 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Which wouldn't be that hard, since you only need to put a tube around the
> portals and evacuated that space. Say, instead of a steel beam, you had a
> highly polished cylinder of depleted uranium about 50cm in diameter. Even
> though the vacuum wouldn't be perfect, the terminal velocity should be
> very
> high, since you'd only have friction along the sides, as there would be no
> front or rear.
Actually I think you'd deliberately want to increase the air pressure to a
controlled amount, otherwise the cylinder would go too fast, generate too
much heat due to the friction and melt itself. If you could control the air
pressure nicely to regulate the speed (and therefore the amount of heat
generated) you could have a nice little heat source to boil some water to
spin a turbine or something ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Er... wouldn't you just reach terminal velocity quite quickly?
You'll still continue to accelerate, tho.
> Unless you could somehow do this in a vacuum...
Well, yes, that would be good. And you'd want something like iron powder
that won't freeze.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Reactor <rea### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> I'm totally having trouble imagining how that would look. I bet it'd be really
> loud, though.
I actually misunderstood your picture, and understand now what you mean
with it.
I suppose that the object being partially through the portal would simply
be split if one of the portals disappears. (Of course the game engine doesn't
support this kind of setting, so it's rather inconsequential.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Er... wouldn't you just reach terminal velocity quite quickly?
>
> You'll still continue to accelerate, tho.
Isn't the definition of terminal velocity when the drag forces cancel out
any propulsion/gravity forces, thus giving zero acceleration?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Isn't the definition of terminal velocity when the drag forces cancel
> out any propulsion/gravity forces, thus giving zero acceleration?
Zero acceleration for the falling object, perhaps. The device supporting the
portals would continue to accelerate, I think.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Isn't the definition of terminal velocity when the drag forces cancel out
>> any propulsion/gravity forces, thus giving zero acceleration?
>
> Zero acceleration for the falling object, perhaps. The device supporting
> the portals would continue to accelerate, I think.
You would need to fix the device while the internal falling object built up
speed (otherwise both would just fall like a person in an elevator).
After you release the device it will accelerate faster than gravity for a
while until the internal object stops moving relative to the device. After
that point the device will just be falling under gravity with the internal
object stopped (relative to the device).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> You would need to fix the device while the internal falling object built
> up speed (otherwise both would just fall like a person in an elevator).
I'm not sure what you're talking about here - I am not picturing what you
are, I think.
I'm saying that if you put this (say) at the north pole, the beam would be
falling towards the earth, so the earth would be falling towards the beam.
Assuming it's not somehow reversing the effect when the beam enters the
bottom portal and comes out the top, then the earth will continue to fall
towards the beam. The portals will move faster and faster, even if the beam
continues to fall at the same speed.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm saying that if you put this (say) at the north pole, the beam would be
> falling towards the earth, so the earth would be falling towards the beam.
> Assuming it's not somehow reversing the effect when the beam enters the
> bottom portal and comes out the top, then the earth will continue to fall
> towards the beam. The portals will move faster and faster, even if the
> beam continues to fall at the same speed.
Ah ok I see what you mean. Maybe it makes sense for the portal to reverse
such an effect? I don't know if that would cause any obvious problems or
not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
