deliberately.
>
> > I have three last questions to tell you, Jason.
>
> That's 'ask you', not 'tell you'.
>
> > The first question is with
> > air pressure on space craft. Am I right by saying that the air spilts to go
> > under and over the wing but ends up meeting at the back of the wing or is it
> > more complicated than that conclusion to the information, Jason?
>
> If it's in an atmosphere, and if it's got wings, then yes. But, obviously
> the air has to go over and under the wing - it's not going to pass right
> through it. The point is the way the pressure is distributed, and how the
> ideal balanced flow is altered by the air's viscous behaviour.
> Fundamentally though, there's no force that links a point in the air above
> the wing with one underneath it, so there's no reason why the air above
> should keep pace with the air below - which is what the 'it has further to
> go around the curve' explanation relies on.
>
> > The second
> > question is what happens as a result of the more sharpened trailing edge
> > creating a wake from the wing?
>
> You get a wake - downwash and turbulence behind an aircraft, which makes
> flying another one behind it much harder. In Newtonian mechanics, you force
> air downward and so get lift upward. It doesn't work out exactly, but it's
> close. So, a Harrier jump-jet creates roughly as much downdraft from its
> engines when hovering as you get from its wings when its flying forward. An
> aircraft flying behind, in the downdraft, must generate even more lift to
> stay up because the air it is flying through is moving downward.
> Helicopters have a hell of a time staying up, because each rotor blade is
> passing through the downwash of the one in front.
>
> > The final question is are toroids those
> > white trails that we see in the sky when jet craft are in the sky that are
> > made of this steam and are also composed of those rear circulations behind
> > these aircraft? I thank you for answering my letter, Jason.
> > Jesse Long
>
> Not exactly. A toroid is just a donut shape. A smoke ring is a toroid.
> It's just a cylinder bent around so that the ends meet up and enclose a
> space, shaped like a donut. The air flows around the front edge of a wing,
> leaves two swirls in a long trail behind the aircraft, and a swirl on the
> ground where it took off. If you think of these swirls as tubes of rotating
> air, and join them up, you get a huge stretched out smoke ring or donut.
> More like a rubber ring stretch out to several miles long, but still a loop.
>
> You never really see a complete loop like this, as the swirling air
> disperses after the plane has gone by. You only get it if you take a
> snapshot of each bit of air as the aircraft passes through it. But, the
> trails behind an aircraft are part of this phenomenon. Trails from the
> wingtips are caused by water condensing in the middle of these swirls
> ('vortices' - plural of 'vortex', like a whirlpool), and the long trails you
> see in the sky are water vapour from the engine exhaust condensing in the
> wake of the aircraft.
>
> Jason J Railton
I was only having some fun with the oil part of the letter, I knew that you
probably did not use oil in outer space, I mean, after all, the general
consensus in outer space would reflect that you would use environmentally
friendly materials when constructing the engines of a space craft, unless
maybe some engineers use some radioactive elements or a nuclear fusion
engine (speaking from a science fiction point of view), then maybe I am
wrong in that aspect in life.
The question about the aspects of an airplane wing was also having some fun,
or probably watching one too many episodes of "Pinky and the Brain (Perry
Saturn, right now is approaching the intelligence level of Pinky but that is
another story)." I knew that an airplane wing will continue to fly, even if
it was inverted but that is because, I believe, unless otherwise corrected,
that the plane has a curved surface and as long as it has the curved
surface, then no matter how you fly, you still receive lift from the air and
a downward force but the lift is stronger than the downward force because
more air goes down than it does going up on the airplane but it is not of
such an unbalanced ratio that it can not fly down to Earth because that
would violate the laws of gravity.
However, I do not understand what you mean by the term "negligable gravity."
I come from the public school system where you are fortunate if you know any
subject before you graduate because it is a bottomless pit of despair, or as
I personally refer to school, hell on earth, at least depending on what type
of school I am attending in life. I am also well aware about astronauts
experiencing microgravity or weightlessness but weightlessness, at least in
outer space or on the earth, is a misnomer so we should use microgravity for
the rest of the letter.
I was completely unaware that the space craft would immediately crash into
the Earth in outer space if it completely stopped in outer space. The space
program would probably never receive one red cent if that happened to a
space craft.
I always thought that heat was able to boil liquids into gas but why does
heat not present a role into outer space? Why would pressure matter in
outer space? I always thought that you could make a plasma powered space
craft in a similar manner as you would build a welding torch so please
explain to me why the plasma engine would present a terrible idea for my
space craft? I mean, I know that plasma, in a uncontrolled state, can
present a great danger but what about a controlled plasma environment, if
any such environment is possible on a space craft?
The final question I have to ask is could it be possible, either in a
science fiction realm or a realistic realm for a Harrier type space craft to
actually fly into outer space? I thank you for clearing the confusion in my
mind, Jason.
Jesse Long
P.S. I some times produce bad grammar and miscommunication in my sentences
so I guess I confuse people. Thank you for catching my mistake, Jason.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > All I simply said was I got tired of the same basic designs in large space
> > craft. I have seen these same, cigar shaped designs ever since the science
> > fiction serials on television around six or seven decades earlier in our
> > country. I like the features, the compartments, the engines, the technology
> > but I simply do not like the styles of most of these space craft. These
> > space craft are too open for weapons, at least some of these space craft,
> > for the enemy space craft to simply blow the space craft into oblivion.
>
> That's neither here nor there. Simply build them. Some people will like
> them, some will dislike them. But that's not what I'm annoyed by...
>
> > If
> > you wanted a part in this discussion, then please do not assume that I am
> > immature because I am not the instigator of all of the immaturity of these
> > letters, I am simply discussing flaws with the elemental designs of most
> > space craft and I can not help that with some of these letters that I view
> > some of these responses as hostile and that with some of the information
> > that I do not understand the views of some of these people and that is what
> > frustrates me about this bulletin board.
>
> Uh, yeah. Against my better judgement, which I'm having to temporarily shut
> down because it's screaming so loud, I'm going to throw in another word or ten.
>
> Folks, take a breather. This discussion is getting worse by the minute.
> Sit back, be quiet for a week or so, and let this thread die the horrible
> shuddering death it deserves. No one else seems to want to, so take the
> initiative to do so yourself. I think we all need a reminder of how to be
> civil.
>
> Certainly, some here need to remember to think twice before hitting "send".
> Jeez, and people wonder why Moulton gets so much attention -- we're so
> damned EAGER to prove that someone else is somehow the lesser.
>
> Cheers,
> - jsproat
>
> /me puts .space into my skip filter
The paragraph that I made in that letter, upon further review, did not need
to be made into that letter but I guess I was simply angry at many aspect of
my life and certain family members, friends, and other people. I,
personally, am tired of the thread as well but I simply do not understand
how people build their space craft so it will have to take some time (and
many apologies) for me to be used to constructing the types of space craft,
mecha, hovercraft, and other vehicles that I want in my life. (I should
make a note to myself, open my mouth and insert my foot, at least do not
take the shoe OFF of my foot.)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
much clipped
> I was completely unaware that the space craft would immediately crash into
> the Earth in outer space if it completely stopped in outer space. The space
> program would probably never receive one red cent if that happened to a
> space craft.
Orbit is a balance between a spacecraft's velocity and the downward pull of
gravity. The vehicle's velocity pulls it outward, like centrifugal force in
a car turning a corner, and gravity pulls it in.
>
> I always thought that heat was able to boil liquids into gas but why does
> heat not present a role into outer space? Why would pressure matter in
> outer space? I always thought that you could make a plasma powered space
> craft in a similar manner as you would build a welding torch so please
> explain to me why the plasma engine would present a terrible idea for my
> space craft? I mean, I know that plasma, in a uncontrolled state, can
> present a great danger but what about a controlled plasma environment, if
> any such environment is possible on a space craft?
Boiling a liguid is causing a change from liguid to solid, and this depends
on the air pressure the liquid is in. A pressure cooker can cook at
temperature higher than boiling, in the mountains boiling temperatures are
lower (check a brownie mix).
Think of it this way. Boiling a liquid makes the liquid molecules jump away
from the liquid. If there is air molecules in the way, they need more energy
to jump away.
>
> The final question I have to ask is could it be possible, either in a
> science fiction realm or a realistic realm for a Harrier type space craft to
> actually fly into outer space? I thank you for clearing the confusion in my
> mind, Jason.
> Jesse Long
Well, if the Harrier type aircraft has a jet engine, no, a jet engine needs
air (or oxygen in the air) to work. The vectoring principle of HArrier would
work.
George
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> overheating, the only way to disperse heat in space is by radiating it -
> there's nothing to conduct it away, and I don't know enough to say how you'd
> improve a radiating heat exchanger. I can suggest that you would design
I guess it would be based on the surface material properties. Different
materials have different thermal emissivities, so picking one with a
high value would be better for cooling directly to space. Of course
these materials may be impossible to use for some reason or other, but,
whatever, that's for somebody else to figure out ;]
> came to a dead stop, it would fall to Earth. As would the moon, if it came
> to a halt in its orbit.
Sweet! That would be *so cool*! Imagine sitting out on the deck
looking up at the full moon, and all of a sudden it starts falling
towards you. If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
(tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
(*) DISCLAIMER: cookie offer will not be honoured.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
Narf! You're welcome.
"Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GFnI8o.KF4@lugnet.com...
