[BT & HG] Bop Driven ships
HERO Chip
it make sense that robots could do ZG Moves? If they could, that means that
'Mechs could as well, which means spaceships could as well. Actually, it would
be easier for the ships to do ZG Moves since more of their structure is
designed for space transit, so they could go faster.
Andy Carabino
[1] What does 'bop' mean?
[2] Wouldn't everything be able to make zero gravity moves? All it
takes is a thrust maneuver to create a force... Since space is a
vacuum, there is no resistance... hence the various retro-rockets on
the space shuttle.
[3] How would it be easier for spacecraft to make zero gravity moves
because of their 'design'? As said in [2], no resistance in space, so
it doesn't matter what the hell it looks like. But if you're talking
about craft that enter the atmosphere, that's a diff story...
[4] Spaceships should be able to make zero gravity moves. They're in
space, there is no gravity, there is no resistance!
--Calcruis
calc...@binocorp.com
Xarzandon2
>wouldn't
>it make sense that robots could do ZG Moves? If they could, that means that
>'Mechs could as well, which means spaceships could as well. Actually, it
>would
>be easier for the ships to do ZG Moves since more of their structure is
>designed for space transit, so they could go faster.
Is it just me or is he getting even sillier?
Okay, let me try to grasp this here. You're suggesting that since people are
capable of movement in zero-G, then ships should also be capable of movement?
Does a little thing we have called muscle structure, which is absent from most
starships, mean anything to you? Battlemechs are capable of enhanced movoment
in zero-g, but read the low gravity rules that speak of legs snapping off from
the stresses. Sorry, I forgot which book it was in.
Next batter.
"Why can't there be two?"
-The second-to-last Immortal
cra...@hotmail.com
HERO Chip <hero...@aol.com> wrote:
> I was thinking that since people can do ZG Moves (Zero Gravity
> Moves), wouldn't it make sense that robots could do ZG Moves?
> If they could, that means that 'Mechs could as well, which means
> spaceships could as well. Actually, it would be easier for the
> ships to do ZG Moves since more of their structure is
> designed for space transit, so they could go faster.
Dude, you got me baffled. What's a Zero Gravity move?
--
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
"Damn straight! Today the mad scientists can't get
a doomsday device, tomorrow it's the mad grad students.
Where will it end?" - The Professor of Futurama on
doomsday device control.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Simon H. Lee
>I was thinking that since people can do ZG Moves (Zero Gravity Moves),
>wouldn't it make sense that robots could do ZG Moves? If they could,
>that means that 'Mechs could as well, which means spaceships could as
>well. Actually, it would be easier for the ships to do ZG Moves
>since more of their structure is designed for space transit, so they
>could go faster.
Um... ships already can do zero-g moves, they have things
known as engines. What exactly is a "bop" anyway? Are you suggesting
that ships move around through the means of giant hopping feet?
As for people doing zero-g moves, they need something to push
against first. If you start out in the middle of an open area in
space, all of your flailing will get you nowhere.
--
(-o-) A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E ! <*>
| __ "I'm not going to ask you if you just said |
| (__ * _ _ _ _ what I think you just said, because I know |
| __)|| | |(_)| \ it's what you just said." |
|___________________________________________________________________|
John Campbell
>
> Um... ships already can do zero-g moves, they have things
> known as engines. What exactly is a "bop" anyway? Are you suggesting
> that ships move around through the means of giant hopping feet?
> As for people doing zero-g moves, they need something to push
> against first. If you start out in the middle of an open area in
> space, all of your flailing will get you nowhere.
>
for control of a space station one time... jump infantry and a lance of
jump-capable light mechs against a pair of heavy LAMs (this was back
when heavy LAMs were legal). I gave the LAMs their air-mech movement
rates (despite the lack of, well, air) in either mech or air-mech mode
to reflect the fact that they're designed for movement in space, rather
than just adapted for it.
The movement system was something similar to the advanced movement in
Battlespace... it used jump movement points to affect motion vectors and
change facing... 1 movement point could add one hex/turn to your
velocity in any given direction (including up or down), or change your
facing to any direction. Actual movement worked more like figuring line
of sight... you'd add up all the movement vectors, figure out what hex
you were supposed to end up in, then check LoS to the starting hex to
see if you ran into anything.
It was a very interesting fight. The LAMs won in the end. I highly
recommend using LAMs next time you need to board a space station... the
ability to fly up in fighter mode, then transform to mech mode to handle
any defenders is very useful.
---
John Campbell
jcam...@lynn.ci-n.com
Warner Doles
: I was thinking that since people can do ZG Moves (Zero Gravity Moves
Heh Heh Heh!!
He's done it again, and you all are falling for it again!
BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Warner
HERO Chip
[A1] Ever seen a "Sockem Bopper"? To bop is to push&punch an object
simultaneously with a fist.
[Q2] Wouldn't everything be able to make zero gravity moves? All it takes is a
thrust maneuver to create a force... Since space is a vacuum, there is no
resistance... hence the various retro-rockets on the space shuttle.
[A2] Well, in space, it isn't pure zero gravity, but rather micro gravity.
Micro gravity is gravity that has a very small effect on an object. Yes,
everything should be able to make zero gravity moves, but a bop drive that
moves like a person that does not use any equipment (i.e., ve just using ves
willpower and reflexes to move veself). A ve moves veself by creating a force
inside veself and then using that force to push a body part of veself in the
direction desired. Since the remaining body parts (and thus the rest of the
body) are connected to that body part, that body part pulls the remaining body
parts in the direction the force is applied.
[Q3] How would it be easier for spacecraft to make zero gravity moves because
of their 'design'? As said in [2], no resistance in space, so it doesn't
matter what the hell it looks like. But if you're talking about craft that
enter the atmosphere, that's a diff story...
[A3] Well it wouldn't make it "easier" which was my error, but it would allow
the ship to not require an exhaust exiting a system. The ship using the bop
drive does not need to emit exhaust since the force it creates moves bops it in
the direction desired. The spacecraft (as long as it has energy like
electricity) can create enough force to keep bopping itself forward to
accelerate more.
[Q4] Spaceships should be able to make zero gravity moves. They're in space,
there is no gravity, there is no resistance!
[A5] Yes, but I'm referring to constantly accelerating in a zero gravity place
Kid Chameleon
etched into silicon:
Unskinny bop.....
"If this is all the gods can do, I'm over to the dark side so fast."
Tom Servo
Gunslinger
>wouldn't
>it make sense that robots could do ZG Moves? If they could, that means that
>'Mechs could as well, which means spaceships could as well. Actually, it
>would
>be easier for the ships to do ZG Moves since more of their structure is
>designed for space transit, so they could go faster.
...... bop?
mmm...bop?
mmm bop!
mmh bop! doo, doo doo wap!
GUys..i just made the connection..hes one of the kids from Hanson!! so thats
where they went..i thought the backstreet boys took them out back and killed em
Gunslinger, MoBster, CO of the FPS Hansen's Roughriders faction
"Here, you're dead. Let me show you. "
Think before calling yourself an editor.
Andy Carabino
Brad Carletti
>Micro gravity is gravity that has a very small effect on an object. Yes,
>everything should be able to make zero gravity moves, but a bop drive that
>moves like a person that does not use any equipment (i.e., ve just using ves
>willpower and reflexes to move veself). A ve moves veself by creating a force
>inside veself and then using that force to push a body part of veself in the
>direction desired. Since the remaining body parts (and thus the rest of the
>body) are connected to that body part, that body part pulls the remaining body
>parts in the direction the force is applied.
Ah, it's more pseudo-mystical rubbish.
Brad Carletti
"... the complete game rules, . . ." - BMR blurb
"True aircraft... are beyond the scope of these rules." - BMR pg. 54
--
"When a unit jumps, it can move 1 hex for every available Jump MP"
Hrmm, not only can you jump 0 hexes, but ANYTHING can jump 0 hexes ;)
--
Hey, I can nitpick if I want. I have a company of Unseen.
--
"Only half the heatsinks on mine have been upgraded!"
- Karl Villiers, Knight of the Inner Sphere.
--
Well on my way to having another mega .sig.
Brad Carletti
>Okay, let me try to grasp this here. You're suggesting that since people are
>capable of movement in zero-G, then ships should also be capable of movement?
>Does a little thing we have called muscle structure, which is absent from most
>starships, mean anything to you? Battlemechs are capable of enhanced movoment
>in zero-g, but read the low gravity rules that speak of legs snapping off from
>the stresses. Sorry, I forgot which book it was in.
>
>Next batter.
BMR :)
cra...@hotmail.com
John Campbell <jcam...@lynn.ci-n.com> wrote:
> I've no idea what Chippie's talking about, but I did a zero-g
battle
> for control of a space station one time... jump infantry and a lance
of
> jump-capable light mechs against a pair of heavy LAMs (this was back
> when heavy LAMs were legal).
When were LAMs over 55 tons ever legal? AFAIK, 55 tons
has always been the limit. I admit to playing with heavier
designs, but I've never seen rules allowing them.
John Campbell
>
> In article <385569D3.A...@lynn.ci-n.com>,
> John Campbell <jcam...@lynn.ci-n.com> wrote:
> > I've no idea what Chippie's talking about, but I did a zero-g
> battle
> > for control of a space station one time... jump infantry and a lance
> of
> > jump-capable light mechs against a pair of heavy LAMs (this was back
> > when heavy LAMs were legal).
>
> When were LAMs over 55 tons ever legal? AFAIK, 55 tons
> has always been the limit. I admit to playing with heavier
> designs, but I've never seen rules allowing them.
>
on the maximum weight of LAMs, thus presumably allowing them to go up to
100 tons, same as a mech or fighter. I'm not sure exactly when the limit
was changed... the Compendium was the first place I recall seeing it,
but it might have been in the old Rules of War book - I don't have a
copy around to check...
Having made extensive use of heavy and assault LAMs back in the old
days, I can see why they changed the rule. Those things were just
*nasty*. The world does not need assault mechs that can move 3/5/9. Of
course, it doesn't really need medium mechs that can move 6/9/18,
either, but those are still legal...
---
John Campbell
jcam...@lynn.ci-n.com
Straat_Hondo
<snip>
>
> Ah, it's more pseudo-mystical rubbish.
>
To be able to lift oneself...
Toontje
--
Groetjes & xxx-jes van Anton de Geweldige
(Beter bekent als stevige staartmans, of slappe anti-staartmans.)
"Greenback extrordinair"
"G.T."
"Soms zuigt het"
Kid Chameleon
silicon:
<[Q1] What does 'bop' mean?
