Welcome to Junkyard Physics - Learn & Teach Here!

[TurtleMeister]

Thank you for your response.

The main reason that I am being tested is that I had the "gall" to suggest that I could maybe "teach" someone something.

Any member can answer questions and give advice. But if you're a layman, like myself, you will have to be careful. Don't just go on your intuition. That would not go over very well here. If you're not sure, then look it up and do some research beforehand. Or just don't answer at all.

Maybe the moderators should consider a "Junkyard physicists" forum for the oddballs, crackpots, and the intellectually challenged such as myself.

You are obvioulsy new here and have not lurked around. What you suggest will never happen at PF.

I notice that your thread was moved from "General Physics" to "General Discussion". In this sub forum the members tend to be "not so serious" and will sometimes joke around with each other. Such as my post #26. So your feeling of being flamed may be a little unwarranted.

 

[HeLiXe]

No I've been pretty sick for the last 12 years. I'm generally not allowed to do things that get my blood pressure worked up. (like antagonizing folks that might "smoke" my computer ).

If I use analogy to try and "teach" a point it might lead to a breakthrough in some. If I am wrong then there are plenty of "committee" members here to barbacue my butt.

Well done?
You should try it again You might surprise yourself. Start from your level of math and work your way up :)

However: Was I even close with the nail, hammer, and board answer to the formula question?

Spot on! This is the sort of things physics undergrads would analyze the heck out of
Well when I saw it I thought the same as Hurkyl with this

IMO, not really... your scenario is the sort of a thing I imagine presenting to a student and asking to analyze.

You gave a scenario as opposed to an explanation...albeit a very good scenario with lots of forces at work. But I understand you were thinking of the mass of the hammer being accelerated and equaling a force (visible by the hammer hitting the nail). For the rest Hurkyl answered you better than I could. I am taking physics I next semester. I studied some basic kinematics before I withdrew this past term...but you probably know more about physics than I do

 

[MrREC]

Mmmmm Mmmmmm Boston butt well done.

So the energy used to cook my...errr the butt is not the same as the potential atomic energy of the atoms in the charcoal. Burning the charcoal only ionizes the electrons thus releasing very little energy as heat?
Whereas; splitting just one of the carbon atoms in the charcoal would barbecue every butt in town?

I guess my mistake was in not thinking of the ability to convert the dragster into energy?

I started to use the analogy of (E) being the energy = to (Mass) a spaceship*(c2). Where a spaceship used the energy of an atomic bomb to move it toward the speed of light. Then I remembered that no known spaceship could carry enough fissionable material to get any where near the speed of light. So I tried to "wing" it with the dragster analogy.

Ah well... smoked crow and butt.

Edit: just for clarity...what formula would you use to calculate how much nitro methane it would take to move a dragster 300mph down a 1/4 mile strip without having any extra fuel left over?

*engine displacement: 500 cubic inches: power: 8000 horsepower at 8200 rpm: weight: 2300lbs. wheelbase: 300 in. engine block: Brad Anderson Enterprises,

In a typical run the engine can consume as much as 103 litres (22.75 gallons) of fuel during warmup, burnout, staging, and the quarter-mile run. (Wiki)

There is a "scenario'. Can it be expressed in a simple formula?

 

[MrNerd]

With Einstein's e = mc^2, it simply shows that mass is a form of energy. The only way that I know of to actually get all that energy is pair annihilation, which is normal matter colliding with antimatter. However, it is exceedingly difficult and uneconomical to produce antimatter for anything other than research. However, the equation also works the other way. Accelerating an object increases its kinetic energy. Because it has more energy, it now has a very slightly higher amount of mass.

If you want an overview of random math, I found a book at my library that might help. It's called Mathematics 1001. Its only 400 or so pages, and it has a lot of information, even in the brief miniarticle format it uses, on stuff that isn't taught at high schools at all anywhere that I know of. Things like number theory, for example, would have entries in the book like egyptian fractions. There's also some physics math at the end, and recreational math like magic squares and other interesting things. Keep in mind, however, that I'm pretty sure it's not meant to be used as a complete textbook on the things. I think it's more like an overview to show you new things that other books don't even acknowledge as existing. There's some algebra in it, too, so it might be able to help you with that, since you posted earlier that you failed it.