-snip-
> The question about the aspects of an airplane wing was also having • some fun,
> or probably watching one too many episodes of "Pinky and the Brain • (Perry
> Saturn, right now is approaching the intelligence level of Pinky but • that is
> another story)." I knew that an airplane wing will continue to fly,
even if
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> I knew that an airplane wing will continue to fly, even if
> it was inverted but that is because, I believe, unless otherwise corrected,
> that the plane has a curved surface and as long as it has the curved
> surface, then no matter how you fly, you still receive lift from the air and
> a downward force but the lift is stronger than the downward force because
> more air goes down than it does going up on the airplane but it is not of
> such an unbalanced ratio that it can not fly down to Earth because that
> would violate the laws of gravity.
Well, it's more about the angle the wing is inclined to the airflow. Just
keep it tilted upward to the air flowing past you, keep your speed up, and
you should get some lift. Newton says you're deflecting air downwards.
Aerodynamics says a lot more but it's much harder to follow.
> I always thought that heat was able to boil liquids into gas but why does
> heat not present a role into outer space? Why would pressure matter in
> outer space?
The boiling point of a liquid depends on the pressure of the environment
it's in. Under high pressure, like in a pressure cooker, water boils at a
higher temperature (that's the point of the cooker). Under low pressure, it
boils at a much lower temperature. High on a mountain, in thin air, it
takes a lot longer than 3 1/2 minutes to boil an egg, because the water
boils below 100°. In space, with zero pressure, liquids boil instantly.
Inside a pressurised space capsule, water sticks together in floating
bubbles - but outside, the molecules would just disperse. [There are
rumours of water droplets on surfaces in a depressurised section of Mir
following an accident, but these have yet to be confirmed or explained].
I wouldn't try tis with other liquids in your space capsule - water
molecules have a little stickiness (which gives us surface tension - how
insects can stand on the surface of water). It's possible to break this
down by adding detergents - so soapy water would probably go everywhere.
> I always thought that you could make a plasma powered space
> craft in a similar manner as you would build a welding torch so please
> explain to me why the plasma engine would present a terrible idea for my
> space craft? I mean, I know that plasma, in a uncontrolled state, can
> present a great danger but what about a controlled plasma environment, if
> any such environment is possible on a space craft?
Well, conventional propulsion is all about reaction thrust. You blow some
mass backwards, and you get a reaction pushing your mass forward. Jets,
rockets and propellors all use this trick. The difference with rockets is
they don't take anything in from the atmosphere. Propellors and jet engines
use air as their propellant. A rocket, and the combustion chamber inside a
jet engine, both use a chemical reaction (burning) to generate gas at a high
temperature. This causes rapid expansion, and the only vent for this is
rearwards. In a jet engine, it also heats the air, and that expands and
blows backward too. A propellor just pushes air (or water) backwards.
My knowledge of plasma is limited, but I guess it would be an extreme
example of the super-heated expanded gas. I believe it can be guided by
electro-magnetic fields, so maybe you could accelerate it even more with
such fields.
> The final question I have to ask is could it be possible, either in a
> science fiction realm or a realistic realm for a Harrier type space craft to
> actually fly into outer space? I thank you for clearing the confusion in my
> mind, Jason.
Yes - if you had enough thrust you could go straight up - but you'd need to
keep the thrust on just to hover against the force of gravity. All our
spacecraft (Apollo, Shuttle, French and Russian satellite launchers) start
off going straight up, but soon tilt over into orbit. To get away from
Earth, they accelerate around and around, getting into higher and higher
orbits, until they're going fast enough to fly off ('escape velocity') -
though they still fly off in an arc, not in a straight line away from Earth.
It would take too much fuel for NASA to send a rocket straight up, but it
might be possible one day. Anti-gravity devices would help.
Jason J Railton
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > overheating, the only way to disperse heat in space is by radiating it -
> > there's nothing to conduct it away, and I don't know enough to say how you'd
> > improve a radiating heat exchanger. I can suggest that you would design
>
> I guess it would be based on the surface material properties. Different
> materials have different thermal emissivities, so picking one with a
> high value would be better for cooling directly to space. Of course
> these materials may be impossible to use for some reason or other, but,
> whatever, that's for somebody else to figure out ;]
>
>
> > came to a dead stop, it would fall to Earth. As would the moon, if it came
> > to a halt in its orbit.
>
> Sweet! That would be *so cool*! Imagine sitting out on the deck
> looking up at the full moon, and all of a sudden it starts falling
> towards you. If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
>
> (*) DISCLAIMER: cookie offer will not be honoured.
>
>
> KDJ
> _______________________________________
> LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
What material would serve the best purpose for cooling off directly in space
and would this material work in space to prevent the plasma that powers my
space craft from overheating and making my space craft explode into a
million pieces?
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
>
> (*) DISCLAIMER: cookie offer will not be honoured.
I get 3.5 days, ignoring the motion of the earth toward the moon.
Don't worry about the cookie - LUGNET provides free cookies for us all. :)
Jeff J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > I knew that an airplane wing will continue to fly, even if
> > it was inverted but that is because, I believe, unless otherwise corrected,
> > that the plane has a curved surface and as long as it has the curved
> > surface, then no matter how you fly, you still receive lift from the air and
> > a downward force but the lift is stronger than the downward force because
> > more air goes down than it does going up on the airplane but it is not of
> > such an unbalanced ratio that it can not fly down to Earth because that
> > would violate the laws of gravity.
>
> Well, it's more about the angle the wing is inclined to the airflow. Just
> keep it tilted upward to the air flowing past you, keep your speed up, and
> you should get some lift. Newton says you're deflecting air downwards.
> Aerodynamics says a lot more but it's much harder to follow.
>
> > I always thought that heat was able to boil liquids into gas but why does
> > heat not present a role into outer space? Why would pressure matter in
> > outer space?
>
> The boiling point of a liquid depends on the pressure of the environment
> it's in. Under high pressure, like in a pressure cooker, water boils at a
> higher temperature (that's the point of the cooker). Under low pressure, it
> boils at a much lower temperature. High on a mountain, in thin air, it
> takes a lot longer than 3 1/2 minutes to boil an egg, because the water
> boils below 100°. In space, with zero pressure, liquids boil instantly.
> Inside a pressurised space capsule, water sticks together in floating
> bubbles - but outside, the molecules would just disperse. [There are
> rumours of water droplets on surfaces in a depressurised section of Mir
> following an accident, but these have yet to be confirmed or explained].
>
> I wouldn't try tis with other liquids in your space capsule - water
> molecules have a little stickiness (which gives us surface tension - how
> insects can stand on the surface of water). It's possible to break this
> down by adding detergents - so soapy water would probably go everywhere.
>
> > I always thought that you could make a plasma powered space
> > craft in a similar manner as you would build a welding torch so please
> > explain to me why the plasma engine would present a terrible idea for my
> > space craft? I mean, I know that plasma, in a uncontrolled state, can
> > present a great danger but what about a controlled plasma environment, if
> > any such environment is possible on a space craft?
>
> Well, conventional propulsion is all about reaction thrust. You blow some
> mass backwards, and you get a reaction pushing your mass forward. Jets,
> rockets and propellors all use this trick. The difference with rockets is
> they don't take anything in from the atmosphere. Propellors and jet engines
> use air as their propellant. A rocket, and the combustion chamber inside a
> jet engine, both use a chemical reaction (burning) to generate gas at a high
> temperature. This causes rapid expansion, and the only vent for this is
> rearwards. In a jet engine, it also heats the air, and that expands and
> blows backward too. A propellor just pushes air (or water) backwards.
>
> My knowledge of plasma is limited, but I guess it would be an extreme
> example of the super-heated expanded gas. I believe it can be guided by
> electro-magnetic fields, so maybe you could accelerate it even more with
> such fields.
>
> > The final question I have to ask is could it be possible, either in a
> > science fiction realm or a realistic realm for a Harrier type space craft to
> > actually fly into outer space? I thank you for clearing the confusion in my
> > mind, Jason.
>
> Yes - if you had enough thrust you could go straight up - but you'd need to
> keep the thrust on just to hover against the force of gravity. All our
> spacecraft (Apollo, Shuttle, French and Russian satellite launchers) start
> off going straight up, but soon tilt over into orbit. To get away from
> Earth, they accelerate around and around, getting into higher and higher
> orbits, until they're going fast enough to fly off ('escape velocity') -
> though they still fly off in an arc, not in a straight line away from Earth.
>
> It would take too much fuel for NASA to send a rocket straight up, but it
> might be possible one day. Anti-gravity devices would help.
>
> Jason J Railton
You said in the last letter before this letter that some liquids (referring
to the reaction to friction of certain particles in outer space) are
viscious while some solids are very hard and smooth in reaction to friction
in outer space. If liquids boil in outer space, how is this possible in
outer space? Do you really mean that gases, not liquids, are very viscious
with the concept of friction in outer space?
I also must say that if the rumors (forgive my American dialect of the
English language) are true about Mir and the condensation of water droplets
on one of the observation windows, then the whole concept of boiling liquids
in different environments would be held in serious jeopardy and we may have
to reorganize our thoughts on condensation, the boiling points of liquids,
and air pressure in outer space and on our planet.
I do not understand why you say that it would be considered a terrible idea
for me to use plasma as a heated engine and yet you say that it could be
guided with electromagnetic fields. Would these electromagnetic fields not
only stabilize the plasma but also make the plasma increase in speed as
thrust or would the electromagnetic fields only provide a stable environment
for the plasma or would neither of these possibilities be true for my space
craft?
I have two more questions to ask you, Jason. The first question is would
Newtonian physics contradict or complement the laws of aerodynamics? If
there are any contradictions or further explanations from these rules,
please explain them to me, Jason. The second question is what would work
for an antigravity device for space craft, that is what materials and
options could we use for space craft? I am glad that the long ordeal about
the eternal space craft ethical war is almost over in Lugnet.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, George Haberberger writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> much clipped
>
> > I was completely unaware that the space craft would immediately crash into
> > the Earth in outer space if it completely stopped in outer space. The space
> > program would probably never receive one red cent if that happened to a
> > space craft.