<[A1] Ever seen a "Sockem Bopper"? To bop is to push&punch an object
<simultaneously with a fist.
<
You should go to your local library and look up "Issac[sp?] Newton"
and read about his rules.
<[Q2] Wouldn't everything be able to make zero gravity moves? All it takes is a
<thrust maneuver to create a force... Since space is a vacuum, there is no
<resistance... hence the various retro-rockets on the space shuttle.
<
<[A2] Well, in space, it isn't pure zero gravity, but rather micro gravity.
<Micro gravity is gravity that has a very small effect on an object. Yes,
<everything should be able to make zero gravity moves, but a bop drive that
<moves like a person that does not use any equipment (i.e., ve just using ves
<willpower and reflexes to move veself). A ve moves veself by creating a force
<inside veself and then using that force to push a body part of veself in the
<direction desired. Since the remaining body parts (and thus the rest of the
<body) are connected to that body part, that body part pulls the remaining body
<parts in the direction the force is applied.
<
Dude, you have no concept of physics, do you?
<
<[Q4] Spaceships should be able to make zero gravity moves. They're in space,
<there is no gravity, there is no resistance!
<
<[A5] Yes, but I'm referring to constantly accelerating in a zero gravity place
Well, such a place doesn't really exist....
TS Fulk, M.A.T., M.A:
loved mine.
tak ahoj!
tsfulk
TS Fulk, M.A.T., M.A:
ahoj!
tsfulk
Gunslinger wrote:
> GUys..i just made the connection..hes one of the kids from Hanson!! so thats
> where they went..i thought the backstreet boys took them out back and killed->
<- em
cra...@hotmail.com
John Campbell <jcam...@lynn.ci-n.com> wrote:
> cra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > When were LAMs over 55 tons ever legal? AFAIK, 55 tons
> > has always been the limit. I admit to playing with heavier
> > designs, but I've never seen rules allowing them.
> >
> The original LAM construction rules in Aerotech didn't place any
> limits on the maximum weight of LAMs, thus presumably allowing
> them to go up to 100 tons, same as a mech or fighter.
I don't recall the lack of limit. In fact, I recall
a 55 ton limit in every LAM construction rule set I've
seen, and I had Aerotech.
Andrew McCruden
HERO Chip <hero...@aol.com> Wrote
>I was thinking that since people can do ZG Moves (Zero Gravity Moves),
>wouldn't
>it make sense that robots could do ZG Moves? If they could, that means
that
>'Mechs could as well, which means spaceships could as well. Actually, it
>would
>be easier for the ships to do ZG Moves since more of their structure is
>designed for space transit, so they could go faster.
Hmm Its possible, but IMHO probably not practial, Esp as you efficiency is
going to be horendously low and any ship relying on this would be unable to
operate in a gravity well effectively as the movement gained would be unable
no
matter how large scale, to beat the constant pull of gravity.
OTOH: the image it casts in my head is trully triped out, I have come to the
following conclusion
HERO Chip is on some _serious_ drugs, I know not what, but based on some of
his
ravings it MUST be GOOOOOOOD stuff, I _must_ find some................
--
Andrew McCruden
amcc...@aol.com,the_use...@hotmail.com
"Interested in all, Expert in None, Never likely to Change"
Simon H. Lee
John Campbell <jcam...@lynn.ci-n.com> choreographed a chorus
line of high-kicking electrons to spell out:
> It was a very interesting fight. The LAMs won in the end. I highly
>recommend using LAMs next time you need to board a space station... the
>ability to fly up in fighter mode, then transform to mech mode to handle
>any defenders is very useful.
Most definitely--the expanded boarding rules from Explorer
Corps really highlight just how much damage 'Mechs on the hull can do,
and LAMs have the additional advantage of being able to move quickly
as fighters on the way to the target.
Satanic Hamster
Kid Chameleon wrote:
> Unskinny bop.....
Just blows me away.
----------------------------------------------- Danny Frost
- Lord of the Urbanmechs
- Why Mining Engineering?
MinE 4073 - Principles and Applications of Explosives
- Student Member of the International Society of Explosive Engineers
- Currently Reading.... "DragonLance - Tears of the Night Sky," By
Baker
-----------------------------------------------
Greg Yantz
HERO Chip <hero...@aol.com> writes:
> [Q1] What does 'bop' mean?
> [A1] Ever seen a "Sockem Bopper"? To bop is to push&punch an object
> simultaneously with a fist.
You confuse us with your highly technical language. :)
> [Q2] Wouldn't everything be able to make zero gravity moves? All it takes
> is a thrust maneuver to create a force... Since space is a vacuum, there
> is no resistance... hence the various retro-rockets on the space shuttle.
> [A2] Well, in space, it isn't pure zero gravity, but rather micro
gravity.
> Micro gravity is gravity that has a very small effect on an object. Yes,
> everything should be able to make zero gravity moves, but a bop drive that
> moves like a person that does not use any equipment (i.e., ve just using
ves
> willpower and reflexes to move veself). A ve moves veself by creating a
> force inside veself and then using that force to push a body part of
> veself in the direction desired. Since the remaining body parts (and thus
> the rest of the body) are connected to that body part, that body part
> pulls the remaining body parts in the direction the force is applied.
We all know BattleTech is not Reality, but the rules attempt to at least
*look* like they're obeying the laws of physics. I have 3 words for you:
Momentum is Conserved
> [Q3] How would it be easier for spacecraft to make zero gravity moves
because
> of their 'design'? As said in [2], no resistance in space, so it doesn't
> matter what the hell it looks like. But if you're talking about craft
that
> enter the atmosphere, that's a diff story...
> [A3] Well it wouldn't make it "easier" which was my error, but it would
> allow the ship to not require an exhaust exiting a system. The ship using
> the bop drive does not need to emit exhaust since the force it creates
> moves bops it in the direction desired. The spacecraft (as long as it has
> energy like electricity) can create enough force to keep bopping itself
> forward to accelerate more.
Once again:
Momentum is Conserved
> [Q4] Spaceships should be able to make zero gravity moves. They're in
space,
> there is no gravity, there is no resistance!
> [A5] Yes, but I'm referring to constantly accelerating in a zero gravity
> place
That would be nice. But since we have that little momentum thing to deal
with, you need some kind of reaction mass and some kind of exhaust.
Just to be a big spoilsport and all... :)
-Greg
Andrew Lannon
"HERO Chip" <hero...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991213174620.0...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> <snip crap>
In other words, pulling yourself up by the seat of your pants. Won't work,
sorry.
Andrew Lannon
Andrew Lannon
"Warner Doles" <str...@wbu-bt.com> wrote in message
news:833pon$bh4...@library1.airnews.net...
> He's done it again, and you all are falling for it again!
I feel so...used...
Andrew Lannon
aar...@unity.lnet.lut.fi
On 13 Dec 1999 22:46:39 GMT, HERO Chip <hero...@aol.com> wrote:
>willpower and reflexes to move veself). A ve moves veself by creating a
force
>inside veself and then using that force to push a body part of veself in
the
>direction desired. Since the remaining body parts (and thus the rest of
the
>body) are connected to that body part, that body part pulls the remaining
body
>parts in the direction the force is applied.
Newton's third law (the law of action and reaction). Your boppercraft WILL
NOT be able to move anywhere or even maneuver without emitting exhaust,
since it is a closed system and within a closed system the sum of all
forces is zero. Elementary physics, now will we be able to move to more
reasonable discussions?
--
Antti Arola (@lut.fi)
a...@iobox.fi
Grant Garmonsway
HERO Chip wrote:
> [Q2] Wouldn't everything be able to make zero gravity moves? All it takes
<-s a
> thrust maneuver to create a force... Since space is a vacuum, there is no
> resistance... hence the various retro-rockets on the space shuttle.
>
> [A2] Well, in space, it isn't pure zero gravity, but rather micro
gravity.
> Micro gravity is gravity that has a very small effect on an object. Yes,
> everything should be able to make zero gravity moves, but a bop drive that
> moves like a person that does not use any equipment (i.e., ve just using
ves
force
> inside veself and then using that force to push a body part of veself in
the
> direction desired. Since the remaining body parts (and thus the rest of
the
> body) are connected to that body part, that body part pulls the remaining
body
> parts in the direction the force is applied.
You cannot swim in space. No matter what you move, your centre of mass
will remain in one spot. It's all part of Newton's Laws of physics...
:)
If you push your arm out in one direction, sure your body will move in
the opposite direction. But once your arm stops, so does your body.
And pulling your arm back just pulls your body back.
HERO Chip... how old are you?
Grant Garmonsway
Simon H. Lee
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed,
HERO Chip <hero...@aol.com>...
>[A2] Well, in space, it isn't pure zero gravity, but rather micro
>gravity. Micro gravity is gravity that has a very small effect
>on an object. Yes, everything should be able to make zero gravity
>moves, but a bop drive that moves like a person that
>does not use any equipment (i.e., ve just using ves willpower and
>reflexes to move veself). A ve moves veself by creating
>a force inside veself and then using that force to push a body part
>of veself in the direction desired. Since the remaining
>body parts (and thus the rest of the body) are connected to that body
>part, that body part pulls the remaining body parts
>in the direction the force is applied.
HERO Chip, have you taken physics yet? I'm a bit rusty,
but AFAIK what you're suggesting is impossible in space, due to
Newton's Third Law of Motion, aka "Every action has an equal and
opposite reaction." On the ground, your, um, bopping can get you
somewhere because you're pushing against something, such as the floor.
That's not the situation your putative person would face in space.
Someone floating out in space who's flapping their arms around might
start spinning in place, but that's about it--the net effect on the
entire system is zero. To actually *move*, that person would need to
have force applied to them as a whole; this could be accomplished by
throwing things in the direction opposite of desired travel, be it
golf balls, parts of one's space suit, or jets of gas--that's what
thrusters are for after all.
>[A3] Well it wouldn't make it "easier" which was my error, but it
>would allow the ship to not require an exhaust exiting a
>system. The ship using the bop drive does not need to emit exhaust
>since the force it creates moves bops it in the
>direction desired. The spacecraft (as long as it has energy like
>electricity) can create enough force to keep bopping itself
>forward to accelerate more.
See above for the first part; you can't get something for
nothing. And to clarify that last point, you wouldn't be
*accelerating* more unless you were able to provide more force than
you had been previously. Your *velocity* would go up though.
Satanic Hamster
cra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> When were LAMs over 55 tons ever legal? AFAIK, 55 tons
> has always been the limit. I admit to playing with heavier
> designs, but I've never seen rules allowing them.
