B Energy Efficiency of Compressed-Air-Powered Parabola Riding Vehicle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter metastable
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the potential energy efficiency of a compressed-air-powered vehicle designed to traverse a parabolic track, leveraging gravitational acceleration. The proposed method involves using a high-pressure air tank to assist the vehicle in overcoming elevation changes, potentially utilizing the Oberth effect to enhance efficiency. Calculations for a baseline electric vehicle's power consumption and performance metrics are presented, emphasizing the importance of minimizing energy losses from drag and mechanical resistance. Key questions arise about whether this innovative approach can indeed reduce energy consumption while maintaining the same travel time as conventional vehicles. The conversation highlights the complexities of energy conservation and efficiency in vehicle design, particularly in atmospheric conditions.
  • #121
metastable said:
...so is it not considered a rocket and not considered an Oberth maneuver?
Who cares how you call it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
metastable said:
I used SI variables, standard variable names, and no more than 3 significant figures for the decimals, as instructed by @Dale
Well, yes and no. The problem is, that your posts are difficult to read with all those numbers in it and especially without making use of LaTeX (cp. https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/).

E.g.
metastable said:
Vertical Drop Length: 4123.69 meters (29sec @ 1g - 2.56 miles)
Free-fall Velocity at Bottom of Ramp: 284.39 meters per second (636.16 miles per hour)
Water Tank Mass: 10000 kilograms
Passenger Vehicle Mass: 100 kilograms
Mechanical Impulse Energy: 202,000,000 J
should read:
##L_d = |p_1-p_0|## vertical drop from position ##p_1## to position ##p_0##
##v_0## velocity at ##(0,0,0)##, the bottom of the ramp
##m_w## mass of water tank
##m_v## mass of vessel
##E_{kin}(p)## kinetic energy at location ##p##
##E_{pot}(p)## potential energy at location ##p##
followed by formulas. If the correct calculation is found, then we insert data, but only then. Btw. what is mechanical impulse energy?

This is only an example and instead of position, you could as well use time as parameter for the motions involved, or choose different coordinate system. I haven't followed the thread, only the last posts here which were about layout instead of physics. Of course you can write whatever and however you want. Unfortunately you cannot expect to communicate this way. For communication a certain layout (frame) is necessary, and each science has its own. In post #118 you failed to show how you calculated which quantity. It looks more like an Excel sheet of numbers and deliberate names where the calculations can only be seen in the edit box of a cell, only that we do not have this option.

The general way to present a problem is:
  1. name all relevant quantities (in a way it is usually done, too)
  2. add the data, i.e. figures, but do not use them, yet
  3. start the calculation with those variables and explain what you thought and did
  4. deduce a final answer in terms of variables
  5. only now replace the variables with your data
Again, this is only meant as an advice how an efficient communication can be structured as a response on what this thread has become, not on what it was meant to be.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #123
Dale said:
So have two “pinewood derby” vehicles both on a straight slope, both with identical rocket engines. One fires the engine at the top of the track and the other fires the engine in the middle. Determine the final KE of each at the end.

Thank you for all of the above input on my formatting, I will try to present everything from now on using the appropriate equations, variables, formatting and # of significant digits. (I obtained @Dale 's permission before posting this)

---------------------

Firstly a vertical drop depth of ##29## seconds at ##9.8 m/s^2## in a vacuum is chosen because it is roughly equivalent in depth to the world's current deepest goldmine ( ##4.1km## ) in hopes it can be achievable with present technology. There is a vertical drop, a flat section, followed by another vertical ramp, connected by smooth curved sections, in vacuum.