>
> Orbit is a balance between a spacecraft's velocity and the downward pull of
> gravity. The vehicle's velocity pulls it outward, like centrifugal force in
> a car turning a corner, and gravity pulls it in.
>
> >
> > I always thought that heat was able to boil liquids into gas but why does
> > heat not present a role into outer space? Why would pressure matter in
> > outer space? I always thought that you could make a plasma powered space
> > craft in a similar manner as you would build a welding torch so please
> > explain to me why the plasma engine would present a terrible idea for my
> > space craft? I mean, I know that plasma, in a uncontrolled state, can
> > present a great danger but what about a controlled plasma environment, if
> > any such environment is possible on a space craft?
>
> Boiling a liguid is causing a change from liguid to solid, and this depends
> on the air pressure the liquid is in. A pressure cooker can cook at
> temperature higher than boiling, in the mountains boiling temperatures are
> lower (check a brownie mix).
>
> Think of it this way. Boiling a liquid makes the liquid molecules jump away
> from the liquid. If there is air molecules in the way, they need more energy
> to jump away.
>
> >
> > The final question I have to ask is could it be possible, either in a
> > science fiction realm or a realistic realm for a Harrier type space craft to
> > actually fly into outer space? I thank you for clearing the confusion in my
> > mind, Jason.
> > Jesse Long
>
> Well, if the Harrier type aircraft has a jet engine, no, a jet engine needs
> air (or oxygen in the air) to work. The vectoring principle of HArrier would
> work.
>
> George
Thank you for the demonstration about the vehicle and the turning into a
curve, George. I finally grasp that concept in my mind. However, liquids,
if you boil them, changes materials from liquids to gases, just to let you
know, George. :.)
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> > (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> > rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> > on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
> >
> > (*) DISCLAIMER: cookie offer will not be honoured.
>
>
> I get 3.5 days, ignoring the motion of the earth toward the moon.
> Don't worry about the cookie - LUGNET provides free cookies for us all. :)
Holy cow, it's that long?! Man, cool or not, forget that..., too long!
Call me when the moon's an hour away. Now *that* would look cool, if
it was the first time you'd looked up in a few days.
Plus, the apparent gravity on the earth's surface in between them
would have dropped, and people would be setting all kinds of new
Olympic records :]
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > > If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> > > (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> > > rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> > > on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
> > >
> > > (*) DISCLAIMER: cookie offer will not be honoured.
> >
> >
> > I get 3.5 days, ignoring the motion of the earth toward the moon.
> > Don't worry about the cookie - LUGNET provides free cookies for us all. :)
>
> Holy cow, it's that long?! Man, cool or not, forget that..., too long!
> Call me when the moon's an hour away. Now *that* would look cool, if
> it was the first time you'd looked up in a few days.
>
> Plus, the apparent gravity on the earth's surface in between them
> would have dropped, and people would be setting all kinds of new
> Olympic records :]
>
> KDJ
> _______________________________________
> LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
I never spotted this before, but it's further proof that there's negligible
friction in space. If there was, the Moon would have slowed down in it's
orbit and fallen to Earth, and the Earth would slow down and fall into the sun.
Actually, I seem to remember that the moon's pull on the tides is mutual
(the moon is affected by the gravity of water on the Earth), and because
tidal waters drag across the surface (thus slowed by friction), this is
gradually decelerating the moon's orbit. So, it's orbit is very slowly
shrinking...
Jason J Railton
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> You said in the last letter before this letter that some liquids (referring
> to the reaction to friction of certain particles in outer space) are
> viscious while some solids are very hard and smooth in reaction to friction
> in outer space. If liquids boil in outer space, how is this possible in
> outer space? Do you really mean that gases, not liquids, are very viscious
> with the concept of friction in outer space?
I didn't necessarily mean in space. I was just talking about liquids in
general (on Earth, in an atmosphere).
Clearly if you're trying to push your way through something, a gas is easier
than a liquid, which is easier than a solid. But, this isn't all down to
friction. If you run into a brick wall, that's not friction that stops you
- it's mechanics of a structure. You need to break the bonds in the
structure to cut through it, then force the parts apart. Liquids just have
looser bonds, making it easier to force your way through.
Friction comes into play as you start to move through - it's the rubbing of
the sides of your craft against what it's moving past. That may be gas (in
an atmosphere), liquid (underwater), or solid (snow under the skis of a
sled). This is what is referred to as 'surface drag' in aerodynamics -
friction of the air flowing past. The force of running into the air in
front (along with suction from the turbulence behind you) is know as
'pressure drag', and isn't caused by friction between your craft and the air.
> I also must say that if the rumors (forgive my American dialect of the
> English language) are true about Mir and the condensation of water droplets
> on one of the observation windows, then the whole concept of boiling liquids
> in different environments would be held in serious jeopardy and we may have
> to reorganize our thoughts on condensation, the boiling points of liquids,
> and air pressure in outer space and on our planet.
Yup.
> I do not understand why you say that it would be considered a terrible idea
> for me to use plasma as a heated engine and yet you say that it could be
> guided with electromagnetic fields. Would these electromagnetic fields not
> only stabilize the plasma but also make the plasma increase in speed as
> thrust or would the electromagnetic fields only provide a stable environment
> for the plasma or would neither of these possibilities be true for my space
> craft?
Well, you could. This is what is meant by an 'ion drive'. You super-heat
gas into ionised particles (plasma), then accelerate it backwards. It's
just a bit dangerous. I don't know much more than that, but it's feasible.
It just takes a lot of power for both the heating and the electromagnetic
fields. You'd need to carry your own nuclear power source to run it all,
and all the extra shielding increases the weight of your craft. Voyager
uses a very small nuclear power source on the end of one of its long arms,
but you'd need something much bigger. You'd have to take it up in bits and
build it all in space.
> I have two more questions to ask you, Jason. The first question is would
> Newtonian physics contradict or complement the laws of aerodynamics? If
> there are any contradictions or further explanations from these rules,
> please explain them to me, Jason.
No, they're complementary. It's just that neither completely explains
everything, because airflow is always chaotic. No matter how finely you
analyse it, there's always some tiny error creeps in.
There are further explanations, but I took a degree course at Loughborough
University in the UK, and I don't have them all. Maybe if you took the
course two or three times (to cover all the optional modules), then put in
some post-grad studies you'd have all the answers, but I doubt it. Only
joking - however much you study this, there's always something more you
don't know.
> The second question is what would work
> for an antigravity device for space craft, that is what materials and
> options could we use for space craft? I am glad that the long ordeal about
> the eternal space craft ethical war is almost over in Lugnet.
> Jesse Long
I have no idea. There have been a few reports of some obscure research lab
that claimed to have produced reduced gravity, then immediately retracted
their paper on the subject. Apart from that, there's no progress on
anti-gravity so far.
Jason J Railton
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> > > In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > > > If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> > > > (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> > > > rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> > > > on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
> > > >
> > > > (*) DISCLAIMER: cookie offer will not be honoured.
> > >
> > >
> > > I get 3.5 days, ignoring the motion of the earth toward the moon.
> > > Don't worry about the cookie - LUGNET provides free cookies for us all. :)
> >
> > Holy cow, it's that long?! Man, cool or not, forget that..., too long!
> > Call me when the moon's an hour away. Now *that* would look cool, if
> > it was the first time you'd looked up in a few days.
> >
> > Plus, the apparent gravity on the earth's surface in between them
> > would have dropped, and people would be setting all kinds of new
> > Olympic records :]
> >
> > KDJ
> > _______________________________________
> > LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
>
> I never spotted this before, but it's further proof that there's negligible
> friction in space. If there was, the Moon would have slowed down in it's
> orbit and fallen to Earth, and the Earth would slow down and fall into the sun.
>
> Actually, I seem to remember that the moon's pull on the tides is mutual
> (the moon is affected by the gravity of water on the Earth), and because
> tidal waters drag across the surface (thus slowed by friction), this is
> gradually decelerating the moon's orbit. So, it's orbit is very slowly
> shrinking...
>
> Jason J Railton
I have two questions to ask now because of the replies to this bulletin
board message I sent in response to many other messages on the Lugnet Space
bulletin board room. The first question is for Kyle D. Jackson and Jeff
Jardine and it is if we did not ignore the motion of the earth towards the
moon, then how long would it take for a person to watch the moon before it
landed on a person? (Have these people played The Legend of Zelda:
Majora's Mask one too many times in their lives?) The second question is
with a decreasing and more negligable friction and an always decreasing
amount of gravity in outer space, would space craft have the ability to
travel to places faster or slower than conventional aircraft on the planet
Earth? Thank you for answering my questions and the more questions a person
asks about the world, the more the person knows about the world.
Jesse Long
P.S. The people who do not know what The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is
about, please go to http://www.nintendo.com and you will find every part of
information that you can about this video game.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > You said in the last letter before this letter that some liquids (referring
> > to the reaction to friction of certain particles in outer space) are
> > viscious while some solids are very hard and smooth in reaction to friction
> > in outer space. If liquids boil in outer space, how is this possible in
> > outer space? Do you really mean that gases, not liquids, are very viscious
> > with the concept of friction in outer space?
>
> I didn't necessarily mean in space. I was just talking about liquids in
> general (on Earth, in an atmosphere).
>
> Clearly if you're trying to push your way through something, a gas is easier
> than a liquid, which is easier than a solid. But, this isn't all down to
> friction. If you run into a brick wall, that's not friction that stops you
> - it's mechanics of a structure. You need to break the bonds in the
> structure to cut through it, then force the parts apart. Liquids just have
> looser bonds, making it easier to force your way through.