Original Battletech Manual (atlas on the cover).
No tonnage limits on lams, baby!
FEAR the Atlas LAM.
Kurita389
>I've no idea what Chippie's talking about, but I did a zero-g battle
>
correctly, or leave the newgroup. It's impolite to deliberately write
someone's name incorrectly. Perhaps I can explain what Chip is referring to
in
terms of his ship's movement. I believe that the ship moves itself just
like
the way James and his companions moved the peach in "James and the Giant
Peach". Sit in a chair and without having yourself touch any part of the
floor, shove yourself in the direction you want to go. Hold onto the chair
and
make certain that you don't shove yourself out of the chair or make the
chair
tip over. The impact (if you've done the maneuver correctly), will shove
you
and the chair in the direction you were shoving. This, I believe is how
Chip's
bop drive ship works. The idea is to reposition part of the ship to force
itself against the rest of the ship so it literally shoves itself in the
direction of momentum. Another variation is to simply thrust an object in a
direction and allowing that object to tow any object (even the object that
thrusted that object) in the direction thrusted. A perfect example is
taking a
heavy weight and attaching a string to it and your torso. Make certain that
you are padded (having the pads between your torso and the string) when you
do
this, or you could hurt yourself. Then throw the heavy weight and the
weight's
momentum will pull on your torso (and since your torso is attached to the
rest
of your body, your entire body goes with the weight) in the direction the
weight was thrown. A friend of mine can bench press triple body weight so
he
can throw a great deal of weight that can pull him quite far. Now since
machines can do alot more work than humans, a ship could move farther than a
human.
>for control of a space station one time... jump infantry and a lance of
>jump-capable light mechs against a pair of heavy LAMs (this was back
>when heavy LAMs were legal). I gave the LAMs their air-mech movement
>rates (despite the lack of, well, air) in either mech or air-mech mode
>to reflect the fact that they're designed for movement in space, rather
>than just adapted for it.
>
> The movement system was something similar to the advanced movement in
>Battlespace... it used jump movement points to affect motion vectors and
>change facing... 1 movement point could add one hex/turn to your
>velocity in any given direction (including up or down), or change your
>facing to any direction. Actual movement worked more like figuring line
>of sight... you'd add up all the movement vectors, figure out what hex
>you were supposed to end up in, then check LoS to the starting hex to
>see if you ran into anything.
>
Rob Hart
<snip HERO Chip's banter>
I think I get what he's thinking of, and it doesn't exist. He thinks
that people, things could move around in a zero-gravity environment, by
moving muscles and such around, kind of like swimming. THIS DOESN'T EXIST.
For movement to occur in any environment, there has to be an equal and
opposite force. Astronauts can't "swim" through space like your standard
sci-fi crapmovie (well, besides 2001 - Stanley Kubrick has a license to
break the laws of physics). In reality they have to either have to push off
an object, or use an opposite-reacting force, such as the MMU's
(manned-maneuvering units) they use for extra-vehicular activity (tell me if
I'm talking above your intelligence level, HERO). A Bop-driven system (if i
understand it currectly, it's just something in the object pushes itself)
would just:
1: damage the object where impact takes place
2: possible leave the object rotating in place, which would be a very bad
thing
Now, on the other hand, the current system used by pretty much every
single space-driven vehicle would work just as well in zero-g. It employs a
force opposite the intended direction of motion, which *creates* the motion.
It doesn't matter if there's molecules in the way or not. In fact, lack of
molecules would be a good thing due to lack of a need to overcome the
friction generated by said particles. iirc, this is the system used in
btech.
John Campbell
>
> In article <38568882.2...@lynn.ci-n.com>,
> John Campbell <jcam...@lynn.ci-n.com> wrote:
> >
> > The original LAM construction rules in Aerotech didn't place any
> > limits on the maximum weight of LAMs, thus presumably allowing
> > them to go up to 100 tons, same as a mech or fighter.
>
> I don't recall the lack of limit. In fact, I recall
> a 55 ton limit in every LAM construction rule set I've
> seen, and I had Aerotech.
>
"The only addition required to construct an LAM using the 'Mech
construction rules found in BattleTech is that 10 percent of the LAM's
total weight must be devoted to the conversion equipment."
The Compendium repeats the above almost verbatim, and adds, with the
stars that indicate a rules change:
"An LAM can never be heavier than 55 tons. OmniMechs cannot be built as
LAMs."
Rules of Warfare may have had the limit in it as well; I never owned a
copy of that book, so I can't check. However, it looks to me like
between the releases of Aerotech and the Compendium (or possibly RoW),
heavy and assault LAMs were legal.
---
John Campbell
jcam...@lynn.ci-n.com
John Campbell
>
> Perhaps I can explain what Chip is referring to
> in
> terms of his ship's movement. I believe that the ship moves itself just
> like
> the way James and his companions moved the peach in "James and the Giant
> Peach".
....! We gotta refer the guys at NASA to this book. Maybe they'd have
better luck with their probes after taking a few pointers from
childrens' books...
> Sit in a chair and without having yourself touch any part of the
> floor, shove yourself in the direction you want to go. Hold onto the chair
> and
> make certain that you don't shove yourself out of the chair or make the
> chair
> tip over. The impact (if you've done the maneuver correctly), will shove
> you
> and the chair in the direction you were shoving.
The reason this works is because of the frictive force between the
chair and the floor. You can use this to apply force that does not
exceed the frictive force to accelerate your center of gravity in one
direction. Then you attempt to rapidly decelerate your center of
gravity, and the force you attempt to apply exceeds the frictive force,
so the chair brakes loose and slides until the frictive force
decelerates you to nothing.
On a frictionless surface, or in space where there is no surface, this
doesn't work, because there is no frictive force to push against.
is doesn't work without the friction between the chair and the floor.
>This, I believe is how
> Chip's
> bop drive ship works. The idea is to reposition part of the ship to force
> itself against the rest of the ship so it literally shoves itself in the
> direction of momentum. Another variation is to simply thrust an object in a
> direction and allowing that object to tow any object (even the object that
> thrusted that object) in the direction thrusted. A perfect example is
> taking a
> heavy weight and attaching a string to it and your torso. Make certain that
> you are padded (having the pads between your torso and the string) when you
> do
> this, or you could hurt yourself. Then throw the heavy weight and the
> weight's
> momentum will pull on your torso (and since your torso is attached to the
> rest
> of your body, your entire body goes with the weight) in the direction the
> weight was thrown.
No. When you throw the weight, the weight goes one direction and you go
the other (possibly faster or slower, depending on the size of the
weight). When you reach the end of the string, both you and the weight
stop, and, actually, probably bounce back towards each other because of
elasticity in the string... unless the string breaks, in which case you
both go on your merry ways. The latter scenario *is* an effective way of
propelling yourself through space, though it's probably better to skip
the string so you don't lose the energy required to break it. Of course,
using a single large particle to propel yourself means you run out of
fuel very quickly. Having lots of small particles would be more
practical. And this is, in fact, how ships drive themselves... the
thrusters throw very small particles of rocket fuel away at very high
speeds, thus causing themselves to move the opposite way.
---
John Campbell
jcam...@lynn.ci-n.com
John Campbell
>
> That would be nice. But since we have that little momentum thing to deal
> with, you need some kind of reaction mass and some kind of exhaust.
>
That's not entirely true. I'm not suggesting that Chip's method is
anything like practical, but there are ways of moving a ship that
wouldn't require reaction mass and such. Solar sails, for example...
with a large enough sail of the appropriate materials, you can harness
the energy of the solar wind to push you away from the sun. To head the
other way, you just furl the sail and let solar gravity pull you in. You
can even tack and stuff like a regular sailboat to move crossways. It's
not exactly high-G maneuvering, but it's constant boost (though actual
acceleration drops off as you get farther from the sun), and will get
you there eventually...
---
John Campbell
jcam...@lynn.ci-n.com
Kid Chameleon
etched into silicon:
<
<HERO Chip... how old are you?
<
We should start a pool.
I'll take 13
Kid Chameleon
silicon:
<
<>I've no idea what Chippie's talking about, but I did a zero-g battle
<>
< Chip's name is "Chip", not "Chippie". Next time, write a person's name
<correctly, or leave the newgroup.
Who do you think you are? The FAQ Bitch? Christ, do you know how few
people call me Ken'?
Kwitcherbitchen, Chippie.
<snip example of lack of knowledge of friction>
Kid Chameleon
etched into silicon:
So will a Space tolerant Texan and a pot of chili, but it isn't for
those in a hurry. :)
Dan Binkis
news:38580383.2...@lynn.ci-n.com...
> cra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> "An LAM can never be heavier than 55 tons. OmniMechs cannot be built as
> LAMs."
>
> Rules of Warfare may have had the limit in it as well; I never owned a
> copy of that book, so I can't check. However, it looks to me like
> between the releases of Aerotech and the Compendium (or possibly RoW),
> heavy and assault LAMs were legal.
Actually, RoW (at least the Hardback version I have) doesn't mention
anything about LAMs. You have to get the Tac Handbook for LAM rules if you
want a more recent copy then original Aerotech.
Dan
Reeves
HERO Chip and Kurita389 have the same IP:
130.126.141.117
130.126.141.117
I don't have too much of a problem with retarded equipment, but posing as 2
people to strengthen one's position in a discussion is so...juvenile.
Kid Chameleon
into silicon:
<Oh, look...
<HERO Chip and Kurita389 have the same IP:
<
<130.126.141.117
<130.126.141.117
<
<I don't have too much of a problem with retarded equipment, but posing as 2
<people to strengthen one's position in a discussion is so...juvenile.
<
It could be a concidence, couldn't it? Right?
:>
Jennifer Stewarts
>
> I'll take 13
>
> "If this is all the gods can do, I'm over to the dark side so fast."
> Tom Servo
Its possible I'm in my late 20's and I've known some 11-13 year olds
like that... I've also known a 9 year old like that... but my bets are
15...
Reeves
everyone else opposes? Maybe.
<X-Files music>
^_^
Bill Silvey
>
> >I've no idea what Chippie's talking about, but I did a zero-g battle
> >
> Chip's name is "Chip", not "Chippie". Next time, write a person's name
> correctly, or leave the newgroup.
Hey, Chippie, check out this groovy Battletech website:
http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy
--
Bill Silvey, Oathmaster, Clan Wolverine - Fuck the IDSA
"I post to see what kind of responses I will get. I don't know of every
single facet of a subject I post on."
- ATN082268's confession in posting
<19980604050705...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
that it does in fact post in rec.games.mecha only to troll.
