Smrekar's Dialog on Lightpoles and Momentum Options

[dMz]

When i turned on dynamic collisions in my current software program, and animated the 757 based on real time speed, the poles were sent flying to Jupiter!

We will do our best with the limited resources we have to model the dynamic collision(s) of a 100 ton jet traveling 530 mph into 200lb poles.

Looking at the momentum (p) in this alleged inelastic collision:

p = mass * velocity

530 mph ~= 777.3333333333 fps [or approx. 460.5574082073434 knots]

Since the amount of fuel or passenger load in AA77 can be disputed, let's use the operating empty weight for a 757-200 for a "light" estimate:

Operating empty with P&W engines 57,840kg (127,520lb), with RB211s 57,975kg (127,810lb). Basic max takeoff 99,790kg (220,000lb), medium range MTOW 108,860kg (240,000lb), extended range MTOW 115,665kg (255,000lb) or 115,895kg (255,550lb).

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=101

127,810lb * 777.3333333333 fps = 99350973.3333334 ft-lb/sec [of B757-200 momentum]

Let's "guess" a 1% momentum transfer in this inelastic collision (a quite conservative estimate):

99350973.3333334 ft-lb/sec * 0.01 = 993509.733333334 ft-lb/sec [of light pole momentum]

Now dividing by the assumed 200 lb. light pole mass,

993509.733333334 ft-lb/sec / 200 lb = 4967.5486666667 ft /sec [of light pole velocity]


Just for comparison, most rifles fire a bullet at 2000-4000 ft/sec.

Is a broken windshield all that we would expect to see happen to Lloyd's? cab?

[Smrekar]

Looking at the momentum (p) in this alleged inelastic collision:

p = mass * velocity

530 mph ~= 777.3333333333 fps [or approx. 460.5574082073434 knots]

Since the amount of fuel or passenger load in AA77 can be disputed, let's use the operating empty weight for a 757-200 for a "light" estimate:

Operating empty with P&W engines 57,840kg (127,520lb), with RB211s 57,975kg (127,810lb). Basic max takeoff 99,790kg (220,000lb), medium range MTOW 108,860kg (240,000lb), extended range MTOW 115,665kg (255,000lb) or 115,895kg (255,550lb).

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=101

127,810lb * 777.3333333333 fps = 99350973.3333334 ft-lb/sec [of B757-200 momentum]

Let's "guess" a 1% momentum transfer in this inelastic collision (a quite conservative estimate):

99350973.3333334 ft-lb/sec * 0.01 = 993509.733333334 ft-lb/sec [of light pole momentum]

Now dividing by the assumed 200 lb. light pole mass,

993509.733333334 ft-lb/sec / 200 lb = 4967.5486666667 ft /sec [of light pole velocity]


Just for comparison, most rifles fire a bullet at 2000-4000 ft/sec.

Is a broken windshield all that we would expect to see happen to Lloyd's? cab?

I'm sorry, but this analysis is simply impossible from a physical standpoint. It assumes that an object traveling at 777 ft/s hitting a stationary object could propel the stationary object along it's trajectory at over 4000 ft/s. This is, I believe, quite impossible. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
You're welcome to source me to an article that would say otherwise, of course ... though I do doubt there would be any.

[dMz]

I'm sorry, but this analysis is simply impossible from a physical standpoint. It assumes that an object traveling at 777 ft/s hitting a stationary object could propel the stationary object along it's trajectory at over 4000 ft/s. This is, I believe, quite impossible. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
You're welcome to source me to an article that would say otherwise, of course ... though I do doubt there would be any.

OK- we've got Smrekar's unsourced opinion and belief of "simply impossible." I provided collision dynamics, momentum transfer, inelastic collisions (all with hyperlinked sources). I even did the math for everyone, showing my steps for independent verification.

The reason that I didn't provide a link to a formula for momentum ( p = m * velocity ) is because I have it memorized from college. Perhaps Smrekar has a problem with that, too (or possibly physics in general).

[Smrekar]

OK- we've got Smrekar's unsourced opinion and belief of "simply impossible." I provided collision dynamics, momentum transfer, inelastic collisions (all with hyperlinked sources). I even did the math for everyone, showing my steps for independent verification.

The problem is that the links you provided do not even address the issue I have pointed out. Can you point out which one examines the case where the impacted object travels faster after the impact than the impacting object before the impact?
None.
It's impossible to prove the negative, so I can't really source you anything, I'm afraid.

You can, of course, source me something that does speak of that option. None of your links thus far do that.

The reason that I didn't provide a link to a formula for momentum ( p = m * velocity ) is because I have it memorized from college. Perhaps Smrekar has a problem with that, too (or possibly physics in general).

No, not really, no. I just have an issue with blatantly wrong assumptions (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that formula or your calculations (aside from using about 10 decimal spaces more than you should). It's that you made a rather preposterous assumption along the way, and drew conclusions from that.

What was your major, if you don't mind me asking? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)