>
> Friction comes into play as you start to move through - it's the rubbing of
> the sides of your craft against what it's moving past. That may be gas (in
> an atmosphere), liquid (underwater), or solid (snow under the skis of a
> sled). This is what is referred to as 'surface drag' in aerodynamics -
> friction of the air flowing past. The force of running into the air in
> front (along with suction from the turbulence behind you) is know as
> 'pressure drag', and isn't caused by friction between your craft and the air.
>
> > I also must say that if the rumors (forgive my American dialect of the
> > English language) are true about Mir and the condensation of water droplets
> > on one of the observation windows, then the whole concept of boiling liquids
> > in different environments would be held in serious jeopardy and we may have
> > to reorganize our thoughts on condensation, the boiling points of liquids,
> > and air pressure in outer space and on our planet.
>
> Yup.
>
> > I do not understand why you say that it would be considered a terrible idea
> > for me to use plasma as a heated engine and yet you say that it could be
> > guided with electromagnetic fields. Would these electromagnetic fields not
> > only stabilize the plasma but also make the plasma increase in speed as
> > thrust or would the electromagnetic fields only provide a stable environment
> > for the plasma or would neither of these possibilities be true for my space
> > craft?
>
> Well, you could. This is what is meant by an 'ion drive'. You super-heat
> gas into ionised particles (plasma), then accelerate it backwards. It's
> just a bit dangerous. I don't know much more than that, but it's feasible.
> It just takes a lot of power for both the heating and the electromagnetic
> fields. You'd need to carry your own nuclear power source to run it all,
> and all the extra shielding increases the weight of your craft. Voyager
> uses a very small nuclear power source on the end of one of its long arms,
> but you'd need something much bigger. You'd have to take it up in bits and
> build it all in space.
>
> > I have two more questions to ask you, Jason. The first question is would
> > Newtonian physics contradict or complement the laws of aerodynamics? If
> > there are any contradictions or further explanations from these rules,
> > please explain them to me, Jason.
>
> No, they're complementary. It's just that neither completely explains
> everything, because airflow is always chaotic. No matter how finely you
> analyse it, there's always some tiny error creeps in.
>
> There are further explanations, but I took a degree course at Loughborough
> University in the UK, and I don't have them all. Maybe if you took the
> course two or three times (to cover all the optional modules), then put in
> some post-grad studies you'd have all the answers, but I doubt it. Only
> joking - however much you study this, there's always something more you
> don't know.
>
> > The second question is what would work
> > for an antigravity device for space craft, that is what materials and
> > options could we use for space craft? I am glad that the long ordeal about
> > the eternal space craft ethical war is almost over in Lugnet.
> > Jesse Long
>
> I have no idea. There have been a few reports of some obscure research lab
> that claimed to have produced reduced gravity, then immediately retracted
> their paper on the subject. Apart from that, there's no progress on
> anti-gravity so far.
>
> Jason J Railton
I understand now in my mind that atoms are what makes the structure of all
living organisms and the structure of all living organisms depends on the
density and class of materials in the constructuion of space craft. It is
obbvious to me that you do need a sturdy set of materials and compounds in
order to produce a space craft yet we have not produced an inexpensive,
reasonable, safe, profitable, enduring, and long range propellant engine for
space craft. We need a successor to the rocket engine or else we will not
be able to make the large strides in space travel as we had done up to two
decades earlier in this world.
I have a proposal to not only increase the power of these ion drives but
reduce the radiation of the engines and the answer, at least from theory, is
to use a fusion engine on the space craft. The concept of fusion power
currently, at least to my mind, only exists in my video game referred to as
SimCity2000 but that does not mean that such a power source could not exist
in our lives. The problem, however, is to make this source of power a
reality for humanity so that we can travel further into outer space. What
are your thoughts on alternate methods to construct ion drives without using
such a massive amount of power in the space craft?
I would consider taking the courses that you are taking right now but for
six reasons, I am unable to do so right now in my life. The first reason
why I can not take these courses is that in algebra and any form of
mathematics beyond algebra, I am horrible at keeping information and am
unable to accomplish the equations in the books unless a tutor could help me
to become able to learn these subjects in my mind and to become able to
accomplish this goal in my life. The second reason is that I do not know if
you have any online courses for that college. The third reason is that I do
not live in England, or any place in the European Union for that matter so I
do not know if, even if this college has online courses, I could attend
these courses or not attend these courses in my life. The fourth reason is
that I soon will become enrolled in a community college (what most people
around this part of the world refer to as a junior collge, though we have
five general types of college, which are junior colleges, community
colleges, technical colleges, vocational colleges, and vocational and
technical colleges) in my town. The fifth reason is that I also am enrolled
(or will soon enroll) in some online courses at my school. The sixth reason
is that I have about thirteen or fourteen hours of class every week so that
may become a burden to my mind. I want to learn but I do not want to become
tired from learning and become irritable, mean, rude, paranoid, and
generally stressed from learning too many subject at one specific period of
time in my life. Please let me know what you think of this message and let
me have some more information about your college and any world wide web
pages that your college contains in their address. Thank you, Jason, for
your cooperation in my life.
Jesse Long
P.S. I apologize for that last paragraph being extremely long, it is merely
the simple fact that I have several reasons why I can not attend your
college at this moment in my life.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> Sweet! That would be *so cool*! Imagine sitting out on the deck
> looking up at the full moon, and all of a sudden it starts falling
> towards you. If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
I get 1 hour, 13 minutes. Or 2 hours, 26 minutes. If I could remember the
derivitive of y = x^2, I'd be more precise.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
>
> > Sweet! That would be *so cool*! Imagine sitting out on the deck
> > looking up at the full moon, and all of a sudden it starts falling
> > towards you. If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> > (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> > rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> > on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
>
> I get 1 hour, 13 minutes. Or 2 hours, 26 minutes. If I could remember the
> derivitive of y = x^2, I'd be more precise.
That'd be dy/dx = 2x. (I knew that calculus'd come in handy one day!)
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> >
> > > Sweet! That would be *so cool*! Imagine sitting out on the deck
> > > looking up at the full moon, and all of a sudden it starts falling
> > > towards you. If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> > > (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> > > rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> > > on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
> >
> > I get 1 hour, 13 minutes. Or 2 hours, 26 minutes. If I could remember the
> > derivitive of y = x^2, I'd be more precise.
>
> That'd be dy/dx = 2x. (I knew that calculus'd come in handy one day!)
Then it should be 2:26. Assuming that the relative acceleration between the
Earth and the Moon is the sum of their local accelerations due to gravity.
And assuming that acceleration is directly proportional to the force of
gravity. Ie, when it's said that the Moon has 1/6 the gravity of Earth,
that means the acceleration due to gravity on the Moon is 1/6 of the
acceleration on Earth.
Earth 1G = 9.8m/s^2
Moon 1/6G = 1.63m/s^2
Combined = 11.43m/s^2
Ack! I made a mistake. Drat. Well, let's go on, and see what new answer I
find.
a = 11.43 m/s^2
v = 11.43t m/s
d = 5.717t^2 m
And the average Earth-Moon distance is 38440100 meters.
So, at d = 38440100 meters, t = 2593 seconds. Joiks! That's only 43 minutes!
So there's my new answer. Now you can all poke holes in my work.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> >
> > > Sweet! That would be *so cool*! Imagine sitting out on the deck
> > > looking up at the full moon, and all of a sudden it starts falling
> > > towards you. If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> > > (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> > > rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> > > on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
> >
> > I get 1 hour, 13 minutes. Or 2 hours, 26 minutes. If I could remember the
> > derivitive of y = x^2, I'd be more precise.
>
> That'd be dy/dx = 2x. (I knew that calculus'd come in handy one day!)
>
> ROSCO
Calculus, yet another form of mathematics that I am unable to do in my life.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> > > > Sweet! That would be *so cool*! Imagine sitting out on the deck
> > > > looking up at the full moon, and all of a sudden it starts falling
> > > > towards you. If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> > > > (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> > > > rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> > > > on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
> Then it should be 2:26. Assuming that the relative acceleration between the
> Earth and the Moon is the sum of their local accelerations due to gravity.
> And assuming that acceleration is directly proportional to the force of
> gravity. Ie, when it's said that the Moon has 1/6 the gravity of Earth,
> that means the acceleration due to gravity on the Moon is 1/6 of the
> acceleration on Earth.
> Earth 1G = 9.8m/s^2
> Moon 1/6G = 1.63m/s^2
> Combined = 11.43m/s^2
> Ack! I made a mistake. Drat. Well, let's go on, and see what new answer I
> find.
> a= 11.43 m/s^2
> v = 11.43t m/s
> d = 5.717t^2 m
> And the average Earth-Moon distance is 38440100 meters.
> So, at d = 38440100 meters, t = 2593 seconds. Joiks! That's only 43 minutes!
> So there's my new answer. Now you can all poke holes in my work.
Umm... It's not a poke. honest.
Your value for the Earth-moon distance is off by a factor of ten.
which means your answer should be 2.25ish days.
And...
The force of the moon's gravity doesn't really enter into this.
We know
Force = -Gravitationalconstant x Mass(Earth) x Mass(moon) / (seperation)^2
GravitationalConstant = 6.67259x10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2
Mass(Earth) = 5.98x10^24 kg
From Newton's first law,
Force = mass x acceleration
so acceleration = Force(moon)/mass(moon)
Acceleration = -G x Me / r^2
hence, the acceleration at the start of the problem is more like 0.002m/s^2
rather than 11.43!
Although the acceleration is dependent on the distance (making the problem
very hideous) we can assume that it is constant for some 95% of the trip. at
the value given above.