Spell 'yrtsinim' backwards to email me.
Nate Snitko
>everyone else opposes? Maybe.
Hey! I take exception to that! I've put plenty of stupid ideas up on these
boards, and I don't have the same IP!!!
The best thing an archmage can do with his spells? Use them to destroy another
archmage, of course-and himself in the doing. We'll plant something useful in
the ashes.
Radishes, perhaps.
cra...@hotmail.com
He handles criticism well, at least in the sense he hasn't
fled from this newsgroup yet. That'd make him well over 13.
I'm guessing 15-17, and lean toward the upper half of that
range. An immature but socially hardened/scarred individual.
--
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
"He's dead, Jim. You get his tricorder and I'll grab his wallet."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Patrick Weaver
"John Campbell" wrote
>Solar sails, for example...
> with a large enough sail of the appropriate materials, you can harness
> the energy of the solar wind to push you away from the sun. To head the
> other way, you just furl the sail and let solar gravity pull you in. You
> can even tack and stuff like a regular sailboat to move crossways.
Umm... no. The friction between the keel, hull, centerboard etc of a
sailboat and the water lets you change course. Without that friction your
solar sail can only move you directly away from a star. Another solar wind
from another star allows you to alter your course in a limited way. You need
to be fairly close to a star to get any effect from a solar sail. That's
close on a astronomical scale say a few light years. Get even 1degree off
course and you're lost. You cannot alter your course in any effective way.
Furling your sail and waiting for gravity to pull you back will be a very
slow process if you have any way on. Consider the orbits of comets. Could
you really wait 100 years to get back home?
William or Rebecca Ward
appropriate for this newsgroup (even with an OT tag)? HeroChip's age is
irrelevant to the topic of Mecha. Now, if you want to start a thread about
the ages of people, in general, who play mecha style games or if you want to
revive that 4 year-old thread where people gave their age and years of
experience playing BT, that is fine, but speculating on one particular
person's age is really not topical.
Rebecca Ward
<who doesn't post much anymore, but still reads the group>
TS Fulk, M.A.T., M.A:
to mutate it to "Chippie," then why the heck can't they.
tak ahoj!
tsfulk
Kurita389 wrote:
>
> >I've no idea what Chippie's talking about, but I did a zero-g battle
> >
> Chip's name is "Chip", not "Chippie". Next time, write a person's name
William Pora
>
> It's not his "name"--it's his "nickname" or "handle." If someone wants
> to mutate it to "Chippie," then why the heck can't they.
Chiiip, the chipstah, the chipinator, the chipmeister,
Emperor Herosito chipanata, Chiiip
--
To reply to my email type: wporaATixDOTnetcomDOTcom
changing the AT's and DOT's to the appropriate
symbols of course.
Peter La Casse
<bec...@erols.com> wrote:
>Okay, ladies and gentlemen, do you really think that this topic is
>appropriate for this newsgroup (even with an OT tag)? HeroChip's
>age is irrelevant to the topic of Mecha.
I concur.
Besides, disliking somebody because they're a munchkin is silly. It's
not like he's binary-bombing the group or anything.
I say, if somebody posts something that makes them look like a
13-year-old munchkin, they don't need any *additional* humilation. :)
Peter La Casse
cra...@hotmail.com
"Patrick Weaver" <zymur...@citlink.net> wrote:
>
> "John Campbell" wrote
> >Solar sails, for example...
> > with a large enough sail of the appropriate materials,
> > you can harness the energy of the solar wind to push you
> > away from the sun. To head the other way, you just furl
> > the sail and let solar gravity pull you in. You can even tack
> > and stuff like a regular sailboat to move crossways.
>
> Umm... no. The friction between the keel, hull, centerboard etc of a
> sailboat and the water lets you change course. Without that friction
> your solar sail can only move you directly away from a star.
No, you move *opposite* the direction light is *reflected*
from your sail. Action-reaction: you bounce light in one
direction, you go the other.
Where the light is *originating* and what direction it was
originally heading in is of secondary concern.
If the sail is dead-on facing the sun, you move straight
away from the sun.
If the sail is tilted at 45 degrees to the sun, the light
will end up being tilted a total of 90 degrees (angle
of incidence equals the angle of refraction) so the sail
will accelerate perpedicular to the light radiating from
the sun. In other words, it can chase and overtake planets
or kill its orbital velocity with respect to a star.
I mean, space scientists don't get wood over solar
sails for nothing. They aren't simple "accelerate
straight away from the sun" things.
Quite a few satellites in orbit now use light pressure
for spin stabilization (they tilt their solar panels
like wind mill vanes) while deep space probes have been
known to use their solar panels as sails to bleed off
momentum in their reaction wheels without resorting
to attitude jet fuel.
> Another solar wind from another star allows you to alter
> your course in a limited way. You need to be fairly close
> to a star to get any effect from a solar sail. That's
> close on a astronomical scale say a few light years.
??? Light drops off with the inverse square of the distance.
A square mile of sail at Earth's orbit gets 5lbs of thrust
(~20 Newtons) from a square mile (2.56 square kilometers) of
sail area.
At a light year, 64,000 astronomical units out, the
light will be 1/(64000^2) = 1/4,096,000,000 as intense,
and thrust will be just a little lower than near a
star. About 1 part in 4 billion lower.
You were correct in the statement "You need to be fairly
close to a star to get any effect from a solar sail."
You were grotesquely wrong about "That's close on a
astronomical scale say a few light years."
Light minutes, maybe. Earth is at about 8 light minutes
from Sol.
Finally, "Another solar wind from another star"...hardly.
Solar wind is at LEAST an order of magnitude weaker than
light pressure. For a big sail it's nothing to dismiss,
but solar wind is a much weaker force than light pressure.
> You cannot alter your course in any effective way.
You really need to read up on solar sails, or go
over to sci.space.science or sci.space.tech and ask
about how well solar sails can maneuver.
--
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
"Damn straight! Today the mad scientists can't get
a doomsday device, tomorrow it's the mad grad students.
Where will it end?" - The Professor of Futurama on
doomsday device control.
cra...@hotmail.com
William Pora <wp...@ix.netcomNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> TS Fulk, M.A.T., M.A: wrote:
> >
> > It's not his "name"--it's his "nickname" or "handle."
> > If someone wants to mutate it to "Chippie," then why the
> > heck can't they.
>
> Chiiip, the chipstah, the chipinator, the chipmeister,
> Emperor Herosito chipanata, Chiiip
LOL! Well done impersonation.
Jennifer Stewarts
> He handles criticism well, at least in the sense he hasn't
> fled from this newsgroup yet. That'd make him well over 13.
> I'm guessing 15-17, and lean toward the upper half of that
> range. An immature but socially hardened/scarred individual.
>
I don't know, its hard to tell if he takes it well or not, stubbornness
isn't justification of age... and i've known 6 year olds that could take
criticism and stay put... mostly because they didn't realize they were being
criticized.
cra...@hotmail.com
Jennifer Stewarts <ki...@home.com> wrote:
> cra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > He handles criticism well, at least in the sense he hasn't
> > fled from this newsgroup yet. That'd make him well over 13.
> > I'm guessing 15-17, and lean toward the upper half of that
> > range. An immature but socially hardened/scarred individual.
> >
>
> I don't know, its hard to tell if he takes it well or not,
> stubbornness isn't justification of age...
Nope, it isn't. However...
> and i've known 6 year olds that could take criticism and
> stay put... mostly because they didn't realize they were being
> criticized.
Given the number of "stupids" and "munchkins" that fly
around Hero's posts, he'd be hard-pressed to miss that
he's being criticized. Even if he misses the more
subtle sarcasm, he can't miss the heavy-handed stuff that's
the norm on this newsgroup. I mean, if you say a 6
year old's idea is "stupid," the kid KNOWS he's being
criticized.
My theory is a younger kid couldn't handle the abuse that
gets heaped on Hero, which is why I think 13 or even 15
is too low.
Then again, we could ask him for his age, with all the
potential for misinformation that entails.
HERO Chip
Newton's third law (the law of action and reaction). Your boppercraft WILL
NOT be able to move anywhere or even maneuver without emitting exhaust,
since it is a closed system and within a closed system the sum of all
forces is zero. Elementary physics, now will we be able to move to more
reasonable discussions?
>>
Explain to me the physics of electron motion in a simple DC circuit, say for
example, an LED, a 300 ohm resistor, and a battery. Include discussion on how
Newton's law of "Opposite and equal reaction" applies there including the heat
produced by all that current.
Warner Doles
: >>
: Explain to me the physics of electron motion in a simple DC circuit, say
for
: example, an LED, a 300 ohm resistor, and a battery. Include discussion
on how
: Newton's law of "Opposite and equal reaction" applies there including the
heat
: produced by all that current.
How about in plain simple terms....
Your design is crap and full of pork and Bull droppings. How's that?
So you are now saying that with the positive and negative flow of electrons
through your closed circuit is going to propel this monstrosity through
space? How's that? Where is this power and mass needed to cause the
inertia coming from? Someone vent the Sanitary tanks into space using
4,500 psi air???
And if you are prescribing to a gravitic drive system here Chip, I must tell
you
IT won't work unless the grav drive has a mass to work against.. IE: a
planet
or planetary gravity. Sitting some 2 AU's away from a Star WILL not make
this thing move.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to clean my Caffeine Free Diet Coke off
my screen, key board and my tie..... heh heh heh.. A 9v Battery can move
his super dropship carrying his tank... Next he will be telling us that he
is
Darth Vader and to join him in the Dork side! ;-) Now to cleaning....
Warner
Kid Chameleon
silicon:
<<<
<Newton's third law (the law of action and reaction). Your boppercraft WILL
<NOT be able to move anywhere or even maneuver without emitting exhaust,
<since it is a closed system and within a closed system the sum of all
<forces is zero. Elementary physics, now will we be able to move to more
<reasonable discussions?
<>>
<Explain to me the physics of electron motion in a simple DC circuit, say for
<example, an LED, a 300 ohm resistor, and a battery. Include discussion on how
<Newton's law of "Opposite and equal reaction" applies there including the heat
<produced by all that current.
Yawn. If I had a physics book around, I'd ablidge you, but since I
don't, I'll just describe part of your circuit, ignoring the resistor
and LED which both snag some electrons.
Your battery consists of two ionic solutions, one positive and one
negative, connected with, oh, lets say a salt bridge. Oxidation will
occur on the anode side, sending electrons toward our wire. Our wire,
being made of a transition metal will have some empty shells to fill
in order to be more stable. However, the reduction taking place at
the cathode requires electron much more than our transition metal,
pulling the electrons through the wire and it's intermediaries.