The drop depth, time and final velocity can be calculated with:

##a=(v_f−v_i)/Δt##
##a=2∗(Δd−v_i∗Δt)/Δt²##
##a=F/m##

where:

##a## = the acceleration,
##v_i## = initial velocity,
##v_f## = final velocity,
##Δd## = distance traveled during acceleration,
##Δt## = acceleration time,
##F## = is the net force acting on an object that accelerates,
##m## = is the mass of this object.##Δd=4.12km##
##v_f=284m/s##
##m=m_{tan}+m_{pas}=10.1*10^3kg##
##m_{tan}:1*10^4 kg##
##m_{pas}:100kg##
##E_{impulse}:202MJ##

-------------------

The ##E_{impulse}## is calculated from a desired ##2km/s## velocity boost for the passenger vehicle, above and beyond its velocity from free fall at the bottom of the ramp from momentum conservation and kinetic energy equations:##m_1v_1=m_2v_2##
##v_1=(m_2v_2)/m_1##

##m_{1KE}=(1/2)mv^2##
##m_{2KE}=(1/2)mv^2##

---------
Results

Impulse on Top ( ##202MJ## ):

Covering ##4.1km## with initial ##2km/s## initial velocity and ##9.8m/s## acceleration takes ##2.07## seconds.

##2.07s## with ##9.8m/s## acceleration is a velocity change of ##20.3m/s##

##m_1## velocity at ramp bottom with impulse on top: ##2.02km/s##

##m_{1KE}## (bottom of ramp, impulse on top) = ##204MJ##

-------------------

Impulse on Bottom ( ##202MJ## ):

Free-fall Velocity at Bottom of Ramp: ##284m/s##

##V_1##'s actual velocity is velocity obtained from the impulse in addition to the free-fall velocity at the bottom of the ramp:

##m_1## velocity at ramp bottom with impulse on bottom = ##2.28km/s##

##m_{1KE}## (bottom of ramp, impulse on bottom) = ##260MJ##

--------------------

Conclusions:

Max Velocity with no ramp: ##2km/s## @ ground
Energy with ##202 MJ## Impulse on top: ##200 MJ## <----

Max Velocity "Standard Car" pushing off ground: ##2.009km/s## @ ground
Energy with ##202MJ## Impulse on top: ##202MJ## <----

Max Velocity with impulse on top of ramp: ##2.02km/s## @ bottom
Energy with ##202MJ## Impulse on top: ##204MJ##

Ground Level Exit Velocity with impulse on top of ramp: ##2km/s## @ ground
Exit Energy with ##202MJ## impulse on top of ramp: ##200MJ## <----

Max Velocity with impulse at bottom of ramp: ##2.28km/s## @ bottom
Energy with ##202MJ## Impulse on bottom: ##260MJ##

Ground Level Exit Velocity with impulse at bottom of ramp: ##2.26km/s## @ ground
Exit Energy with ##202MJ## impulse on bottom of ramp: ##256MJ## <----------------
Conclusions

Using the same ##202MJ## amount of mechanical impulse energy at the top or bottom of the ramp, impulse at the top of the ramp resulted in ##204MJ_{KE}## at the bottom of the ramp while impulse at the bottom of the ramp resulted in ##260MJ_{KE}## at the bottom of the ramp.

After returning to the surface on a second ramp, the "impulse at bottom vehicle" had more kinetic energy than the total energy in the mechanical impulse, while the "impulse at top vehicle" had less.

The "impulse at top" vehicle did worse in terms of kinetic energy obtained per Joule of mechanical impulse energy than a "standard car" pushing off the ground after returning to the surface, while the "impulse on bottom" vehicle did better.

-----------------

Questions:

Are the conclusions correct? I'm having a hard time understanding what difference does it make if the passenger vehicles uses the mechanical impulse to push off the ##284m/s## tank at the bottom after free fall as opposed to pushing off the ground after free fall?
 
Last edited:
  • #124
Dale said:
So what is your conclusion? Does the Oberth effect apply for land based vehicles? What are the requirements?
fresh_42 said:
Btw. what is mechanical impulse energy?

This thread has covered a lot of territory, and the concept of the vehicle has changed slightly to simplify the equations, so here is my attempt to summarize the vehicle.