From the working above
a=0.002
d=0.001t^2
for d=384,400km = 384,400,000m
t=620,000s = 7.17 days.
You'd notice this after about half a day, when the moon would be around
twice as big. After a day, it'd appear four times as big.
At 3hrs before impact, people below would be weightless (i.e between two
bodies exerting equal gravitational forces).
James (who's up past his bedtime figuring numbers.)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, James Howse writes:
> From Newton's first law,
>
> Force = mass x acceleration
>
> so acceleration = Force(moon)/mass(moon)
>
> Acceleration = -G x Me / r^2
>
> hence, the acceleration at the start of the problem is more like 0.002m/s^2
> rather than 11.43!
> Although the acceleration is dependent on the distance (making the problem
> very hideous) we can assume that it is constant for some 95% of the trip. at
> the value given above.
Actually, when calculating the acceleration and taking the distance into
account, it's not so bad. For my first attempt at solving this, I tried
converting gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. The resulting
integral was definitely hideous.
I used the gravitational acceleration that you mentioned: a = G x M / r^2
We also know that acceleration, a = dr/dt^2
If you integrate (and ignore constants, since we know we are starting with
zero velocity), you get:
t = [ 2 x R^3 / (3 x G x M) ]^0.5
which we can use to find out how long it would take any distant body to fall
from rest into another, much more massive body.
If we plug in 3.8e08m for R, and 6e24kg for the mass of the earth, we get a
time ~ 3.5 days (ignoring the radii of the earth and moon, and the motion
of the earth toward the moon).
Jeff J
|
|
| |
I should probably try to solve the problem myself, it'll help as prep for my
college entrance exam. ;-)
In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> If we plug in 3.8e08m for R, and 6e24kg for the mass of the earth, we get a
> time ~ 3.5 days (ignoring the radii of the earth and moon, and the motion
> of the earth toward the moon).
Hmm, not bad at all - that gives people time enough to *realize* it's
happening, broadcast it all over the world, and let everyone go completely
bananas. Fun!
(Although honestly, I *would* like to know the wrold was coming to its end a
few days early, to go see old friends and family, etc...)
-Shiri
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, James Howse writes:
> You'd notice this after about half a day, when the moon would be around
> twice as big. After a day, it'd appear four times as big.
> At 3hrs before impact, people below would be weightless (i.e between two
> bodies exerting equal gravitational forces).
As regard the math, I wouldn't know where to start, but surely even if the
moon we're sitting on the earths surface the earth would still exert more
force than the moon so you wouldn't be weightless.
I don't know if you mean't, at the point where the moon was three hours away
you'd be able to jump into the air, break free from earth and land on the moon.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Shiri Dori writes:
> I should probably try to solve the problem myself, it'll help as prep for my
> college entrance exam. ;-)
>
> In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> > If we plug in 3.8e08m for R, and 6e24kg for the mass of the earth, we get a
> > time ~ 3.5 days (ignoring the radii of the earth and moon, and the motion
> > of the earth toward the moon).
>
> Hmm, not bad at all - that gives people time enough to *realize* it's
> happening, broadcast it all over the world, and let everyone go completely
> bananas. Fun!
> (Although honestly, I *would* like to know the wrold was coming to its end a
> few days early, to go see old friends and family, etc...)
>
> -Shiri
Am I evil or annoying, Shiri? I am simply wanting to know and I want to
know if you have built any LEGO sets of your own in your spare time. (We
are evil! In-deed! Kaientai, WWF)
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Shiri Dori writes:
> > I should probably try to solve the problem myself, it'll help as prep for my
> > college entrance exam. ;-)
> >
> > In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> > > If we plug in 3.8e08m for R, and 6e24kg for the mass of the earth, we get a
> > > time ~ 3.5 days (ignoring the radii of the earth and moon, and the motion
> > > of the earth toward the moon).
> >
> > Hmm, not bad at all - that gives people time enough to *realize* it's
> > happening, broadcast it all over the world, and let everyone go completely
> > bananas. Fun!
> > (Although honestly, I *would* like to know the wrold was coming to its end a
> > few days early, to go see old friends and family, etc...)
> >
> > -Shiri
> Am I evil or annoying, Shiri? I am simply wanting to know and I want to
> know if you have built any LEGO sets of your own in your spare time. (We
> are evil! In-deed! Kaientai, WWF)
> Jesse Long
Jesse,
What does this have to do with the current thread? I also hope that you are
joking (in which case you should be posting to .fun). Shiri is a good
builder and a large contributor to the community. I'm a little confused as
to where this post is taking this thread. Please enlighten me.
-Duane
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> > Am I evil or annoying, Shiri? I am simply wanting to know and I want to
> > know if you have built any LEGO sets of your own in your spare time. (We
> > are evil! In-deed! Kaientai, WWF)
> What does this have to do with the current thread? I also hope that you are
> joking (in which case you should be posting to .fun). Shiri is a good
> builder and a large contributor to the community. I'm a little confused as
> to where this post is taking this thread. Please enlighten me.
What's the deal with that Shiri person? She never has a bad thing to say
about anyone, she's always got some positive contribution to make, and her
posts are uniformly well-reasoned. I'm tired of her consistency and
good-spiritedness--she's making the rest of us look like cranky old folks.
What's her problem, anyway!? 8^)
Dave!
FUT OT-FUN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Shiri Dori writes:
> > > I should probably try to solve the problem myself, it'll help as prep for my
> > > college entrance exam. ;-)
> > >
> > > In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> > > > If we plug in 3.8e08m for R, and 6e24kg for the mass of the earth, we get a
> > > > time ~ 3.5 days (ignoring the radii of the earth and moon, and the motion
> > > > of the earth toward the moon).
> > >
> > > Hmm, not bad at all - that gives people time enough to *realize* it's
> > > happening, broadcast it all over the world, and let everyone go completely
> > > bananas. Fun!
> > > (Although honestly, I *would* like to know the wrold was coming to its end a
> > > few days early, to go see old friends and family, etc...)
> > >
> > > -Shiri
> > Am I evil or annoying, Shiri? I am simply wanting to know and I want to
> > know if you have built any LEGO sets of your own in your spare time. (We
> > are evil! In-deed! Kaientai, WWF)
> > Jesse Long
>
> Jesse,
>
> What does this have to do with the current thread? I also hope that you are
> joking (in which case you should be posting to .fun). Shiri is a good
> builder and a large contributor to the community. I'm a little confused as
> to where this post is taking this thread. Please enlighten me.
>
> -Duane
I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
of their work, their LEGO sets.
I guess I should have responded to the other messages but I am somewhat
pressed for time because of the holidays, that and yesterday there was some
severe weather which prevented me from going to the library so I have to see
all of the past messages from Lugnet. The sky was so dark at noon that it
resembled the sky at five or six in the evening. The rain fell from the sky
in such a great amount that you thought that the ground was Louisiana.
There was plenty of flash floods yesterday because some places received as
much as three inches of rain an hour and the winds were at least fifty miles
an hour so needless to say, the weather yesterday was quite terrible.
As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, Duane.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
> > > Am I evil or annoying, Shiri? I am simply wanting to know and I want to
> > > know if you have built any LEGO sets of your own in your spare time. (We
> > > are evil! In-deed! Kaientai, WWF)
> > > Jesse Long
> >
> > Jesse,
> >
> > What does this have to do with the current thread? I also hope that you are
> > joking (in which case you should be posting to .fun). Shiri is a good
> > builder and a large contributor to the community. I'm a little confused as
> > to where this post is taking this thread. Please enlighten me.
> >
> > -Duane
> I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> of their work, their LEGO sets.
Shiri is a woman who hangs out in the Castle sub-theme more than Space. You
can check over there to see what she's made. I haven't made a castle in
years....
> I guess I should have responded to the other messages but I am somewhat
> pressed for time because of the holidays, that and yesterday there was some
> severe weather which prevented me from going to the library so I have to see
> all of the past messages from Lugnet. The sky was so dark at noon that it
> resembled the sky at five or six in the evening. The rain fell from the sky
> in such a great amount that you thought that the ground was Louisiana.
> There was plenty of flash floods yesterday because some places received as
> much as three inches of rain an hour and the winds were at least fifty miles
> an hour so needless to say, the weather yesterday was quite terrible.
Sounds like severe weather indeed. However, you need to pay closer attention
to the thread when you are responding. Post a follow-up to the message that
the follow-up pertains to. Things like this tend to sidetrack a
conversation. I know that Lugnetters have been referred to as
"compartmentalized dorks", but it makes things easier.
> As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
> comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
> what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
> about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
> this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, >Duane.
I understand, however this part of the thread is discussing the approximate
time it would take the moon to collide with the Earth if it's motion stopped.
> Jesse Long
Do you read Lugnet via e-mail, newsreader or web?
-Duane
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me.
I think it is safe to say that Shiri (she's of the female persuasion) does
not hate you. I doubt that she hates anybody, actually.
Since this seems to be the "isn't Shiri great" subsection of the thread, let
me add my kudos, she does a lot of neato stuff around here to keep things
moving along, (the FAQ work, her part in castle.org and other stuff) she's
always sweet, kind and reasonable, (1) and her creations are pretty terrific.
Nose around in the castle newsgroup for the URLs to them if you like.
1 - except when she's disagreeing with ME of course (2) in which case she's
ornery and stubborn and wrong.
2 - "that's a joke, son" - Foghorn Leghorn
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> > > > Am I evil or annoying, Shiri? I am simply wanting to know and I want to
> > > > know if you have built any LEGO sets of your own in your spare time. (We
> > > > are evil! In-deed! Kaientai, WWF)
> > > > Jesse Long
> > >
> > > Jesse,
> > >
> > > What does this have to do with the current thread? I also hope that you are
> > > joking (in which case you should be posting to .fun). Shiri is a good
> > > builder and a large contributor to the community. I'm a little confused as
> > > to where this post is taking this thread. Please enlighten me.