Without even going into physics, we see that when oxidation occurs, it
pulls ions throught the salt bridge (sorta) thus causing the pull of
electrons through the wire to keep the equilibrium, allowing our silly
LED to function. Cause and effect, equatl and opposite reaction.
Now, you still have yet to explain your device in a coherent and
logical manner. Go for it.
Kid Chameleon
<tsf...@ulysses.fjfi.cvut.cz> etched into silicon:
<It's not his "name"--it's his "nickname" or "handle." If someone wants
<to mutate it to "Chippie," then why the heck can't they.
<
Helly, we call TS a bouncy czech, but he isn't even a czech.
Jennifer Stewarts
cra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> My theory is a younger kid couldn't handle the abuse that
> gets heaped on Hero, which is why I think 13 or even 15
> is too low.
>
> Then again, we could ask him for his age, with all the
> potential for misinformation that entails.
>
Hey how old do you have to be to pilot a mech? Is there actually a
minimum age? And do you need to get a license to pilot one?
<for those who were complaining about what this string had to do with
battle mechs :) >>
Bill Silvey
As I recall, Grayson Carlyle was in his teens or very early 20's at the
oldest when he took to the cockpit. It was implied in the beginning of
Decision At Thunder Rift that he'd been in training (including,
presumably, some real stick time versus all simulator) since he was an
adolescent.
Grant Garmonsway
>
> Okay, ladies and gentlemen, do you really think that this topic is
> appropriate for this newsgroup (even with an OT tag)? HeroChip's age is
> irrelevant to the topic of Mecha.
Well, since it was I who first posed the question, I feel I should
state why I asked it anyway :) My main reason for asking was to see
what kind of educational background Mr Chip might have had. I don't
want to judge someone as being stupid without knowing where they
stand. No point in telling a 8 year-old to go back to Physics 101,
since he won't get there 'till he's about 20 :) Whereas if he's 35,
it'd be a lot more appropriate to tell him to go learn something about
physics before he pipes up :)
I know when I was a kid I came up with all SORTS of perpetual motion
ideas... and now after physics at school and three years of studying
engineering, I'm a little wiser :) But telling me as a kid to go read
a physics book wouldn't have done much good. I wouldn't have cared :)
Anyway, that's my view... I didn't intend it as a harsh question,
regardless as how it coincidentally might have sounded :)
Grant Garmonsway
cra...@hotmail.com
mini...@mpinet.net wrote:
> Jennifer Stewarts wrote:
> >
> > cra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > My theory is a younger kid couldn't handle the abuse that
> > > gets heaped on Hero, which is why I think 13 or even 15
> > > is too low.
> > >
> > > Then again, we could ask him for his age, with all the
> > > potential for misinformation that entails.
> > >
> >
> > Hey how old do you have to be to pilot a mech? Is there
> > actually a minimum age? And do you need to get a license to
> > pilot one? <for those who were complaining about what this
> > string had to do with battle mechs :) >>
>
> As I recall, Grayson Carlyle was in his teens or very early 20's
> at the oldest when he took to the cockpit. It was implied in the
> beginning of Decision At Thunder Rift that he'd been in training
> (including, presumably, some real stick time versus all simulator)
> since he was an adolescent.
Katrina Steiner the elder the dead the Melissa Steiner's mom
was 12 when she was given a Wasp or Stinger to stomp around
the country estates; her cousin or sister was, IIRC, 11 and
did the same thing. This is in the old House Steiner handbook;
my copy is a 1000 miles from me, so someone else'll have to
confirm/deny.
HERO Chip
For movement to occur in any environment, there has to be an equal and opposite
force.
>>
Actually, my equipment does work. And the weight rope equipment that
Kurita389 designed works too. There does not have to be an equal and opposite
force for every motion. If that's the case, then please describe the equal and
opposite force that happened to God when He sent the firebombs against Jericho.
Newton was not entirely correct in his theory, which I will remind everyone
was a proposed theory back in his days. He did not have enough working
experience to prove all types of motion. Also, he did not go into thoroughly
detail his theories. Scientists have proven this. A perfect example is a
sailing ship. When the wind blows to push the sails, the impact of the wind
forces against the sails. The sails do not push back, but are rather pushed in
the direction of the wind. Since the sails are connected to the ship, the
sails pull the ship in the direction they're pushed.
Now, they say that perpetual motion machines do not exist. I say they do
because throughout human history, there has been at least one perpetaul motion
machine -- God. He's a spiritual machine, and he doesn't lose energy, and He's
created energy because He's created the heavens and the earth and since the
earth is made of mass, it's got energy. So God is a perpetual motion machine.
HERO Chip
So you are now saying that with the positive and negative flow of electrons
through your closed circuit is going to propel this monstrosity through space?
How's that?
>>
thoroughly explained of how electrons moved in a DC circuit using a light bulb,
a battery, and a 300 ohm resistor and how those electrons' movements related
to Newto's "law" that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.
Warner Doles
<Snipage>
: There does not have to be an equal and opposite force for every motion.
: If that's the case, then please describe the equal and opposite force that
: happened to God when He sent the firebombs against Jericho.
First and foremost, you have completely deviated off the topic and now you
have ventured into a subject that will get this thread killed. Why? Because
this is one of the subjects that tend to break out into flame wars. With
that
being said, I feel I am most qualified to answer your reply and *correct*
your mistake.
<Pardon the Bible History lesson>
God *DID NOT* destroy Jericho with fireballs. The city of Jericho was
destroyed and burned to the ground by the Isreali's. How? By the following
methods of applications.
For seven days the marched around the walls of the city not saying a word
seven times a day. On the final day they marched around the city seven
times and at the end of the seventh time, they, in one voice, shouted and
the walls of Jericho came down and they entered the city and killed everyone
with the exception of the one woman who helped the spies of Joshua. Then
they burned the city to the ground. *THAT* is how Jericho was destroyed.
It was Sodom and Ghomorra(sp) were destroyed by God with Fire and
Brimstone. Before you quote something like this, make sure your facts are
right and true. And for future reference, you might want to really think
what you are trying to use as a comparison. This was really bad.
<End Bible History Lesson>
: Newton was not entirely correct in his theory, which I will remind
everyone
: was a proposed theory back in his days. He did not have enough working
: experience to prove all types of motion. Also, he did not go into
thoroughly
: detail his theories. Scientists have proven this. A perfect example is a
: sailing ship. When the wind blows to push the sails, the impact of the
wind
: forces against the sails. The sails do not push back, but are rather
pushed in
: the direction of the wind. Since the sails are connected to the ship, the
: sails pull the ship in the direction they're pushed.
And having served in the U.S. Navy for most of my adult life, I feel that I
am also qualified to answer this too. You are wrong too. Sails just don't
sit
there and do nothing. No they do push against the wind because they are
secured to the masts. If they were not then they would end up floating away
like a sheet of paper. Newton's law is sound and has been proven time and
again. Again your theory is completely wrong.
I would suggest that you do one of two things.
(1) Start thinking about the really bad and crazy ideas you have been
posting
and be a little more *real* about them -or-
(2) Stop posting.
: Now, they say that perpetual motion machines do not exist. I say they
do
: because throughout human history, there has been at least one perpetaul
motion
: machine -- God. He's a spiritual machine, and he doesn't lose energy, and
He's
: created energy because He's created the heavens and the earth and since
the
: earth is made of mass, it's got energy. So God is a perpetual motion
machine.
As much as I agree with you here, this is *NOT* the proper analogy to be
using
to justify your theory you have been put forth. While some may not agree
with
your testament to God and all that he has done, I do. But this was not the
time
nor the place to insert God into this just to justify and back up your
failure to
prove yourself.
Warner Doles
cra...@hotmail.com
HERO Chip <hero...@aol.com> wrote:
> <<
> For movement to occur in any environment, there has to be an
> equal and opposite force.
> >>
>
> Newton was not entirely correct in his theory,
I have yet to hear him corrected on the action-reaction part.
> A perfect example is a sailing ship. When the wind blows to push
> the sails, the impact of the wind forces against the sails. The
> sails do not push back, but are rather pushed in the direction
> of the wind. Since the sails are connected to the ship, the
> sails pull the ship in the direction they're pushed.
Actually, if the sails did not push back, they would continue
bending forward until they snapped. Hence the sails are
responding to the force of the wind with elastic forces in
the materials of their mast and remaining upright.
Wind doesn't PUSH sails per se; it generates a pressure gradient
as seen in a wing. The windward side has wind pile up on it and
form a high pressure zone while, denied instant access to wind,
the leeward side is a low pressure zone. Instead of lift as in
a wing, you get thrust. Which is a push, I suppose.
Now on a closer level, let's see:
Pressure is the impact of atoms of a medium impacting and
recoiling (action-reaction) from an object, exerting a force
per unit area.
In a balanced pressure state, all sides of an object are being
hammered equally by atoms of the surrounding medium.
A sail is not in a balanced pressure state. One side is low
pressure, the other high. On the low pressure side, there are
fewer atoms hammering the sail. On the high pressure side,
more are. Subtract the resulting forces from each other and
you get, surprise, a net force.
The action of extra air molecules hitting and recoiling from
the windward side of a sail results in the reaction of the sail
and attached ship moving. Wow. Action-reaction. Newton's
third law yet again.
HERO Chip, what high school chemistry and physics courses
have you taken? Any?
cra...@hotmail.com
Where doesn't it apply? The moving electrons push at sitting
atoms with their electrical fields, tapping some of the energy
imparted to the moving electrons by the voltage of the battery
to cause the sitting atoms to vibrate. The electrons push, the
atoms move away and in doing so cause the electrons to recoil.
Action-reaction. The atoms vibrate because they are held by
non-rigid atomic bonds - pushed closer to their neighbor atoms,
they experience stronger electrical repulsion and move away
only to be held from fleeing by their atomic bonds. So they
snap back to be repulsed again.
This vibration and pushing against neighboring atoms causes
the neighboring atoms to vibrate for the same reason. When
the first atom recoils away from them, Newton's laws say the
neighbors will likewise recoil...into more neighbors.
On a macroscopic scale, the atomic vibrations are known as heat,
and thermal conduction. The vibrations from local electrical
heating spread through a wire by these action-reaction incidents.
They amount to what is known as "phonons," (not photons, but
phonons) which are mechanical vibrations that represent the
spread of heat through a material. All cuz of Newton's third
law at work.
How can you not see Newton's third law at work in electrical
systems? They're purer examples than a lot of macroscopic
mechanical ones.