Short summary version:

- The 100kg passenger vehicle continues to its destination at more than 5000mph, having consumed no electricity or fossil fuels – fueled only by the gravitational potential energy of 10000+kg water at ground level

Long Version:

- The rider’s journey starts from ground level or slightly below ground level like entering a subway

- The downward ramp is a tunnel 45 degrees, 2.5 miles depth since its achievable with existing technology, the deepest gold mines are 2.5 miles depth

- The water is supplied from surface water resources, via gravity

- The rider enters a lightweight capsule (for example 100kg total passenger vehicle mass including rider)

- The aerodynamic tank is filled with water (for example 10000kg or ~2m edge cube equivalent)

- The tank + passenger vehicle are dropped down the ramp

- The tank has a “train” of small, lightweight roller cars with gear teeth in front of it and the passenger vehicle

- If the ramp were vertical and a vacuum, the tank + passenger vehicle reach ~636mph after ~2.5 miles

- There is a curved section of track at the bottom of the ramp leading to a horizontal section

- Once the tank and vehicle are at 636mph at the bottom of the ramp, regen braking kicks in decelerating the tank + vehicle to 500mph, and the energy is stored in capacitors in the track and utilized at 70% efficiency, a process which can produce a usable 100 million joule mechanical impulse

- The mechanical impulse is utilized to push the passenger vehicle off the 500mph 10000kg tank (not the ground), utilizing the “train” of gear teeth in front of the vehicle and co-moving with the tank

- If the mechanical impulse were instead 202 million joules (19kWh) pushing off the 636mph tank (which is all I have done calculations for so far – suppose more water and a deeper tunnel were used), even after traveling back to the surface, the passenger vehicle has 256 million joules KE (~5070mph) which is more kinetic energy than the total mechanical impulse. It is also more kinetic energy than a standard car would have (202 million joules - ~4496mph) from pushing off the ground with the same mechanical impulse at ground level, a difference of nearly 600mph. This is known in astronautics as an “Oberth maneuver”

- After the passenger vehicle pushes off the tank and returns to the surface via a second ramp, and is now traveling 5070mph on the surface, the tank no longer has sufficient kinetic energy to return all the way to the surface, so the water is instead dumped into a special chamber at the bottom of the tunnel, and the lightweight tank is retrieved with energy from harvesting more of the remaining kinetic energy in the tank at the bottom of the ramp

- The nearly 10,000kg water now sits in a high surface area chamber at the bottom of the tank and heats up because the rock at that depth can be 150f from geothermal, and so it evaporates back into the atmosphere via a special air channel dug to the surface, to be later recycled

- The 100kg passenger vehicle continues to its destination at more than 5000mph, having consumed no electricity or fossil fuels – fueled only by the gravitational potential energy of 10000kg water at ground level

- The velocity involved (>2km/s) likely rules out wheels, so magnetic pseudo-levitation in a vacuum might become necessary

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation
 
  • #125
metastable said:
fueled only by the gravitational potential energy of 10000+kg water at ground level
And whatever mechanism ejects the water during the “burn”.
 
  • #126
Dale said:
And whatever mechanism ejects the water during the “burn”.

I was imaging the tank has lightweight roller cars in front with gear teeth on top, and an electric motor on the passenger vehicle or tank uses all the energy stored in the capacitors to accelerate the passenger vehicle at 9g by pushing off the linear arrangement of "gear teeth" which are rolling in front of the tank. the mechanical impulse would equate to 70% of the kinetic energy lost during the regen braking phase, based on the conversion efficiency of regen braking.
 
Last edited:
  • #127
metastable said:
I was imaging the tank has ...
Sure, that is fine, I was just pointing out that you forgot to include it in the “fueled only by ...” list.
 
  • #128
metastable said:
- The tank has a “train” of small, lightweight roller cars with gear teeth in front of it and the passenger vehicle
Ah sorry, I thought I included it but I wasn't very clear on how these would be used with an electric motor etc and the 9g rate of acceleration. I'm still not very clear on understanding the difference between the passenger vehicle pushing off the tank or off the ground when at the bottom of the ramp.
 
  • #129
I do know that it takes proportionately more electrical power (even in a vacuum) for an electric vehicle to produce the same amount of thrust when it is traveling at higher ground speeds than when it is at lower ground speeds.
 
  • #130
metastable said:
I'm still not very clear on understanding the difference between the passenger vehicle pushing off the tank or off the ground when at the bottom of the ramp.
That is a good starting point for a discussion that avoids the wall-of-numbers effect.

If one pushes off the ground the interaction requires energy. Part of the energy goes into the vehicle. Part of the energy goes into the ground. You can calculate how much by looking at the work done by the interaction force for each.