> > >
> > > -Duane
> > I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> > letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> > have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> > know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> > of their work, their LEGO sets.
>
>
> Shiri is a woman who hangs out in the Castle sub-theme more than Space. You
> can check over there to see what she's made. I haven't made a castle in
> years....
>
> > I guess I should have responded to the other messages but I am somewhat
> > pressed for time because of the holidays, that and yesterday there was some
> > severe weather which prevented me from going to the library so I have to see
> > all of the past messages from Lugnet. The sky was so dark at noon that it
> > resembled the sky at five or six in the evening. The rain fell from the sky
> > in such a great amount that you thought that the ground was Louisiana.
> > There was plenty of flash floods yesterday because some places received as
> > much as three inches of rain an hour and the winds were at least fifty miles
> > an hour so needless to say, the weather yesterday was quite terrible.
>
>
> Sounds like severe weather indeed. However, you need to pay closer attention
> to the thread when you are responding. Post a follow-up to the message that
> the follow-up pertains to. Things like this tend to sidetrack a
> conversation. I know that Lugnetters have been referred to as
> "compartmentalized dorks", but it makes things easier.
>
> > As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
> > comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
> > what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
> > about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
> > this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, >Duane.
>
> I understand, however this part of the thread is discussing the approximate
> time it would take the moon to collide with the Earth if it's motion stopped.
>
> > Jesse Long
>
> Do you read Lugnet via e-mail, newsreader or web?
>
> -Duane
I read them in an electronic mail account but not necessarily the messages.
I simply type on Lugnet, then they send me a copy of the letter and I post
the letter, then I take the Yahoo copy of the letter and I delete that copy
of the letter (remember, I am not the only person to use the mail account)
so that my mother will have more room in her account.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> > I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me.
>
> I think it is safe to say that Shiri (she's of the female persuasion) does
> not hate you. I doubt that she hates anybody, actually.
>
> Since this seems to be the "isn't Shiri great" subsection of the thread, let
> me add my kudos, she does a lot of neato stuff around here to keep things
> moving along, (the FAQ work, her part in castle.org and other stuff) she's
> always sweet, kind and reasonable, (1) and her creations are pretty terrific.
>
> Nose around in the castle newsgroup for the URLs to them if you like.
>
> 1 - except when she's disagreeing with ME of course (2) in which case she's
> ornery and stubborn and wrong.
> 2 - "that's a joke, son" - Foghorn Leghorn
>
> ++Lar
I like the LEGO Castle set but I do not have the time (today) to speak with
her. Maybe I can later? Please tell Shiri I said hello, is that
acceptable, Larry? Thank you, Larry.
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
> > > I guess I should have responded to the other messages but I am somewhat
> > > pressed for time because of the holidays, that and yesterday there was some
> > > severe weather which prevented me from going to the library so I have to see
> > > all of the past messages from Lugnet. The sky was so dark at noon that it
> > > resembled the sky at five or six in the evening. The rain fell from the sky
> > > in such a great amount that you thought that the ground was Louisiana.
> > > There was plenty of flash floods yesterday because some places received as
> > > much as three inches of rain an hour and the winds were at least fifty miles
> > > an hour so needless to say, the weather yesterday was quite terrible.
> >
> >
> > Sounds like severe weather indeed. However, you need to pay closer attention
> > to the thread when you are responding. Post a follow-up to the message that
> > the follow-up pertains to. Things like this tend to sidetrack a
> > conversation. I know that Lugnetters have been referred to as
> > "compartmentalized dorks", but it makes things easier.
> >
> > > As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
> > > comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
> > > what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
> > > about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
> > > this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, >Duane.
> >
> > I understand, however this part of the thread is discussing the approximate
> > time it would take the moon to collide with the Earth if it's motion stopped.
> >
> > > Jesse Long
> >
> > Do you read Lugnet via e-mail, newsreader or web?
> >
> > -Duane
> I read them in an electronic mail account but not necessarily the messages.
> I simply type on Lugnet, then they send me a copy of the letter and I post
> the letter, then I take the Yahoo copy of the letter and I delete that copy
> of the letter (remember, I am not the only person to use the mail account)
> so that my mother will have more room in her account.
> Jesse Long
The reason I asked was because the way that you read can influence how you
reply. With the web interface, following a thread is easy. With mail it's
still easy, but not quite so easy. With a newsreader, I unfortunately don't
have any experience. At least those are my opinions, yours may differ. I
would suggest reading through the web for a day or two when you get the
chance. It will give you a much better grasp of how things work andhow they
inter-relate.
-Duane
|
|
| |
> I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> of their work, their LEGO sets.
I assure you, my boy, Shiri *is* a woman. I should know. ;-)
<snipped the forecast>
> As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
> comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
> what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
> about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
> this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, >Duane.
Math is confoozing. In my mind. :-)
-Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Chris Maddison writes:
> > I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> > letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> > have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> > know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> > of their work, their LEGO sets.
>
> I assure you, my boy, Shiri *is* a woman. I should know. ;-)
I think that unless we can find a specific point at which Shiri is not a
man, then we cannot demonstrate conclusively that she is a woman. Either
Shiri occupies a spectrum of man-ness and woman-ness with no distinction, or
a distinction exists, even if we can't define it precisely. DaveE and I
have been bandying around exactly this sort of thing for days.
So what's the answer, Shiri? Why are you suddenly so silent on this
pressing issue?
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
>
> Actually, I seem to remember that the moon's pull on the tides is mutual
> (the moon is affected by the gravity of water on the Earth), and because
> tidal waters drag across the surface (thus slowed by friction), this is
> gradually decelerating the moon's orbit. So, it's orbit is very slowly
> shrinking...
Whoa, that's something I never thought of before! It kind of raises
an interesting idea, too. If this is always a trend for the
satellite (i.e., "moon") of any planet with large amounts of
liquid on the surface, then maybe over time there is a general
tendency for the satellite's orbit to decay. As the satellite comes
closer to the planet the gravitational effects begin to wreck havoc
on life habitats (relatively speaking). That could be yet another
time limit for the survival of life on a planet, aside from stars
going supernova, 3rd-object impacts, etc. The moon(s) increasing
proximity alters (or destroys) the environment such that the lifeforms
become extinct. Or perhaps such that it never gets to form in the
first place, which could be another factor that reduces the theoretical
number of "habitable" planets in a galaxy.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
>
> Actually, I seem to remember that the moon's pull on the tides is mutual
> (the moon is affected by the gravity of water on the Earth), and because
> tidal waters drag across the surface (thus slowed by friction), this is
> gradually decelerating the moon's orbit. So, it's orbit is very slowly
> shrinking...
Actually, you have this backwards. The friction of Earth's oceans against
its solid parts is slowing the Earth's rotation down. This translates into
a loss of angular momentum for the Earth. But angular momentum must be
conserved. The angular momentum is transferred to the moon, so the moon is
actually gradually moving *farther* from the Earth. IIRC the increasing
separation of the Earth and Moon has been measured quite accurately by
bouncing lasers off of the mirrors left behind by the Apollo missions.
When the Earth has slowed enough so that its period of rotation equals the
period of the moon's revolution, there will be no more tidal friction. The
Earth will cease to slow, and the moon will cease to move farther away.
Interestingly, at this point one side of the Earth will always point towards
the moon -- just as, right now, one side of the Moon is always pointed
towards the Earth. This state of affairs is known as "tidal locking." When
this finally happens, one Earth day will be somewhat longer than 28 current
Earth days.
This tidal locking will take a pretty long time. In fact, some recent
studies suggest that increasing solar radiation will cause Earth's oceans to
evaporate in the next 500 million to 1 billion years, sooner than tidal lock
is expected to be achieved. Tidal lock can also occur with an ostensibly
solid body (e.g., Jupiter's moons), but it's a slower process.
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore MD 21218
|
|
| |
Hi,
Long time no see, John! Have you just been lurking about?
(I'm finally back from Europe myself.) Coming to Brickfest?
How's JHU?
In lugnet.space, John J. Ladasky, Jr. writes:
>
> > In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> >
> > Actually, I seem to remember that the moon's pull on the tides is mutual
> > (the moon is affected by the gravity of water on the Earth), and because
> > tidal waters drag across the surface (thus slowed by friction), this is
> > gradually decelerating the moon's orbit. So, it's orbit is very slowly
> > shrinking...
>
> Actually, you have this backwards. The friction of Earth's oceans against
> its solid parts is slowing the Earth's rotation down. This translates into
> a loss of angular momentum for the Earth. But angular momentum must be
> conserved. The angular momentum is transferred to the moon, so the moon is
> actually gradually moving *farther* from the Earth. IIRC the increasing
> separation of the Earth and Moon has been measured quite accurately by
> bouncing lasers off of the mirrors left behind by the Apollo missions.
Weren't there other methods used recently as well? I'm not
sure that any would be as accurate as a laser, given that
the international meter standard is based on the speed of
light (as of the 1980s, I think). Somehow using radar sticks
in my mind, but that might just be a holdover from earlier
measurement in the 1940s and 1950s.
> When the Earth has slowed enough so that its period of rotation equals the
> period of the moon's revolution, there will be no more tidal friction. The
> Earth will cease to slow, and the moon will cease to move farther away.
> Interestingly, at this point one side of the Earth will always point towards
> the moon -- just as, right now, one side of the Moon is always pointed
> towards the Earth. This state of affairs is known as "tidal locking." When
> this finally happens, one Earth day will be somewhat longer than 28 current
> Earth days.