Jon Ivars
> Now, they say that perpetual motion machines do not exist. I say they do
> because throughout human history, there has been at least one perpetaul motion
> machine -- God. He's a spiritual machine, and he doesn't lose energy, and H->
<-e's
> created energy because He's created the heavens and the earth and since the
> earth is made of mass, it's got energy. So God is a perpetual motion machine.
This has to be the silliest excuse for justifying new equipment. God can
do it! With that excuse you could do fiftyeleven impossible things in
battletech using the excuse your deity is omnipotent and can do it too.
Let's just introduce the ultimate weapon and cause the big crunch in an
eyeblink.
*CRUNCH*
Whee, wasn't that fun.
Now can we get away from the realm of metaphysics and into something
approaching real physics?
Star Captain Jon 'Gauss Bear' Ivars Member of Clan Ghost Bear
Visit my Battletech pages at http://www.abo.fi/~jivars/gb.htm
Honk if you want to join Legion's SLDF Division in Earth 2025!
John Campbell
The one untainted by Davion blood, you mean?
> was 12 when she was given a Wasp or Stinger to stomp around
> the country estates; her cousin or sister was, IIRC, 11 and
> did the same thing. This is in the old House Steiner handbook;
> my copy is a 1000 miles from me, so someone else'll have to
> confirm/deny.
>
Yup. Katrina at 12, and her sister Nondi at 11. The context suggests
that that was younger than usual. Probably you don't have to worry about
the cops pulling you over and asking for your mecha license when your
last name is Steiner...
---
John Campbell
jcam...@lynn.ci-n.com
stoic
><<
>Newton's third law (the law of action and reaction). Your boppercraft WILL
>NOT be able to move anywhere or even maneuver without emitting exhaust,
>since it is a closed system and within a closed system the sum of all
>forces is zero. Elementary physics, now will we be able to move to more
>reasonable discussions?
>>>
>Explain to me the physics of electron motion in a simple DC circuit, say for
>example, an LED, a 300 ohm resistor, and a battery. Include discussion on how
>Newton's law of "Opposite and equal reaction" applies there including the heat
>produced by all that current.
Ok. New propulsion system: take your body heat and vector it
out the space suit.
Jennifer Stewarts
>
> Ok. New propulsion system: take your body heat and vector it
> out the space suit.
Ok... The simplest of the "Reactionless Drives" is the photon drive. It uses
photon particles <Light packets that have mass> to propel itself. While it do->
<-es not
use reaction fuel like a conventional engine and a fusion or fission reactor i->
<-s all
that's needed to power it, it has the lowest of thrust to weight ratios of most
system.
Aside from that, if you don't want fuel for movement... solar sailing might be->
<- the
next best bet... using solar winds, tacking against gravity wells, and such, ->
<-a ship
could move around somewhat without reaction fuel.
Ram scoops <large electromagnetic scoops to collect interstellar hydrogen and ->
<-micro
particals> have longer endurance, but are still dependent on mass... though a ->
<-ship
can coast a long distance collecting fuel, then fire its engines when needed.
Realistically most ships should mount ram scoops that use reaction drives as t->
<-hey
provide extended duration capabilities especially in the roles of recon and sc->
<-out.
stoic
> Newton was not entirely correct in his theory, which I will remind everyone
>was a proposed theory back in his days. He did not have enough working
Of course they're not correct. Newton's theories/laws don't
take relativity into account. They break down when you reach a
signficant fraction of the speed of light. (I want to say .3c)
However, they work well enough at low speeds to be useful.
What does this mean in the context of this thread? It means
chip still doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
> Now, they say that perpetual motion machines do not exist. I say they do
>because throughout human history, there has been at least one perpetaul motion
>machine -- God. He's a spiritual machine, and he doesn't lose energy, and He's
God is a machine? What does that make a Mechanical Engineer?
"Hand me my wrench, God needs a lil' tweaking..."
Charles Borner
opposite
> force.
> Actually, my equipment does work. And the weight rope equipment that
> Kurita389 designed works too.
No, and no. They won't. Sorry.
> There does not have to be an equal and opposite force for every motion.
Yes. It does.
> If that's the case, then please describe the equal and
> opposite force that happened to God when He sent the firebombs against
Jericho.
Irrelevant. You're (mis)quoting scripture. And Theology/Mythology is
inapplicable in
the REAL WORLD.
> Newton was not entirely correct in his theory, which I will remind
everyone
> was a proposed theory back in his days. He did not have enough working
> experience to prove all types of motion. Also, he did not go into
thoroughly
> detail his theories.
Newton was correct in the broadest sense. There are equal and opposite
reactions. What you're not taking into account are other laws of physics
(like conservation of energy).
> Scientists have proven this. A perfect example is a sailing ship. When
the wind blows to push the sails, the impact
<of the wind forces against the sails. The sails do not push back, but are
rather pushed in the direction of the wind.
Pray tell, WHEN have scientists proven this? Equal and opposite is still
being taught in school. And something this fundamentally earthshaking
(pardon the pun) would have hit the scientific community like a bomb.
Provide references and links to books and websites (no, www.bible.com
www.koran.com www.talmud.com and the Church of Scientology are NOT adequate
references).
You're wrong on the sail example as well.
The wind pushes, and the sail IS pushing back, it'd just lay slack otherwise
and wouldn't boom out. The reaction IS equal and opposite. Also, the
energy from this reaction is transmitted, through the ropes and into the
masts. This is what's causing motion. Maybe you should go back and
actually take a physics class before leaving high school.
> Now, they say that perpetual motion machines do not exist. I say they
do.
And we should believe you over the authorities? WHY?
> God is a perpetual motion machine.
I dunno about you. But I, a Catholic Christian, prefer to deal with the
REAL WORLD.
Chas
HERO Chip
The box corner points are labeled: A, B, C, D which are the points of one
square of the box and respectively connect to points E, F, G, H of the other
square of the box. 3 feet from Square ABCD is a point on Rectangle ABFE we'll
call point S. Point S is 2 feet from line segment AE and 2 feet from line
segment BF. Inside the box is a heay duty chain attached to point S that
extends for three feet towards Rectangle CDGH. The end of the chain has a
heavy metal sphere attached. Rectangle ABFE has an electromagnet mounted
inside the box. The sphere and chain's combined weight is equal to 70% of the
box's weight plus the sphere and chain's weight and electromagnet's weight.
The box is laying on the earth and will not collapse because the box is made of
heavy duty material.
The electro magnet pulls back on the sphere so that the sphere is adjacent
to Rectangle ABFE. Then, what happens when the electromagnet lets go of the
sphere?
John Campbell
>
> Here's a box that is 20 feet long and 5 feet tall and 5 feet wide. It weighs
> The box corner points are labeled: A, B, C, D which are the points of one
> square of the box and respectively connect to points E, F, G, H of the other
> square of the box. 3 feet from Square ABCD is a point on Rectangle ABFE we'll
> call point S. Point S is 2 feet from line segment AE and 2 feet from line
> segment BF. Inside the box is a heay duty chain attached to point S that
> extends for three feet towards Rectangle CDGH. The end of the chain has a
> heavy metal sphere attached. Rectangle ABFE has an electromagnet mounted
> inside the box. The sphere and chain's combined weight is equal to 70% of the
> box's weight plus the sphere and chain's weight and electromagnet's weight.
<- of
> heavy duty material.
> The electro magnet pulls back on the sphere so that the sphere is adjac->
<-ent
> to Rectangle ABFE. Then, what happens when the electromagnet lets go of the
> sphere?
Okay, I get it. This is a metaphor! The sphere inside the box is, of
course, the Inner Sphere. The electromagnet is Comstar. The various
sides of the box represent the Clans. Comstar, under Primus Waterly,
attempted to bring the Inner Sphere and the Clans together into one,
under the control of Comstar. So, obviously, when Comstar lets go of the
Inner Sphere, what happens is that the Word of Blake forms! Am I right?
(Not that I'm expecting to be... but I couldn't see how it had anything
whatsoever to do with mecha any other way... Maybe you should be asking
these questions on alt.trolls.who.cant.grasp.basic.physics?)
---
John Campbell
jcam...@lynn.ci-n.com
Rob Hart
news:19991217202527.1...@ng-fu1.aol.com...
> Here's a box that is 20 feet long and 5 feet tall and 5 feet wide. It
weighs
> The box corner points are labeled: A, B, C, D which are the points of one
> square of the box and respectively connect to points E, F, G, H of the
other
> square of the box. 3 feet from Square ABCD is a point on Rectangle ABFE
we'll
> call point S. Point S is 2 feet from line segment AE and 2 feet from line
> segment BF. Inside the box is a heay duty chain attached to point S that
> extends for three feet towards Rectangle CDGH. The end of the chain has a
> heavy metal sphere attached. Rectangle ABFE has an electromagnet mounted
> inside the box. The sphere and chain's combined weight is equal to 70% of
the
> box's weight plus the sphere and chain's weight and electromagnet's
weight.
> The box is laying on the earth and will not collapse because the box is
> heavy duty material.
> The electro magnet pulls back on the sphere so that the sphere is
> to Rectangle ABFE. Then, what happens when the electromagnet lets go of
the
> sphere?
Assuming the surface the box is laying on is frictionless and when you said
"2 feet" you meant "2.5 feet" (2+2 does not equal 5):
When the ball drops, it will move towards side ABCD, and the box will
move the opposite direction at the same rate. Assuming this pendulum (ball
plus chain) loses no energy to the environment, it should come back up at
line segment AB, at which point both it AND THE BOX will reverse their
courses. When the ball comes back to the place from whence it began, the
box will be in the same place from which IT started as well. Hence, a net
movement of "0" for the system.
Jeffrey Smith
<hero...@aol.com> wrote:
<posted, mailed>
> Actually, my equipment does work. And the weight rope equipment that
>Kurita389 designed works too. There does not have to be an equal and opposite
>force for every motion.
<snip>
I've avoided responding to any of your posts to date to avoid coming
off as either condescending or insulting, but WHAT THE FOCHT ARE YOU
SMOKING, HUH?
The Laws of Motion have been proven time and time and time again. I
can only assume that you either are:
1) So young you have not attended a science class to date,
2) Part of a fundamentalist sect that attempts to prove science wrong
so everything will be divine based, or
3) Are a product of the Kansas public school system
Now, personally I've ignored your stuff - the flaws in them have been
pointed out by others, and I don't feel the need to jump on the
bandwagon. But if you're going to post something so obviously screwed
up, you better be prepared to take your lumps.
It won't work. Period. No chance in hell. All it will do, if anything,
is jerk back and forth around a single, unchanging point.
