 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