I wasn't aware both faces had to be locked for the term
"tidal lock" to be valid. For example, I've heard the
statement made that Mercury is tidally locked to the Sun--
true in that the same face of Mercury is sunward, but not
true for the Sun, if you can really call that a "face".
And locking is not fixed tight--both Mercury and the moon,
like Jupiter's satellites, and presumably Pluto and Charon
(which *are* a tidally-locked double planetoid system, like
Hector in the Belt) too, "librate"--they basically wobble.
But whether this is the settling of a golf ball in the cup
or it's being powered from outside, I don't know offhand.
> This tidal locking will take a pretty long time. In fact, some recent
> studies suggest that increasing solar radiation will cause Earth's oceans to
> evaporate in the next 500 million to 1 billion years, sooner than tidal lock
> is expected to be achieved. Tidal lock can also occur with an ostensibly
> solid body (e.g., Jupiter's moons), but it's a slower process.
Of course, this does assume that no weird momentum-altering
things happen (collisions, the unexpected expulsion of a
gaseous shell from the Sun, etc). But all of those kinds of
things might make our discussion a little bit, um, "academic."
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Re: the oceans evaporating: I wonder if we can look at solar
output in past aeons? It may be that Earth was only warm
enough for multicellular life at a certain point--and that it
may be different enough *now* that if one brought, say, an
eryopsid labyrinthodont (big, giant, mega-amphibian) to the
present day, it would cook or suffocate somehow. I know that
there's a lot of work being done on the sheet-of-ice planet
idea--where only the equator regions were ice-free, sort of
a super Ice Age.
rambling,
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Chris Maddison writes:
> > I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> > letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> > have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> > know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> > of their work, their LEGO sets.
>
> I assure you, my boy, Shiri *is* a woman. I should know. ;-)
>
> <snipped the forecast>
>
> > As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
> > comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
> > what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
> > about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
> > this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, >Duane.
>
> Math is confoozing. In my mind. :-)
> -Chris
Have you met Shiri before in your life?
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Chris Maddison writes:
> > > I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> > > letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> > > have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> > > know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> > > of their work, their LEGO sets.
> >
> > I assure you, my boy, Shiri *is* a woman. I should know. ;-)
> Have you met Shiri before in your life?
> Jesse Long
I would say yeah, he has, after looking at this
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/fun/?n=6051 =)
~Nathan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Chris Maddison writes:
> > > I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> > > letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> > > have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> > > know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> > > of their work, their LEGO sets.
> >
> > I assure you, my boy, Shiri *is* a woman. I should know. ;-)
> >
> > <snipped the forecast>
> >
> > > As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
> > > comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
> > > what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
> > > about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
> > > this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, • Duane.
> >
> > Math is confoozing. In my mind. :-)
> > -Chris
> Have you met Shiri before in your life?
> Jesse Long
I think they met once or something...
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=18602
Jude
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jude Beaudin writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Chris Maddison writes:
> > > > I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> > > > letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> > > > have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> > > > know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> > > > of their work, their LEGO sets.
> > >
> > > I assure you, my boy, Shiri *is* a woman. I should know. ;-)
> > >
> > > <snipped the forecast>
> > >
> > > > As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
> > > > comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
> > > > what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
> > > > about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
> > > > this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, • Duane.
> > >
> > > Math is confoozing. In my mind. :-)
> > > -Chris
> > Have you met Shiri before in your life?
> > Jesse Long
>
> I think they met once or something...
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=18602
>
> Jude
How sweet. ;.) Love, unfortunately, has eluded me for every moment of my
life. :.(
Jesse Long
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> Weren't there other methods used recently as well? I'm not
> sure that any would be as accurate as a laser, given that
> the international meter standard is based on the speed of
> light (as of the 1980s, I think). Somehow using radar sticks
> in my mind, but that might just be a holdover from earlier
> measurement in the 1940s and 1950s.
Would there be any difference in the accuracy of laser vs. radar? I'm not
enough of an EE geek to know, but thought "no" because they're just
different wavelengths of the same thing, right?
Or does the wavelength difference (it IS many orders of magnitude in
difference) matter?
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > Weren't there other methods used recently as well? I'm not
> > sure that any would be as accurate as a laser, given that
> > the international meter standard is based on the speed of
> > light (as of the 1980s, I think). Somehow using radar sticks
> > in my mind, but that might just be a holdover from earlier
> > measurement in the 1940s and 1950s.
>
> Would there be any difference in the accuracy of laser vs. radar? I'm not
> enough of an EE geek to know, but thought "no" because they're just
> different wavelengths of the same thing, right?
Not quite. There's a good comparison here
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question396.htm talking about speed radar
versus laser. Basically the laser is more accurate, but requires more
accurate aiming by the operator.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > > Weren't there other methods used recently as well? I'm not
> > > sure that any would be as accurate as a laser, given that
> > > the international meter standard is based on the speed of
> > > light (as of the 1980s, I think). Somehow using radar sticks
> > > in my mind, but that might just be a holdover from earlier
> > > measurement in the 1940s and 1950s.
> >
> > Would there be any difference in the accuracy of laser vs. radar? I'm not
> > enough of an EE geek to know, but thought "no" because they're just
> > different wavelengths of the same thing, right?
>
> Not quite. There's a good comparison here
> http://www.howstuffworks.com/question396.htm talking about speed radar
> versus laser. Basically the laser is more accurate, but requires more
> accurate aiming by the operator.
More accurate at measuring *speed*. We were talking about distance. Careful
reading of both articles reveals no claimed difference in accuracy for
distance measurement, since it's the same technique being used. (the speed
difference is because one is measuring doppler shift and the other is
measuring difference in distance from one pulse to the next, but distance in
both cases is measured by the time for signal return)
Great site, thanks for the ref., my kids will love it! However my question
still stands.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> Long time no see, John! Have you just been lurking about?
I've posted a few times this year, but mostly I've been lurking. And trying
to build something that truly satisfies me. I keep buying more parts and
experimenting... patience now...
> (I'm finally back from Europe myself.)
Welcome home. Is the dissertation in the can?
> Coming to Brickfest?
Travelling to DC tries my five year-old's patience sorely. We've done it a
few times, and he's always cranky. I will, however, take him to the LEGO
Life On Mars exhibit truck when it visits Baltimore next week.
> How's JHU?
I like it well enough here. I have a boss who treats me well. Science
treats me however it wants to treat me. One day my experiments work,
another day they don't. Ugh.
> In lugnet.space, John J. Ladasky, Jr. writes:
> >
> > > In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > >
> > > Actually, I seem to remember that the moon's pull on the tides is mutual
> > > (the moon is affected by the gravity of water on the Earth), and because
> > > tidal waters drag across the surface (thus slowed by friction), this is
> > > gradually decelerating the moon's orbit. So, it's orbit is very slowly
> > > shrinking...
> >
> > Actually, you have this backwards. The friction of Earth's oceans against
> > its solid parts is slowing the Earth's rotation down. This translates into
> > a loss of angular momentum for the Earth. But angular momentum must be
> > conserved. The angular momentum is transferred to the moon, so the moon is
> > actually gradually moving *farther* from the Earth. IIRC the increasing
> > separation of the Earth and Moon has been measured quite accurately by
> > bouncing lasers off of the mirrors left behind by the Apollo missions.
>
> Weren't there other methods used recently as well? I'm not
> sure that any would be as accurate as a laser, given that
> the international meter standard is based on the speed of
> light (as of the 1980s, I think). Somehow using radar sticks
> in my mind, but that might just be a holdover from earlier
> measurement in the 1940s and 1950s.
I don't know anything about other methods of measuring the Earth-Moon
distance, besides laser ranging. I do remember hearing that Earth-based
radar was used to infer the existence of ice at the lunar poles, a finding
which was later corroborated by the Lunar Prospector mission in 1998. Could
you be thinking of this?
> > When the Earth has slowed enough so that its period of rotation equals the
> > period of the moon's revolution, there will be no more tidal friction. The
> > Earth will cease to slow, and the moon will cease to move farther away.
> > Interestingly, at this point one side of the Earth will always point towards
> > the moon -- just as, right now, one side of the Moon is always pointed
> > towards the Earth. This state of affairs is known as "tidal locking." When
> > this finally happens, one Earth day will be somewhat longer than 28 current
> > Earth days.
>
> I wasn't aware both faces had to be locked for the term
> "tidal lock" to be valid.
It's not a requirement. Sorry if I was unclear. The Moon is already
tidally locked to the Earth. Eventually the Earth will also be tidally
locked to the moon.
> For example, I've heard the
> statement made that Mercury is tidally locked to the Sun--
> true in that the same face of Mercury is sunward, but not
> true for the Sun, if you can really call that a "face".
Actually, Mercury is weirder than that. It orbits the Sun in 88 days, but
its period of rotation is 59 days. Mercury is in what is called a 3:2
resonance. For every two of its revolutions around the Sun, Mercury rotates
three times around its axis.
> And locking is not fixed tight--both Mercury and the moon,
> like Jupiter's satellites, and presumably Pluto and Charon
> (which *are* a tidally-locked double planetoid system, like
> Hector in the Belt) too, "librate"--they basically wobble.
> But whether this is the settling of a golf ball in the cup
> or it's being powered from outside, I don't know offhand.
>
> > This tidal locking will take a pretty long time. In fact, some recent
> > studies suggest that increasing solar radiation will cause Earth's oceans to
> > evaporate in the next 500 million to 1 billion years, sooner than tidal lock
> > is expected to be achieved. Tidal lock can also occur with an ostensibly
> > solid body (e.g., Jupiter's moons), but it's a slower process.
