 | | Re: "real" LEGO Hovercraft ? (with/without batteries/RCX "onboard")
|
|
(...) And if we were talking about a hovercraft in an elevator - I'd be agreeing with you. Dumb pedantry doesn't work here. The **WEIGHT** of the hovercraft is just as important/relevent/applicable as the **MASS** of the hovercraft when we are (...) (23 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: "real" LEGO Hovercraft ? (with/without batteries/RCX "onboard")
|
|
(...) Ok, remember you asked... Let's take example 1- You're in an elevator. The elevator goes down. Your weight decreases but your mass does not. Q: Where did the weight go? Did you mass change? Example 2- Take a 1lb weight and a scale. Scenario a: (...) (23 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: "real" LEGO Hovercraft ? (with/without batteries/RCX "onboard")
|
|
(...) How? It seems to me that as long as acceleration due to gravity is constant (i.e. same altitude, same planet; in this case, 9.8 m/s/s) then weight and mass have a simple proportional relationship. (23 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: "real" LEGO Hovercraft ? (with/without batteries/RCX "onboard")
|
|
(...) That's a pretty basic physics mistake <shrug>. -- ___...___ We don't see things as they are, ravage@ssz.com we see them as we are. www.ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org Anais Nin www.open-forge.org ---...--- (23 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: "real" LEGO Hovercraft ? (with/without batteries/RCX "onboard")
|
|
(...) So long as we are down here on the surface of the earth talking about the air pressure under the skirt of a hovercraft and whether it'll lift or not, weight and mass are equivelent concepts. (...) Yes - I understand that. (...) Yes...although (...) (23 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
