Classical Physics

On: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=355845#post355845 I put forward the concept of Linear force and showed that this, combined with the classical radius formula predicted that all elementary charged particles are charge 1 particles. This conflicts with the Standard model where quarks were allocated fractional charges to ensure their compliance with the conservation of charge rule. On various occasions I have suggested that charge is conserved linearly, by that I mean that on any radius particle charge alternates pnpnpn…. I now propose to show that the CLF model offers an alternative explanation of baryon structure that supports the linear conservati…

We can have a metre of string or a kilo of jam or the energy of mass, but if we remove the string, jam and mass what do we have the energy of?

This one has me puzzled:- At 1/2 of its maximum height, the speed of a projectile is 3/4 of its initial speed. What was its launch angle?

If you could fire a rifle on the Moon (i assume you can) what would the muzzle velocity of a rifle need to be to send a bullet into orbit around the Moon?

Hi, I am trying to calculate the heat exchanger efficiency of a system heating a sludge using hot water. The boilers on the system heat the water to a set point of 70C. The water flow is constant because the water is low in solids and the incoming water temperature is read at 68C consistently. I cleaned the heat exchanger today and the sludge was incoming at 30C and outputting at 36C, this varies though from 15C input up to 45C input. It is a spiral heat exchanger. The hot water pump flow rate is 30m3/hr or 8.4kg/s The sludge pump flow is also 30m3/hr or 8.4kg/s (No flow meter fitted but assuming this value today after cleaning not including pump wear)…

Watching Spider-Man 3, who turns out to be made of very strong stuff in order for him to survive such accelerations and forces, I noted one thing that got me thinking. During one scene as a building was collapsing around Spider-Man he leaped onto a piece of falling wall and proceeded to launch himself off it. Assuming that the piece of wall was falling at terminal velocity and as such was in free fall would Spider-Man have been able to exert at force on the piece of free-falling wall in order to gain flight?

um...yeah i just wanna know if there are any kind of metal alloys that can naturally resist the earth's gravitational pull?

So, I'm trying to conceptualize something and there's a part of torque I'm not sure if (more how) I should consider. There are four legs. Each leg is on the corner of a square object, pointing outwards in an extension from the center of the square. Each leg is on a pivot that will allow it to move up and down, but not side to side. If I have two vectors for torque, one up-and-down and one side-to-side, do I need to take the side-to-side one into consideration for how the whole object would end up moving? I'm thinking yes. In that case, do I use the length of the arm or the distance to the center of the object for the length of the moment arm? As an extension, if …

What puzzles me, is why is it that people in the past assumed that a heavy object would fall at a faster rate that a light object ???? I could have say five small metal balls, each weighing one pound, and one ball that weighs 5 pounds. If I drop them all at the same time, they will all hit the ground at the same time. If I squeezed all of the five balls into a black box, and placed the 5 pound ball into another black box, then we would have 2 black boxes that each weigh 5 pounds plus the weight of the box. If I then dropped both of these black boxes, once again, both will hit the ground at the same time. Makes sense ! If I melt these 5 balls down and …

Is it true that fluids under pressure always rotate in a counterclockwise direction? http://youtube.com/watch?v=JEVvQeamJFk

During a recent, gaseous, conversation with a partner, I defined a vacuum to be "the elimination of space between particles." I drew the following picture. o o o o o o o o ==> o o o o o o o o I claimed that the group of particles to the right were experiencing a vacuum. Not a total vacuum, it seems apparent now. Is it an oxymoron to describe such a thing as a partial vacuum, or would this simply be a case of negative pressure? In the group of particles to the right, it seems more likely to describe the change as an in…

The fact (or is it?) that a heat engine will never attain 100% efficiency in transferring heat into work, even under ideal conditions, really annoys me. Imagine this: A cylinder-piston arrangement is made out of a material that is non-thermal conducting, and there is no friction or air resistance between the piston and the air/walls. Now suppose that the cylinder contains a pocket of air that is at the same pressure as the air outside. The pocket of air is quickly heated by an external source so that the temperature in the pocket rises, thus increasing the pressure. This pressure difference will cause the piston to accelerate outwards, expanding the volume inside the …

How can angular momentum be conceptually thought of? I find it easy to visualize linear momentum as how difficult it is to stop a body possessing that momentum or the extent of damage that body causes on hitting another body. But I find it very difficult to conceptually visualize angular momentum. I can do it mathematically but what exactly is it? Can you please help me there? Please explain in simple terms so that I can understand easily.

I’m trying to design a larger Quadrotor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrotor) craft that runs off of a single gas engine. Does anyone know anything about how quadrotors stabilize and how I would be able to achieve the same effects using a single gas engine for all 4 rotors? I assume it would have to be done through collective pitch adjustments? Is this even possible? Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Brad

There's this sentence from the wikipedia article on dispersion: "refractive index n decreases with increasing wavelength λ. In this case, the medium is said to have normal dispersion. Whereas, if the index increases with increasing wavelength the medium has anomalous dispersion." I'm not sure if I was following this correctly, but are they saying that different colors of light will refract more than other colors depending on the medium. That is, for some media, red refracts more than blue, but in other media, blue refracts more than red?