>
> Of course, this does assume that no weird momentum-altering
> things happen (collisions, the unexpected expulsion of a
> gaseous shell from the Sun, etc). But all of those kinds of
> things might make our discussion a little bit, um, "academic."
> Not that there's anything wrong with that.
>
> Re: the oceans evaporating: I wonder if we can look at solar
> output in past aeons?
They're trying to infer this from paleoclimatological data and models of
stellar evolution. I don't believe there is a way to measure the Sun's
historical output directly.
> It may be that Earth was only warm
> enough for multicellular life at a certain point
The Earth's surface, maybe. We have every reason to believe that the
thermal deep-sea vents have been around for a long time.
> --and that it
> may be different enough *now* that if one brought, say, an
> eryopsid labyrinthodont (big, giant, mega-amphibian) to the
> present day, it would cook or suffocate somehow. I know that
> there's a lot of work being done on the sheet-of-ice planet
> idea--where only the equator regions were ice-free, sort of
> a super Ice Age.
>
> rambling,
Feel free! But maybe we should FUT .off-topic.geek?
> LFB
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> Would there be any difference in the accuracy of laser vs. radar? I'm not
> enough of an EE geek to know, but thought "no" because they're just
> different wavelengths of the same thing, right?
>
> Or does the wavelength difference (it IS many orders of magnitude in
> difference) matter?
Isn't the theory behind rainbows (or light spectrums in general)
that the different wavelengths refact by differing amounts, and
so white light is "spread" into a spectrum of colours? If that's
the case then radar and laser energy would refract by differing amounts,
meaning one would end up being more likely to deviate from a
straight line in our atmosphere, and add errors to the measurement.
It would also presumably scatter more so the "signal" loses "power"
more.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > Would there be any difference in the accuracy of laser vs. radar? I'm not
> > enough of an EE geek to know, but thought "no" because they're just
> > different wavelengths of the same thing, right?
> >
> > Or does the wavelength difference (it IS many orders of magnitude in
> > difference) matter?
My first inclination is that there should not be a difference. When measuring
distances with light, the accuracy *can* be limited by the wavelength. I think
one can measure accurately down to roughly half the wavelength of the light
used. I would expect a laser in the visible spectrum (hundreds of nanometers)
to be used, because the atmosphere is quite clear in that range and the moon
obviously reflects some visible light. Radar wavelengths are much longer than
those of lasers, but both are insignificant compared to the distance to the
moon. I would expect that the technique used to measure the time for the
light to reflect would be a much larger source of error.
But...
> Isn't the theory behind rainbows (or light spectrums in general)
> that the different wavelengths refact by differing amounts, and
> so white light is "spread" into a spectrum of colours? If that's
> the case then radar and laser energy would refract by differing amounts,
> meaning one would end up being more likely to deviate from a
> straight line in our atmosphere, and add errors to the measurement.
> It would also presumably scatter more so the "signal" loses "power"
> more.
One could arrange their experiment so that their beam would travel straight up
through the atmosphere and eliminate any refraction. However, this raises an
interestiong point - refraction is caused by different wavelengths travelling
at different speeds through a medium. So, the laser and radar beams would
travel at different speeds until they left the atmosphere. Again, I think
any error introduced by this would be negligible compared to the timing
mechanism. It could be accounted for mathematically, anyway.
The amount of scattering also depends on the wavelengths. However, the loss
of power isn't really important, as long as there is enough power remaining
in the reflected beam to be measureable. A weak faint beam travels just as
fast as an intense one.
And aren't radio frequencies affected by the ionosphere? I seem to recall
something about how AM and short wave radio frequencies bouncing off the
ionosphere, allowing them to travel further along the surface of the earth.
Finally, most existing radar technology has been designed to cover a range of
space (although I sure someone will correct me on this). Lasers, by
definition, travel in a straight beam and are not as affected by the inverse
square relationship between distance and intensity.
I think I would lean toward using a laser for the measurement.
Jeff J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > >
> > > Would there be any difference in the accuracy of laser vs. radar? I'm not
> > > enough of an EE geek to know, but thought "no" because they're just
> > > different wavelengths of the same thing, right?
> > >
> > > Or does the wavelength difference (it IS many orders of magnitude in
> > > difference) matter?
>
> My first inclination is that there should not be a difference. When measuring
> distances with light, the accuracy *can* be limited by the wavelength. I think
> one can measure accurately down to roughly half the wavelength of the light
> used. I would expect a laser in the visible spectrum (hundreds of nanometers)
> to be used, because the atmosphere is quite clear in that range and the moon
> obviously reflects some visible light. Radar wavelengths are much longer than
> those of lasers, but both are insignificant compared to the distance to the
> moon. I would expect that the technique used to measure the time for the
> light to reflect would be a much larger source of error.
>
> But...
>
> > Isn't the theory behind rainbows (or light spectrums in general)
> > that the different wavelengths refact by differing amounts, and
> > so white light is "spread" into a spectrum of colours? If that's
> > the case then radar and laser energy would refract by differing amounts,
> > meaning one would end up being more likely to deviate from a
> > straight line in our atmosphere, and add errors to the measurement.
> > It would also presumably scatter more so the "signal" loses "power"
> > more.
>
> One could arrange their experiment so that their beam would travel straight up
> through the atmosphere and eliminate any refraction. However, this raises an
> interestiong point - refraction is caused by different wavelengths travelling
> at different speeds through a medium. So, the laser and radar beams would
> travel at different speeds until they left the atmosphere. Again, I think
> any error introduced by this would be negligible compared to the timing
> mechanism. It could be accounted for mathematically, anyway.
>
> The amount of scattering also depends on the wavelengths. However, the loss
> of power isn't really important, as long as there is enough power remaining
> in the reflected beam to be measureable. A weak faint beam travels just as
> fast as an intense one.
>
> And aren't radio frequencies affected by the ionosphere? I seem to recall
> something about how AM and short wave radio frequencies bouncing off the
> ionosphere, allowing them to travel further along the surface of the earth.
> Finally, most existing radar technology has been designed to cover a range of
> space (although I sure someone will correct me on this). Lasers, by
> definition, travel in a straight beam and are not as affected by the inverse
> square relationship between distance and intensity.
I think most of this sounds reasonable, but I'd guess that laser still
follows the inverse square "law".
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
<snip>
>
> And aren't radio frequencies affected by the ionosphere? I seem to recall
> something about how AM and short wave radio frequencies bouncing off the
> ionosphere, allowing them to travel further along the surface of the earth.
I'll address this point to fill in a bit of a hole, as a lot of the other
concerns are past me.
Yes, radio waves are affected by gravity which is why they travel along the
surface, so in a sense they "bend". It's a phenomenon commonly termed as
"groundwave" and it's how AM mainly propagates during the day when there's
oodles more ions in the air. But as you increase the frequency, the waves
travel in more of a straight line - so they can leave the earth's curved
surface. Also, as you substantially increase frequency, they're not AM waves
anymore, which means the waves can go through the ionosphere.
Groundwave occurs all the time during medium/shortwave broadcast. But at
night the signal can travel further because at night the sun's energy isn't
usually making as many ions in our atmosphere. So the resulting ionosphere
layer is much thinner which makes its underside much higher in the air. So
as you increase the distance to i'sphere (assuming that its underside is
more or less flat thereby keeping the angle of reflection more or less the
same) the destination distance of the wave is also increased. Think of it as
a triangle: if you keep all the angles the same, and increase the length of
the two sides of a triangle, its base (the ground distance away from the
station) also increases.
> Finally, most existing radar technology has been designed to cover a range of
> space (although I sure someone will correct me on this). Lasers, by
> definition, travel in a straight beam and are not as affected by the inverse
> square relationship between distance and intensity.
I'm not sure I agree with that. (But so what? :) PCMIIW[1] It'd be nice if
everything stuck to its definition, but light, and thus any photon, can have
it's trajectory bent, even however slight, in a gravitational field. Yet
it's proven that higher frequencies travel in more of straight line than
lower frequencies. Radar, which is in the microwave part of the spectrum, is
a higher frequency wave than visible light, so it's less "bendable" than
visible light.
Assuming that we're talking about a laser of visible light, it would be
still subject to the same degree of bending and distance's inverse square
law as any other visible light because of the wavelength used. Individual
photons in a laser generally don't possess any different characteristics
than any other photons of identical wavelengths other than a common
trajectory. But the effects can be quite different.
> I think I would lean toward using a laser for the measurement.
What would be the best of both worlds is if you made a laser of radar waves.
But be careful of frying things :)
-Tom McD.
[1] Please Correct Me If I'm Wrong
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Ross Crawford writes:
> I think most of this sounds reasonable, but I'd guess that laser still
> follows the inverse square "law".
I thought that the whole point of a laser is that it doesn't - it's a
directed beam of parallel waves of light.
The inverse square law is for a diverging beam. As distance from the source
increases, the area the beam is spread over increases (with the square of
the distance), so that intensity at any one point is less (by an inverse
square). With a laser, the area it covers is constant, hence no loss of
intensity.
If you were to shine a small torch at someone across a football pitch, you
can imagine that they might notice you as the source, but it wouldn't
noticeably illuminate them because the light isn't intense enough. If you
shine a laser pointer though, they could see the spot of light on them,
regardless of the distance.
Now, lasers aren't perfect, and there may be some divergence over the
Earth-Moon distance. I guess this would have to be inverse-square related
then, but with a much narrower angle of divergence. Anyone know for sure?
Jason J Railton
|
|
| |
Why is it that whenever YOU think, MY head hurts? I really wish this were clear
enough to follow, because it sounds semi-interesting, but as it is, I'm just
painfully confused.
Take care,
Soren
|
|
|