The ground does not move. Force applied times distance moved is zero. No work is done.
The vehicle does move. Force applied times distance moved is non-zero. Work is done.

100% of the energy applied in the interaction goes into the vehicle.

If one pushes off from a 500 mile per hour trailer, things are roughly similar. Energy is still involved. Part goes into the trailer, part into the vehicle. We can look at work done.

The trailer moves in a direction opposite to the force applied on it. The work done on the trailer is negative. It loses kinetic energy as a result.
The vehicle moves faster than before. Accordingly, the work done on the vehicle is increased relative to the push-off-from-the-ground case.

More than 100% of the energy applied in the interaction goes into the vehicle. The excess is deducted from the kinetic energy of the trailer.

There is no free lunch. Energy is conserved in either case. The total increase in kinetic energy from the push-off is equal to the energy provided (by piston, muscles, batteries, engine or whatever).
 
  • #131
metastable said:
Will the [...] parabola riding vehicle use less energy to reach the same distance in the same time as the standard electric vehicle?
jbriggs444 said:
If one pushes off from a 500 mile per hour trailer, things are roughly similar. Energy is still involved. Part goes into the trailer, part into the vehicle. We can look at work done.

The trailer moves in a direction opposite to the force applied on it. The work done on the trailer is negative. It loses kinetic energy as a result.
The vehicle moves faster than before. Accordingly, the work done on the vehicle is increased relative to the push-off-from-the-ground case.

More than 100% of the energy applied in the interaction goes into the vehicle. The excess is deducted from the kinetic energy of the trailer.

Thank you, it is quite an interesting answer. So in summary are you saying it would be more logical for the passenger vehicle (considering the goals of such a vehicle) to push off the tank rather than the ground at the bottom of the ramp?

Also thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread and for also having great patience with me to refine the concept.

In summary, in terms of "electrical energy" or "fossil" fuel efficiency, the parabola riding vehicle uses less "electrical" or "fossil" fuel to get from point A to point B than a "standard car," because it uses a combination of gravitational potential energy, geothermal energy and solar energy to replace the electrical or fossil fuel, while reduction in passenger vehicle mass, reduction in rolling resistance via magnetic levitation, and reduction in wind resistance via vacuum tunnels can further improve the efficiency with which the gravitational, geothermal and solar fuel is used.
 
Last edited:
  • #132
metastable said:
Thank you, it is quite an interesting answer. So in summary are you saying it would be more logical for the passenger vehicle (considering the goals of such a vehicle) to push off the tank rather than the ground at the bottom of the ramp?
I am saying that it does not matter. The energy books balance either way.

If the passenger vehicle pushes off from the ground, more energy is available to be harvested by slowing down the trailer after the vehicle has moved on.

All that is achieved with this 2.5 mile Rube Goldberg arrangement is a sub-optimal way to harvest geothermal energy.
 
  • #133
jbriggs444 said:
All that is achieved with this 2.5 mile Rube Goldberg arrangement is a sub-optimal way to harvest geothermal energy.

At some time in the future (in another thread) I’d like to conduct a study on the conversion efficiency of say a 2m edge length cube of water through a hydroelectric dam, then through the power distribution system, through a charger, through a battery, through a motor of an electric car versus 2m cube down 2.5 mile tunnel to capacitor to motor. There could be a difference in efficiency due to the difference in number of energy conversion steps as wells as differences in the efficiency of conversion for each step.
 
  • #134
metastable said:
I was out skateboarding the other day when I wondered if the efficiency of a vehicle attempting to cover the distance between point A and point B can be improved in the following manner.
Wile E. Coyote said:
If I've done my calculations correctly, baseline electric vehicle at constant 100.08 ##mph## uses 73.55 ##N##.
The ACME Corporation cannot guarantee the safety of a rider aboard an electric skateboard operated at a speed exceeding ##100\ mph##.
 