I read in a book under the definition of power. I’ll give it in the same words. “Work done does not depend on time. For example, If a person A lifts 10 kg load through 5 ft in 2 minutes and person B lifts the same load through the same height in 1 minute, the work done by both the persons is the same, but the rate at which the work is done is not the same. We say that the second person is stronger and has more power. Thus power is defined as the rate of work done.” Now since the work done is same and Work = F x s , F x s is same for both A and B. Since the height to which the persons lift the load is the same, the displacement is the same. So F1 = F2. But F = ma. Since …

I am puzzled by this question. Can anyone answer it please? Thanks in advance. The question reads as under - Conservation of resources means avoiding their wasteful use. Does this definition cover all the aspects of conservation?

An open railroad car is rolling horizontally, without friction, in a heavy rainstorm, where all the raindrops are falling vertically. 1. What will happen to the horizontal speed of the car as it fills with rain? What will happen to its momentum? 2. When the raindrops hit the car, they lose their vertical momentum. How is momentum conservation working here? ** My answers 1. The horizontal cart will only increase in mass and its velocity will remain constant (assuming the rain does not slow down the car). Therefore its momentum increases. 2. My guess is that since the raindrops' momentum is zero after the collision, momentum of the entire system is conserved…

Work = Force x Displacement. Right? Let’s consider a frictionless space. Here I apply 100N force to a body and it moves with a constant velocity to another point 10 m from the starting position. Then work done = 100 x 10 = 1000J. If I apply a force of 10N to the same body then too it moves with a constant velocity and reaches the same point, it takes more time but definitely reaches it. Since Work is independent of time, work done now is 10 x 10 = 100J. But how come, to move a same body first 1000J work was done and then now only 100J work is done? Some people claim work is done only when there is a change in energy, But the formula is Force x Displacement. If a body a…

a problem.....pls check.. imagine theres a horizontal planeA bove which the effects of gravity are not felt. any object above the plane just floats and gravity has no influence on it. now take a chain(for e.g:made of small steel ring) of length hundred metres above the planeA and arrange it so that its in a heap just above the planeA. but take care the chain is not entangled and should be easy to stretch along its length. now pull the lower end of the thread below the planeA and the chain runs down like a single thread and hits the ground and as links pull down on the ones they are linked to , the whole length of the chain will run like a thread and hit the ground i…

If we were to begin with a hollow spherical shell of thinkness X, made of thick guage metal, like a metal basketball, the very center will define the center of gravity. If I was to put an object in the ball, off center, it would not go to the center of gravity, but would move to the closest wall. The reason this is so, is that we need mass to generate gravity and there is none in the center of gravity. One can do this with vector addition to get this same result. Let us make this situation even more complicated. Inside the iron shell we place a flexible balloon, which is also spherical and centered at the center of gravity. The balloon is thin so the shell is still t…

This idea popped into my head in the forum topic; dimensions. I went for my nightly swim and further ideas about this appeared in my mind. I thought I would put this out there, as food for thought. If you look at a point, that is moving in a line, say along the x-axis, it can be expressed with only two dimensions, one in distance and one in time or (x,t) which amounts to velocity. If we look at an acceleration of the same point, it is (x,t,t). Does acceleration imply 2 time dimensions? In classical physics the answer would seem to say no. But if we look at this in terms of relativity, the answer appears to be maybe. If you were at relativistic velocity, time wou…

If you look at energy, such as any wavelength of the EM spectrum, if we multiply the wavelength times the frequency we end up with the speed of light. Infinite wavelength energy can not be energy, since infinity times zero frequency is a mathematical discontinuity. If it existed it would be something that would not be energy in the traditional sense. It could travel still at C but have neither mass or energy value. Here is some interesting logic, based on the assumption that infinite wavelength not-energy, due to the mathematical discontinuity, exists. If we wanted to turn this not-energy particle back into energy, we would need to shorten its wavelength from in…

For a gear the number of teeth is proportional to the circumference of the gear wheel (the bigger the wheel the more teeth it has). The degree of rotation per tooth interaction for coupled gears increases with added teeth. I've figured out a way to break the relation between number of teeth and gear wheel circumference. As such, My question is: IF I have two sets of coupled gears (2 gears in a set) all having the same radius. One set has 42 teeth per gear and the orther set has 4 teeth per gear will both sets rotate at the same speed if the same amount of energy is supplied in rotating both? By the way, this is NOT a homework problem. If you want to see a…

Hi, this is my first post and im not sure if this is the correct section to post this but I'll go ahead anyway. Am I scientifically right in saying that time was created in an instant (going with the big bang theory) Thanks:eyebrow: (sorry if it's a stupid question im awful at science)