 

[MrREC]

With Einstein's e = mc^2, it simply shows that mass is a form of energy. The only way that I know of to actually get all that energy is pair annihilation, which is normal matter colliding with antimatter. However, it is exceedingly difficult and uneconomical to produce antimatter for anything other than research. However, the equation also works the other way. Accelerating an object increases its kinetic energy. Because it has more energy, it now has a very slightly higher amount of mass.

If you want an overview of random math, I found a book at my library that might help. It's called Mathematics 1001. Its only 400 or so pages, and it has a lot of information, even in the brief miniarticle format it uses, on stuff that isn't taught at high schools at all anywhere that I know of. Things like number theory, for example, would have entries in the book like egyptian fractions. There's also some physics math at the end, and recreational math like magic squares and other interesting things. Keep in mind, however, that I'm pretty sure it's not meant to be used as a complete textbook on the things. I think it's more like an overview to show you new things that other books don't even acknowledge as existing. There's some algebra in it, too, so it might be able to help you with that, since you posted earlier that you failed it.

Thank you for your post.
I may look for some 0800 -1001 level math books when I go to the library next week.

If y'all can tolerate my ignorance then the least I can try to do is to work toward eliminating as much of it as I can.

That is the key to unlocking the gates of the "Junkyard".

Thanks again.

 

[zoobyshoe]

In a typical run the engine can consume as much as 103 litres (22.75 gallons) of fuel during warmup, burnout, staging, and the quarter-mile run. (Wiki)

There is a "scenario'. Can it be expressed in a simple formula?

w+b+s+r is less than or equal to 103 litres

where:

w=warmup

b=burnout

s=staging

r=quarter mile run


(I don't know how to create the "is less than or equal to" sign here.)

 

[MrREC]

w+b+s+r is less than or equal to 103 litres

where:

w=warmup

b=burnout

s=staging

r=quarter mile run


(I don't know how to create the "is less than or equal to" sign here.)

Interesting... but how about w(t)+b(t)+s(t)+r(t) < > or = 103 litres

with (t) being a time variable?

 

[HeLiXe]

w+b+s+r is less than or equal to 103 litres

where:

w=warmup

b=burnout

s=staging

r=quarter mile run


(I don't know how to create the "is less than or equal to" sign here.)

ahhhh at last an equation for academic burnout

 

[MrREC]

ahhhh at last an equation for academic burnout

Or "rope" burnout. I could always do the warmup, staging, and get to the burnout part, but the 1/4 mile run always took a backseat to the munchie run.

 

[DoggerDan]

Junkyard physics is fine with me. I understand basic physics well enough, but when you start using all the math, I'm lost.

 

[MrREC]

Junkyard physics is fine with me. I understand basic physics well enough, but when you start using all the math, I'm lost.

Pretty much most of my point. I'm sure you can add something to the forums as well.

Welcome.

 

[khemist]

The mathematics is not here to confuse you. If one wants to truly understand the forces at work (no pun intended :P), one must understand the mathematics behind it.

For example, in quantum mechanics there are quite a few things that happen that cannot be described by simply using english, and to be precise one must employ math to become specific. However, this math is still abstract, and we are not able to answer the question of why, but rather be able to make very accurate predictions given a particular situation.

 

[MrREC]

The mathematics is not here to confuse you. If one wants to truly understand the forces at work (no pun intended :P), one must understand the mathematics behind it.

For example, in quantum mechanics there are quite a few things that happen that cannot be described by simply using english, and to be precise one must employ math to become specific. However, this math is still abstract, and we are not able to answer the question of why, but rather be able to make very accurate predictions given a particular situation.

Another equally valid point. I am not trying to discredit the hard work and dedication of those that can understand the math. I'm just trying to see if there is some "middle ground" where "some" people can "translate" complex ideas into "plain English".

If it can't be done then it can't be done. I'm sure that those of us that cannot "do the math" are not going to complain (much), but instead will be delighted when someone can "translate" complex ideas into a more understandable form.

It seems that we all wish to learn to some degree.

 

[Evo]

Sorry, this thread was supposed to be closed 3 pages ago. The answer is no. If a member doesn't understand an answer, they can ask a mentor or science advisor to explain it in simpler terms, but honestly there is a limit to how simple you can get and still be carrying the correct meaning. Someone would need to have a high level of understanding in order to do this correctly.