There are plenty of excellent, enjoyable science books available in
any good bookstore or public library. I strongly urge you to read one.
PS: I'd avoid starting a theological debate on rec.games.mecha if you
value your faith. If you expect us to post your comments, I'm damn
well going to approve everything by athiests who want to shred them as
well.
**** **** **** ****
SubGenius Police, Usenet Tactical Unit (Mobile), aka S.P.U.T.U.M.
Unit CLXXXVII: "Primum Nocere
Parahuman Ragnarok Initiators,METAsysop Element
http://www.sputum.com/
HERO Chip
Okay, I get it. This is a metaphor! The sphere inside the box is, of
course, the Inner Sphere. The electromagnet is Comstar. The various
sides of the box represent the Clans. Comstar, under Primus Waterly,
attempted to bring the Inner Sphere and the Clans together into one,
under the control of Comstar. So, obviously, when Comstar lets go of the
Inner Sphere, what happens is that the Word of Blake forms! Am I right?
(Not that I'm expecting to be... but I couldn't see how it had anything
whatsoever to do with mecha any other way... Maybe you should be asking
these questions on alt.trolls.who.cant.grasp.basic.physics?)
>>
I didn't use any metaphors. I merely asked, "Then, what happens when the
electromagnet lets go of the sphere?" You didn't even attempt to answer my
question with even a theoretical answer based on scientific principles.
cra...@hotmail.com
stoic <st...@home.com> wrote:
> Ok. New propulsion system: take your body heat and vector it
> out the space suit.
Uh...that works. Seriously. The effects of thrust
from radiators is detectable on some satellites.
This discussion was just held on sci.space.tech or
.science, this week. Like sunlight pressure on
solar panels, it can be used for stabilization and
the like. Very weak, of course.
If more photons leave one side of the suit than
the other...there will be thrust.
Keep in mind what level of thrust I'm talking about
here: you get 5lbs (20N) thrust from light pressure
at an intensity of 1400 watts per square meter over
a square mile (2.5 square kilometers). That's 5lbs
of thrust from about 3,600,000,000 watts of sunlight.
How much heat does the human body emit? 500 watts?
If that all goes out one side...you'll get about
7x10^-7 pounds of thrust. That's .0000007lbs of
thrust.
cra...@hotmail.com
HERO Chip <hero...@aol.com> wrote:
> I didn't use any metaphors. I merely asked, "Then, what
> happens when the electromagnet lets go of the sphere?"
> You didn't even attempt to answer my question with even a
> theoretical answer based on scientific principles.
You're right; he didn't. Rob Hart, however, gave a very
concise and understandable explanation.
I'll give another, though I think my description with the
canoe/dropship under the HeroTech industries thread said the
same thing:
When the magnet lets go of the ball, the box will shift...
though the center of mass remains immobile. When the
pendulum returns, the box will shift back.
The only way you can keep the box moving is to eject the
ball...you know, eject a REACTION MASS.
If the ball stays in the box no matter how much you throw it
around, the net movement of the center of mass will be zero.
stoic
>In article <385abdcb.75319168-rgm@news>,
> stoic <st...@home.com> wrote:
>> Ok. New propulsion system: take your body heat and vector it
>> out the space suit.
>
>How much heat does the human body emit? 500 watts?
>If that all goes out one side...you'll get about
>7x10^-7 pounds of thrust. That's .0000007lbs of
>thrust.
>
But do you think Chip will understand just how "useful"
.0000007 lbs of thrust is?
Alexander Williams
> But do you think Chip will understand just how "useful"
>.0000007 lbs of thrust is?
Its not all that /un/useful, if you could but sustain it. Sadly, you
need replacable material to fuel the human producing it, increasing
the necessary mass per unit moved ... Ah well.
--
Alexander Williams (tha...@gw.total-web.net) | In the End,
"Join the secret struggle for the soul of the world." | Oblivion
Nobilis, a new Kind of RPG | Always
http://www.chancel.org | Wins
Reeves
that as a form of propulsion...(ewww)
Or you could just buy a spaceship like most normal people.
Alexander Williams wrote:.
Kid Chameleon
<In article <385abdcb.75319168-rgm@news>,
< stoic <st...@home.com> wrote:
<> Ok. New propulsion system: take your body heat and vector it
<> out the space suit.
<
<
<How much heat does the human body emit? 500 watts?
<If that all goes out one side...you'll get about
<7x10^-7 pounds of thrust. That's .0000007lbs of
<thrust.
<
<--
Don't forget gas displacement :)
Mmmmm, beans...
"If this is all the gods can do, I'm over to the dark side so fast."
Tom Servo
Kid Chameleon
silicon:
<Here's a box that is 20 feet long and 5 feet tall and 5 feet wide. It weighs
<The box corner points are labeled: A, B, C, D which are the points of one
<square of the box and respectively connect to points E, F, G, H of the other
<square of the box. 3 feet from Square ABCD is a point on Rectangle ABFE we'll
<call point S. Point S is 2 feet from line segment AE and 2 feet from line
<segment BF. Inside the box is a heay duty chain attached to point S that
<extends for three feet towards Rectangle CDGH. The end of the chain has a
<heavy metal sphere attached. Rectangle ABFE has an electromagnet mounted
<inside the box. The sphere and chain's combined weight is equal to 70% of the
<box's weight plus the sphere and chain's weight and electromagnet's weight.
<The box is laying on the earth and will not collapse because the box is made of
<heavy duty material.
< The electro magnet pulls back on the sphere so that the sphere is adjacent
<to Rectangle ABFE. Then, what happens when the electromagnet lets go of the
<sphere?
You're real good at answering a question with a question. None the
less, you still haven't shown how your rediculous "bop drive" could
function, rather you try to establish a tangent rather than dealing
with the inaccuracies of your design.
To answer your question, the pendulem will shift in one direction,
pulling the box with it. After moving X meters, the pendulem will
move back the other way, pulling the box nearly X meters back, to it's
origional position. This will keep up until the pendulem ceases to
move due to the effects of gravity.
Of course, if this was in space, nothing would happen when it was
released.
Happy?
Kid Chameleon
silicon:
> So God is a perpetual motion machine.
Funny, I thought he rested on the 7th day.
Jake Staines
news:3856dcf6.6...@news.erols.com...
> You should go to your local library and look up "Issac[sp?] Newton"
> and read about his rules.
>
Isaac.
> <willpower and reflexes to move veself). A ve moves veself by creating a
force
Yeah, OK. What is all this 've' business anyway and how does one of them
pervert the laws of physics? [1]
> <[Q4] Spaceships should be able to make zero gravity moves. They're in
space,
> <there is no gravity, there is no resistance!
> <
> <[A5] Yes, but I'm referring to constantly accelerating in a zero gravity
place
>
(Hmm... Q4, A5... some sort of deep-rooted psycological problem here,
methinks.)
So we have a ship that only works for the infinitely small instant that it
occupies a point of zero-gravity?
Wouldn't really be much use now, would it, unless it could prvide *one hell
of a push* in that instant...
> Well, such a place doesn't really exist....
>
That's a lie. I have one in my back garden.
--
Jake
'If you take all the rulebooks and sourcebooks from the average gamer's
bookshelf, and lay all the pages out end to end, then he will try and kill
you.
[1] Yeah, I know. BTech, physics, whatever.
Jake Staines
> <<
> So you are now saying that with the positive and negative flow of
electrons
> through your closed circuit is going to propel this monstrosity through
space?
> How's that?
> >>
> I never said it would go through space. I only asked for the physics to
be
> thoroughly explained of how electrons moved in a DC circuit using a light
bulb,
> a battery, and a 300 ohm resistor and how those electrons' movements
related
> to Newto's "law" that for every action there is an opposite and equal
reaction.
How fast do you think electrons *move*, for smegs sake? (it's slower than
you think, BTW - look up 'Drift Velocity')?
HERO Chip
Pray tell, WHEN have scientists proven this? Equal and opposite is still
being taught in school. And something this fundamentally earthshaking
(pardon the pun) would have hit the scientific community like a bomb.
Provide references and links to books and websites (no, www.bible.com
www.koran.com www.talmud.com and the Church of Scientology are NOT adequate
references).
>>
who are teaching that "theory" are either unaware of what's been proven, or
they're unwilling to teach new ideas. In school, they do teach that Newton's
theory that "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaciton" is NOT
entirely correct.
<<
The wind pushes, and the sail IS pushing back, it'd just lay slack otherwise
and wouldn't boom out. The reaction IS equal and opposite. Also, the
energy from this reaction is transmitted, through the ropes and into the
masts. This is what's causing motion. Maybe you should go back and
actually take a physics class before leaving high school.
>>
seen a ship sail with the wind.
Ok, tell me this. If a tornado or a freight train hit the sail, would the
sail push back against the tornado/train with an equal and opposite reaction?
If it would, please describe that equal and opposite reaction.
And let's say a U.S. Navy Seal (who's had martial arts training) stood on
that ship and placed knives on his/her hands and then did a karate chop against
the sail, what would happen to the sail?
Simon H. Lee
line of high-kicking electrons to spell out:
> The idea that equal and opposite is still being taught is because the
people
>who are teaching that "theory" are either unaware of what's been proven, or
>they're unwilling to teach new ideas. In school, they do teach that Newton's
>theory that "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaciton" is NOT
>entirely correct.
As mentioned previously, the occasions at which Newton isn't entirely
correct involve substantial percentages of the speed of light, which is not
at all relevant to what we're talking about.
> Ok, tell me this. If a tornado or a freight train hit the sail, would the
>sail push back against the tornado/train with an equal and opposite
reaction?
>If it would, please describe that equal and opposite reaction.
> And let's say a U.S. Navy Seal (who's had martial arts training) stood on
>that ship and placed knives on his/her hands and then did a karate chop
against
>the sail, what would happen to the sail?
In either one of those cases, the sail reacts with an equal and opposite
force during the collision because after the collision neither the train nor
the knives are moving as fast as they would have been had the sail not been
there. They have been slowed down (an opposite force has been applied) equal
to the sail's mass and acceleration. The forces involved are equal; however,
since the masses are not, the effect on the motion of the objects involved
will vary.
--
(-o-) A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E ! <*>
| __ |
| (__ * _ _ _ _ "In this house we obey the laws of |
| __)|| | |(_)| \ thermodynamics!" --Homer Simpson |
|___________________________________________________________________|
--
: __ A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E!
:(__ * _ _ _ _ "Sometimes I miss my sanity."