  • #135
sysprog said:
The ACME Corporation cannot guarantee the safety of a rider aboard an electric skateboard operated at a speed exceeding 100 ##mph##.
My standard power source can't quite reach 100 ##mph##... I'll have to compare the efficiency to solar/geothermal/nuclear power sources sometime.

hudson_and_colby.jpg
 
  • Haha
Likes sysprog
  • #136
I guess maybe I should be a bit sorry for derailing your thread in the direction of the absurd -- I think that your question is legitimate and very well-articulated (even more well-articulated after @Dale discussed with you the use of ##\LaTeX## and you so well responded to the associated adjurements) -- but I also think that @jbriggs444 and others answered it well -- you know that you can't get more out than your doggies or other energy sources put in -- that pesky 2nd law and all that ...
 
Last edited:
  • #137
I was looking into how much of the kinetic energy in the vehicle can potentially be recovered at the destination. The following numbers likely sound absurd but I created them with the same aforementioned formulas.

If the "trailer" is 10^4 ##kg##, the passenger car is 100 ##kg##, no regen braking is used at the bottom of the 30 ##second## vacuum free-fall ramp, the mechanical "push" off the trailer on the flat section on the bottom is 43.7 ##GJ##--

-The passenger vehicle's KE after returning to the surface is 44.1 ##GJ##

-The passenger vehicle's velocity after returning to the surface is 29.7 ##km/s##

-The tank's velocity at the bottom of the ramp is 0 ##m/s##

-Assuming the passenger vehicle loses no KE along the journey (maglev in vacuum), and regen braking is used at 70% efficiency at the destination, 30.4 ##GJ## is recoverable from the vehicle and available for a second impulse

-Assuming .432 ##GJ## is used to lift the trailer back to the surface, about 29.9 ##GJ## is recoverable

-The total energy non-recoverably consumed while accelerating and decelerating the vehicle was 13.8 ##GJ##

-In this case the vehicle's kinetic energy on the surface (~44.1 ##GJ##) is a factor of ~3.19 times larger than the total energy non-recoverably consumed while accelerating and decelerating the vehicle (~13.8 ##GJ##)
 
  • #138
metastable said:
I was looking into how much of the kinetic energy in the vehicle can potentially be recovered at the destination. The following numbers likely sound absurd but I created them with the same aforementioned formulas.

If the "trailer" is 10^4 ##kg##, the passenger car is 100 ##kg##, no regen braking is used at the bottom of the 30 ##second## vacuum free-fall ramp, the mechanical "push" off the trailer on the flat section on the bottom is 43.7 ##GJ##--

-The passenger vehicle's KE after returning to the surface is 44.1 ##GJ##

-The passenger vehicle's velocity after returning to the surface is 29.7 ##km/s##

-The tank's velocity at the bottom of the ramp is 0 ##m/s##

-Assuming the passenger vehicle loses no KE along the journey (maglev in vacuum), and regen braking is used at 70% efficiency at the destination, 30.4 ##GJ## is recoverable from the vehicle and available for a second impulse

-Assuming .432 ##GJ## is used to lift the trailer back to the surface, about 29.9 ##GJ## is recoverable

-The total energy non-recoverably consumed while accelerating and decelerating the vehicle was 13.8 ##GJ##

-In this case the vehicle's kinetic energy on the surface (~44.1 ##GJ##) is a factor of ~3.19 times larger than the total energy non-recoverably consumed while accelerating and decelerating the vehicle (~13.8 ##GJ##)
Have you looked at the Carnot cycle and at Carnot's theorem? It appears to me that the numbers for your system are near the limits. If you bring in a second stage, as is done in a combined cycle power plant, to recover some of the energy unused at/by the primary stage, you might get an even better efficiency, but I don't see how you could do that practically, and I think that you're already nearing the maximum.
 
  • Like
Likes metastable
  • #139
Hopefully this post will be acceptable since I already posted the proper formulas in LaTex format and solutions to only 3 significant digits using SI variables:

It is an excel spreadsheet calculator I made today for performing "Land Based Oberth Maneuver" efficiency calculations:

Download Link: https://files.secureserver.net/0fpI5aSJ5iT3iF

Screenshot:

land-based-oberth-maneuver.jpg

detail1.jpg

detail2.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog
  • #140
Thanks for trying to stick within the PF guidelines. I've had a bit of trouble with that before myself. I think that I can safely (i.e. without fear of being incorrect) say that PF would not be such a great forum set without its moderators taking such good care and without the rest of its membership taking such good heed.
 
