0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The basic idea of energy content depending on mass and speed is correct .P.
Note - I consider the "vacate" talk a form of running away .
I stand by that fundamental logic ,
I stated for the easy understanding of the uninformed !
..............Drifting in space .Let me postulate a possible exception , the man in a box (drifting in space) .Picture , if you will , a large steel box , floating in space . In the middle stands an astronaut . In his right hand he holds a 20lb sandbag , in his left a 20lb steel ball . When his timer dings , he throws both objects at the opposing walls . The sandbag hits the right wall , goes "splat" , deposits %55 of it's kinetic energy into the wall , %45 into friction heat , then slowly drifts back to the 'stronut . The steel ball bounces off the left wall , deposit-ing %2 of it's kinetic energy into the wall , and reversing it's flight with %98 of it's initial kinetic energy intact . It then strikes a sandbag mounted on the right wall , depositing %55 of that %98 KE into the right wall . It then drifts back to the "stronut" . Of all the energy he mustered for his simultaneous throws , only %1 went into pushing the left wall , ~%55 went into pushing the right wall , the rest became omni-directional waste heat . The result is that the box slowly drifts to the right , without ejecting any reaction mass . Repeating the process would result in a small rate of acceleration . This would definitely qualify as a reactionless drive .A repetitive motion system , losing some of it's kinetic energy uni-directionally , experiences an effective "push" from the remaining kinetic energy . Energy conversion is the key . E=MC2 is proven out . Long live the "Epstein Drive" !P.M.
Aaargh , my diaghram's still sore from the last yuck-fest ! Incredible how 1% becomes greater than 55% with your math , think I'll stick with 2 + 2 = 4 . It works for me !P.
The established Massive Wall effects are not my creation
I'm thinking you are confusing a fast reflection for a heavy one .
rying to confuse , with scrambled-up exponential equations ,
Your own formulas tell you that very hard ( glass ) objects rebound from a massive-plate
ven a daft wank_r can tell that the beanbag put a helluva hit on the wall ,
BY THE BOOK , the 55%/45% split in K.E. means that 55 was transferred to the Massive Plate when they "bonded" , 45 became "molecular" momentum ( heat ) , in that process . Said heat is then radiated to the universe as EMR (photons) , with neglegible effect upon the momentum of anything ! It's time to stop screaming " I do formulas better than you ! " , and acknowledge the creative-mechanical genius which birthed this triumph ! OK , 90% humbles .002% hugely !P.M.
It says that if the hard ( glass , steel , etc. ) ball bounces back at 90% of the striking speed , then it retains 90% of it's starting MOMENTUM !
P=m•v also prove me out ! It says that if the hard ( glass , steel , etc. ) ball bounces back at 90% of the striking speed , then it retains 90% of it's starting MOMENTUM ! That only leaves 10% to be transferred to the Massive Plate !
Right now , all I'm hearing is a Scottie dog yipping out a bunch of put-downs, and misrepresentations ! Stop misleading the readers , and use honest reasoning and basic math to make your points ! Fingers stuck in ears , while head shakes violently , and mouth spews nah-nah-nah-nah , does not impress anyone . Neither does pretending that you've somehow "won" your argument , it just looks "jejeune" !
Good one Scooby !
We are at an impasse because you erroneously assume that you must impart energy in order to reverse a glass ball's direction .
Your refusal to acknowledge the C.of R. tables is both disturbing , and disheartening .