: __)|| | |(_)| \ --Wedge Antilles
HERO Chip
In either one of those cases, the sail reacts with an equal and opposite
force during the collision because after the collision neither the train nor
the knives are moving as fast as they would have been had the sail not been
there. They have been slowed down (an opposite force has been applied) equal
to the sail's mass and acceleration. The forces involved are equal; however,
since the masses are not, the effect on the motion of the objects involved
will vary.
>>
F=ma Newton's second law. That means the forces are not equal since the masses
are not equal, or Newton's second law is incorrect. It's quite understandable
that as an object accelerates it can create more force, i.e., a car going 80kph
would do more force if it hit someone than a car going 10kph. It's quite
understandable that a freight train going 20kph that masses 2000 tons would do
more force than a car that masses 1 ton going 20kph. Since these are real
possiblities, its reasonable to believe that Newton's 2nd Law of Motion is
correct, so now the question remains, is Newton's third law correct.
Demonic Gerbil
> But force is a product of mass*acceleration.
> F=ma Newton's second law. That means the forces are not equal since
the
> masses are not equal, or Newton's second law is incorrect.
Or that there accelerations are different. Chip, push against your
desk. As you push against the desk, you apply more force to it, it
pushes back. And one minor correction to your formula for Newton, it
is Sum of the Forces = ma. What this means is that because you and
the desk exert the same amount of force upon each other in opposite
directions, neither accelerate.
(BTW, how do you do a capital letter sigma with a american keyboard?)
> It's quiteunderstandable that as an object accelerates it can create
more
> force,
This is true. The higher the acceleration, the higher the force must
be to generate that acceleration.
> i.e., a car going 80kph would do more force if it hit someone than a
car going
>10kph. It's quite understandable that a freight train going 20kph
that masses
> 2000 tons would do more force than a car that masses 1 ton going
20kph.
This is what they call "velocity" or "speed" not acceleration. And
thus it is not force but a thing they call "momentum". I suggest you
look it up. The formula for momentum, BTW, is p=mv.
>Since these are real possiblities,
They happen everyday. So do things like the sun rotating at rate
Omega (the angular velocity). That doesn't mean they generate more
force, just that they generate more momentum (both translational and
rotational).
> its reasonable to believe that Newton's 2nd Law of Motion is
correct, so now
>the question remains, is Newton's third law correct.
Yes to both. The fact that you don't accelerate into the floor when
you stand on it is proof that the force on you from gravity cancels
out with the force of the floor upon you.
I suggest you pick up a Physics textbook and flip to the chapter
dealing with Linear/Translational Momentum and Inelastic Collisions.
I have a feeling it will help you understand why your arguments make
no sense.
BTW Chip, there are a whole lot of people on this NG that know a lot
more about Physics than you do. In other words, don't argue with a
Physics major about Newton. ;-)
--
---EDF
"Even if I go to hell, I will live until the end of the world,
and if the world does not come to an end, I will destroy
it with my own hands!"
-- Lacan from "Xenogears"
Grant Garmonsway
> The idea that equal and opposite is still being taught is because the peo->
<-ple
> who are teaching that "theory" are either unaware of what's been proven, or
> they're unwilling to teach new ideas. In school, they do teach that Newton's
> theory that "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaciton" is NOT
> entirely correct.
I for one would love to hear an example for when Newton's law does NOT
hold... I've studied engineering for three years, we use his laws ALL
the time, and there has never once been suggestion that it fails. And
FYI, most of my lecturers are pretty liberal, and more than willing to
accept new ideas.
> Ok, tell me this. If a tornado or a freight train hit the sail, would the
> sail push back against the tornado/train with an equal and opposite reaction?
> If it would, please describe that equal and opposite reaction.
Simply, the sail slows down the wind. The wind does work on the sail
to push it, and in return, the sail does an equal amount of work to
slow down the wind. The same with a freight train... even after it has
broken through the sail, it will still be a bit slower due to the
opposite reaction that the sail imposed upon it.
> And let's say a U.S. Navy Seal (who's had martial arts training) stood on
> that ship and placed knives on his/her hands and then did a karate chop agai->
<-nst
> the sail, what would happen to the sail?
Is the Seal standing on a frictionless surface? If so, when he extends
his arm in a chop, his body would move backwards a bit and his centre
of mass wouldn't move... *g*
In truth, the sail would oppose the USNS's chop, which is why it
wouldn't feel effortless to chop the sail. The opposite reaction is
what blunts the blade and makes the USNS feel like he's just cut
through something.
Grant Garmonsway
HERO Chip
Simply, the sail slows down the wind. The wind does work on the sail
to push it, and in return, the sail does an equal amount of work to
slow down the wind. The same with a freight train... even after it has
broken through the sail, it will still be a bit slower due to the
opposite reaction that the sail imposed upon it.
>>
reaction"? If it is, be specific.
Dan Binkis
news:s5okes35...@corp.supernews.com...
> Well, humans also expel liquid, gaseous, and solid matter...you could use
> that as a form of propulsion...(ewww)
>
> Or you could just buy a spaceship like most normal people.
I don't know how many normal people that buy spaceships. I think the rate
per capita is actually really low, making the statement of most "normal"
people buying a spaceship faulty. However, if you make it "like most normal
people would do." then it becomes true.
Dan
HERO Chip
> Here's a box that is 20 feet long and 5 feet tall and 5 feet wide. It
weighs
> The box corner points are labeled: A, B, C, D which are the points of one
> square of the box and respectively connect to points E, F, G, H of the
other
> square of the box. 3 feet from Square ABCD is a point on Rectangle ABFE
we'll
> call point S. Point S is 2 feet from line segment AE and 2 feet from line
> segment BF. Inside the box is a heay duty chain attached to point S that
> extends for three feet towards Rectangle CDGH. The end of the chain has a
> heavy metal sphere attached. Rectangle ABFE has an electromagnet mounted
> inside the box. The sphere and chain's combined weight is equal to 70% of
the
> box's weight plus the sphere and chain's weight and electromagnet's
weight.
> The box is laying on the earth and will not collapse because the box is
made of
> heavy duty material.
> The electro magnet pulls back on the sphere so that the sphere is
adjacent
> to Rectangle ABFE. Then, what happens when the electromagnet lets go of
the
> sphere?
Assuming the surface the box is laying on is frictionless and when you said
"2 feet" you meant "2.5 feet" (2+2 does not equal 5):
When the ball drops, it will move towards side ABCD, and the box will
move the opposite direction at the same rate. Assuming this pendulum (ball
plus chain) loses no energy to the environment, it should come back up at
line segment AB, at which point both it AND THE BOX will reverse their
courses. When the ball comes back to the place from whence it began, the
box will be in the same place from which IT started as well. Hence, a net
movement of "0" for the system.
>>
Yes, I did mean 2.5 feet instead of 2, my error. Let's say the box is laying
on a surface on Earth like Central Park in New York and the box and all
contents are exposed to standard Earth Gravity. Note that side CGHD is
adjacent to the surface. When the electromagnet lets go of the metal sphere
and gravity begins its pull on the metal sphere, which way do you think the box
will move?
Now, let's say that the box is in microgravity. The front side of the box
is the side closest to the sun. You know, the gravity that is 0.000001 times
that of Earth. Now let's say there was no chain that held the heavy metal
sphere and the electromagnet was remounted on the front side of the box inside
the box. The heavy metal sphere is positioned in the center of the box. What
happens when the electromagnet pulls on the heavy metal sphere toward the front
and will this electromagnet pulling on the heavy metal sphere cause it to move
the box? If the electromagnet pulling on the heavy metal sphere causes the box
to move, would the box move toward the sun?
Dan Binkis
> On 17 Dec 1999 15:33:23 GMT, HERO Chip <hero...@aol.com> etched into
> silicon:
>
>
> > So God is a perpetual motion machine.
>
> Funny, I thought he rested on the 7th day.
That's fucking hilarious.
Dan
John Campbell
>
> Now, let's say that the box is in microgravity. The front side of the box
> is the side closest to the sun. You know, the gravity that is 0.000001 times
> that of Earth. Now let's say there was no chain that held the heavy metal
> sphere and the electromagnet was remounted on the front side of the box inside
> the box. The heavy metal sphere is positioned in the center of the box. What
<-ont
> and will this electromagnet pulling on the heavy metal sphere cause it to move
<-box
> to move, would the box move toward the sun?
Actually, no, the box will move away from the sun, by about a foot or
two (depending on the length of the box and the relative masses of the
box and sphere... I know you said, but I've forgotten and I don't care
enough to go back and look). The sphere will move towards the sun about
the same distance. And then the sphere will meet the front of the box
and they'll both stop. The center of mass of the box/sphere system won't
move.
Well, that last isn't entirely true... independent of anything the
magnet and stuff may be doing, the whole box/sphere system will be very
slowly accelerated towards the sun by the sun's gravity. As described by
Newton's laws, the sun will also be accelerated towards the box by the
box's gravity. Given the relative masses of box and sun, the equal and
opposite gravitational forces applied will cause the box to do a lot
more of the accelerating than the sun.
---
John Campbell
jcam...@lynn.ci-n.com
... who was going to write some more metaphorical stuff about the
Davions when the sun became involved, but thought better of it...
Simon H. Lee
line of high-kicking electrons to spell out:
>Yes, I did mean 2.5 feet instead of 2, my error. Let's say the box is laying
>on a surface on Earth like Central Park in New York and the box and all
>contents are exposed to standard Earth Gravity. Note that side CGHD is
>adjacent to the surface. When the electromagnet lets go of the metal sphere
>and gravity begins its pull on the metal sphere, which way do you think
the box
>will move?
> Now, let's say that the box is in microgravity. The front side of the box
>is the side closest to the sun. You know, the gravity that is 0.000001 times
>that of Earth. Now let's say there was no chain that held the heavy metal
>sphere and the electromagnet was remounted on the front side of the box
inside
>the box. The heavy metal sphere is positioned in the center of the box.
What
>happens when the electromagnet pulls on the heavy metal sphere toward the
front
>and will this electromagnet pulling on the heavy metal sphere cause it to
move
>the box? If the electromagnet pulling on the heavy metal sphere causes
the box
>to move, would the box move toward the sun?
Have you paid attention to anything that we've been saying? In this
case, the magnet and the sphere will pull each other toward one another.
The heavier mass will be accelerated at a slower rate than the lighter one,
but each will have the same amount of force acting on it.
10 kg sphere
1 kg box
Sphere Box
10 kg (a) = 1 kg (a)
Sphere a = 1, Box a = 10
The two things will meet at a point not too far in front of the sphere,
stick together, and move no further since the net force on the system is zero.