  • #141
The equations seem to give absurd results with very high passenger vehicle masses:

absurd.jpg
 
  • #142
Obviously we can't see on your spreadsheet the equation or inequality expression that resulted in the apparently absurd result -- in addition to your having the ability to use ##\LaTeX## here to show your math readably, you also can use BBcode [code ] tags to show your code -- maybe you would care to show, cell by cell, your .xls code that generated the 'absurd' result ##\dots##
 
  • #143
Excel code is almost impossible to debug.
 
  • #144
Dale said:
Excel code is almost impossible to debug.

A wall-O-numbers in Excel is still a wall-O-numbers.
 
  • #145
I think its an error in excel rather than the formulas because it jumps from a reasonable answer when I keep adding zeros to suddenly a ridiculous answer. In other words, with one less ##0## at the end of the passenger vehicle mass I think it gives the correct answer still.

Suppose we have a ##10^4## ##kg## passenger vehicle with a ##20## ##kg## trailer containing ##200## ##kg## of water, perched at the top of a vertical ##30## ##second## drop in a vacuum, with a curved section of track at the bottom leading to a flat section that leads to the destination where there is a second curved section leading to a second vertical section…

At the bottom of the ramp, the passenger vehicle exerts a mechanical impulse equivalent to ##9.54## ##MJ##, pushing off the ##294## ##m/s## trailer instead of the ground, which brings the trailer to a halt on the tracks…

^Assuming the passenger vehicle is using maglev in vacuum, and therefore does no work while coasting, the passenger vehicle is traveling ##294## ##m/s## in a straight line at the bottom of the ramp after the mechanical impulse. Assuming regen braking of the passenger vehicle at its destination (after climbing a second vertical ramp to the surface) results in ##70## % kinetic to kinetic conversion efficiency, and that only the empty trailer is lifted, a factor of ##130## % as much usable energy is recovered from the vehicle after it climbs to the surface than was exerted in the mechanical impulse at the bottom of the ramp, a net surplus if the geothermal energy required to evaporate this water is ignored. The surplus comes from the lowered gravitational potential energy of the ##200## ##kg## water at the bottom of the tunnel. If the full trailer is lifted with the regen braking energy instead of geothermal, then only ##40## % of the mechanical impulse energy is recoverable. If the full trailer is lifted from the recovered regen braking energy, then a total of ##5.71## ##MJ## energy was “unrecoverably” consumed accelerating and decelerating the ##10^4## ##kg## vehicle to ##294## ##m/s##. If the ##200## ##kg## water is left at the bottom of the tunnel and allowed to evaporate naturally, then an “excess” of ##2.88## ##MJ## energy above and beyond the total mechanical impulse energy is obtained from regen braking the vehicle at ##70## % conversion efficiency at the destination, even after using some of the recovered energy is used to lift the empty trailer. The kinetic energy of the passenger vehicle after the mechanical impulse at the bottom of the ramp is a factor of ##~760x## greater than the total energy “unrecoverably” consumed when lifting the full (not empty) trailer all the way back to the surface, using the recovered kinetic energy via the regen braking after the journey.

10000kg-1.jpg
10000kg-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • #146
metastable said:
First I will share an example of the equations I would use to calculate the power consumption of a given standard land vehicle at a given speed in a given set of conditions.

sysprog said:
The ACME Corporation cannot guarantee the safety of a rider aboard an electric skateboard operated at a speed exceeding 100 mph100 mph100\ mph.

for comparison I will share a photo of, what I personally consider, a "standard car"-- quite literally the drivetrain of the fastest electric skateboard in the world, capable of 70+ ##mph##:

19bd7d4045eeab74f98acbfffb981274c0b16b6e.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog
  • #147
metastable said:
for comparison I will share a photo of, what I personally consider, a "standard car"-- quite literally the drivetrain of the fastest electric skateboard in the world, capable of 70+ ##mph##:

View attachment 246979
Please sign your organ donor card before riding that thing, kid; how do you deal with the snap (aka jounce)? Oh, and, I have a friend whose pet kitty needs a cornea transplant. On a slightly more technical note, umm -- WB cartoon speed was measured in frames per second (12 fps doubled to 24); not really mph -- Mr. Coyote's speed is forever less than that of the Road Runner, speed in this instance being considered as the derivative of distance with respect to time -- the reasoning behind the standard for the time required to complete 1 frame (not for the artist; for the viewer) is hinted at by the following inequality constraint: ##1(frametime) < 1(blinkofaneye)##. Actually, it has more to do with human brain visual image processing time -- the frame rate is determined by how many frames per second are required to cause the visual system to report continuous movement instead of separate still images.

