 | | Re: "real" LEGO Hovercraft ? (with/without batteries/RCX "onboard") —Steve Baker
|
| | | (...) You know that the pressure of the air inside the skirt multiplied by the area of the ground enclosed by the skirt has to equal the weight of the hovercraft. If the skirt made a perfect leak-proof seal against the ground, and there were no (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: "real" LEGO Hovercraft ? (with/without batteries/RCX "onboard") —Jim Choate
|
| | | | (...) There's an echo in here ;)...you'll get to the answer faster if you'll think of mass and force instead of weight. (...) Which is where the ratio of the input plenum to the skirt (the output plenum) comes into play. (...) No, that's a function (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "real" LEGO Hovercraft ? (with/without batteries/RCX "onboard") —Steve Baker
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "real" LEGO Hovercraft ? (with/without batteries/RCX "onboard") —Jim Choate
|
| | | | (...) 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 ---...--- (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "real" LEGO Hovercraft ? (with/without batteries/RCX "onboard") —Nick Tarleton
|
| | | | (...) 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. (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "real" LEGO Hovercraft ? (with/without batteries/RCX "onboard") —Jim Choate
|
| | | | (...) 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: (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "real" LEGO Hovercraft ? (with/without batteries/RCX "onboard") —Steve Baker
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "real" LEGO Hovercraft ? (with/without batteries/RCX "onboard") —Jim Choate
|
| | | | (...) We're not talking about hovercraft here at -all-. We -are- talking about the assertion that 'mass is equivalent to weight on the planet Earth'. It isn't, ever. A vector is -never- equivalent to a scalar, basic dimensional analysis; basic (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