And I didn't mean to hijack your thread.

@metastable posted me, and I mostly begged off for now, regarding his to-me-somewhat-quizzical spreadsheet code. My at-a-glance response was that the source of the problem may/might be in his having exhausted the capacity of the sqrt function.
 
Last edited:
  • #148
sysprog said:
@metastable posted me, and I mostly begged off for now, regarding his to-me-somewhat-quizzical spreadsheet code. My at-a-glance response was that the source of the problem may/might be in his having exhausted the capacity of the sqrt function.

For me, the most interesting part of the whole exercise was determining the formula for calculating how many Joules of Mechanical Impulse between the vehicle and the trailer will bring the trailer to a complete halt at the bottom of the ramp every time, depending on the Trailer Mass, Vehicle Mass, Free Fall Duration, Initial Velocity Before Free Fall, and the Gravitational Acceleration at Earth's Surface:

##W_i## = ##12.8*10^6## = Mechanical Impulse Energy (##Joules##) That Brings Trailer to 0 Velocity At Ramp Bottom
##M_t## = ##240## = Trailer Tank + Water Mass (##Kilograms##)
##M_v## = ##10^3## = Passenger Vehicle Mass (##Kilograms##)
##T_d## = ##30## = Free Fall Duration (##Seconds##)
##V_i## = ##0## = Initial Velocity Before Free Fall (##m/s##)
##G_e## = ##9.80## = Gravity Acceleration at Earth’s Surface (##m/s^2##)

##W_i=M_tV_iT_dG_e+(M_tT_d^2G_e^2+M_tV_i^2)/2+(M_t^2(V_i+T_dG_e)^2)/(2M_v)##
 
  • #149
metastable said:
For me, the most interesting part of the whole exercise was determining the formula for calculating how many Joules of Mechanical Impulse between the vehicle and the trailer will bring the trailer to a complete halt at the bottom of the ramp every time, depending on the Trailer Mass, Vehicle Mass, Free Fall Duration, Initial Velocity Before Free Fall, and the Gravitational Acceleration at Earth's Surface:

##W_i## = ##12.8*10^6## = Mechanical Impulse Energy (##Joules##) That Brings Trailer to 0 Velocity At Ramp Bottom
##M_t## = ##240## = Trailer Tank + Water Mass (##Kilograms##)
##M_v## = ##10^3## = Passenger Vehicle Mass (##Kilograms##)
##T_d## = ##30## = Free Fall Duration (##Seconds##)
##V_i## = ##0## = Initial Velocity Before Free Fall (##m/s##)
##G_e## = ##9.80## = Gravity Acceleration at Earth’s Surface (##m/s^2##)

##W_i=M_tV_iT_dG_e+(M_tT_d^2G_e^2+M_tV_i^2)/2+(M_t^2(V_i+T_dG_e)^2)/(2M_v)##
Please disambiguate the last-line expression -- in particular, the '/2' -- does that fractionate the entirety? -- it's ok to use ##\frac 1 2## and/or extra parens (instead of making me have to go with PEMDAS and the rest of my feeble memory of the order of operations) to keep it clear what you mean ##\dots##
 
  • #150
sysprog said:
Please disambiguate the last-line expression -- in particular, the '/2' -- does that fractionate the entirety? -- it's ok to use 1212\frac 1 2 and/or extra parens (instead of making me have to go with PEMDAS and the rest of my feeble memory of the order of operations) to keep it clear what you mean
I'm not sure what you mean exactly, does this help?

240*0*30*9.80665+(240*30^2*9.80665^2+240*0^2)/(2)+(240^2*(0+30*9.80665)^2)/(2*1000)

work.jpg
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
907
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K