I think gravity has changed in the last 100 years. Might only be 6. 98 m squared instead of 9.8. Probably from climate change, seems to get the blame for most things these days.

Heff006 wrote: I think gravity has changed in the last 100 years. Might only be 6. 98 m squared instead of 9.8. Probably from climate change, seems to get the blame for most things these days.

THAT IS THE STUPIDEST THING IVE EVER HEARD !

I believe in climate change....It changes everyday.....hahahaahahaha lol

AtharvBhat wrote:

Heff006 wrote: I think gravity has changed in the last 100 years. Might only be 6. 98 m squared instead of 9.8. Probably from climate change, seems to get the blame for most things these days.

THAT IS THE STUPIDEST THING IVE EVER HEARD !

If you want stupid....read my posts....

Paul Mantz, Jr. wrote:

AtharvBhat wrote:

Heff006 wrote: I think gravity has changed in the last 100 years. Might only be 6. 98 m squared instead of 9.8. Probably from climate change, seems to get the blame for most things these days.

THAT IS THE STUPIDEST THING IVE EVER HEARD !

If you want stupid....read my posts....

lol

But i believe u r not stupid.
( nudge nudge wink wink )

( a stupid person doesnt get 4916 thank you's )

no one cant say my post was stupid because its actually the truth...hahahahahaha lol

yep
do u know that along with earth, the magnetic field of earth also rotates quasi statically.
Hence the poles of earth keep on moving !
So every few billions of years, the north pole becomes south and the south becomes north !

In slight support of our friend Heff:

g = (approximately) 9.81 m/s^2 here on earth. This is called "gravity of earth" and is an expression of acceleration on a mass while on earth. It's an accepted constant, BUT it does vary all around the earth's surface, because earth is neither a perfect sphere nor a uniform density (plus alignment of Moon and Sun affect the net gravity experienced by a mass on earth, very slightly). The observed variation from place to place is around 0.7%, which is rather high for an accepted constant.

G = (approximately) 6.67×10^−11 N·(m/kg)^2. This Capital G term is called the gravitational constant, and should not be confused with little g. It is used in the formula that calculates the force between two masses. G is small and very tough to measure, especially here on earth, sitting so close to a very large mass. Heff, you might be confusing G's number as a change in g's value.

Going back to g, climate change would not affect the local value of g at a particular location on earth, unless it changes the density of land, water, crust, or core, or the location/concentration of them. I suppose that if one believes in ocean levels rising due to global warming (I vehemently don't), then water would be moving from its ice form at the poles to a general distribution around the liquid oceans, making the earth even squatter than it is.

But that is an argument for another thread entirely. Luna's assumption of 9.81 m/s^2 is solid (+/- 0.7%, which I think exceeds the accuracy of her time measurement anyway). And Heff's statement is correct in the principle of variation, but not in magnitude, and possibly erroneous in its source.

Manfred

Alright, MR. SMARTY MAN,

What is the formula for determining WHEN I'll post something that is smart?

Paul

Hey now wait just a minute, I'm trying to keep up with you.
There's ten finger on each... on both.. in total on my hands and then we got,
Tibbeli, tabbeli, makafru, spelaros, and the big stump.. let's see ten plus...
one two three fiiiv... no. One two three... gaaaa I give up.

For all this to be true you have to believe that the world is a sphere, you go past the edge that's it, so it must be flat.

I dont think we need to indirectly attack MIT, Russian Academy of Sciences, James Cook University, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Université Jean Moulin,Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa, Phd plus all the other 100 scientists who have signed off on the Leipzig Declaration....

But thats a discussion for another day

Manfred wrote: In slight support of our friend Heff:

g = (approximately) 9.81 m/s^2 here on earth. This is called "gravity of earth" and is an expression of acceleration on a mass while on earth. It's an accepted constant, BUT it does vary all around the earth's surface, because earth is neither a perfect sphere nor a uniform density (plus alignment of Moon and Sun affect the net gravity experienced by a mass on earth, very slightly). The observed variation from place to place is around 0.7%, which is rather high for an accepted constant.

G = (approximately) 6.67×10^−11 N·(m/kg)^2. This Capital G term is called the gravitational constant, and should not be confused with little g. It is used in the formula that calculates the force between two masses. G is small and very tough to measure, especially here on earth, sitting so close to a very large mass. Heff, you might be confusing G's number as a change in g's value.

Going back to g, climate change would not affect the local value of g at a particular location on earth, unless it changes the density of land, water, crust, or core, or the location/concentration of them. I suppose that if one believes in ocean levels rising due to global warming (I vehemently don't), then water would be moving from its ice form at the poles to a general distribution around the liquid oceans, making the earth even squatter than it is.

But that is an argument for another thread entirely. Luna's assumption of 9.81 m/s^2 is solid (+/- 0.7%, which I think exceeds the accuracy of her time measurement anyway). And Heff's statement is correct in the principle of variation, but not in magnitude, and possibly erroneous in its source.

Manfred

U r right.
The acceleration due to gravity reduces if u go from the surface of the earth towards its centre.
It also reduces if u go away from the surface i.e. Increase ur height.

Its maximum at the poles :10 m/s^2

its minimim at equator.

Te average value of g is 9.801202 ( i think ).

So its universally accepted as 9.8 all over earth.

But while solving problems , most of the times its taken as 10 for easier calculation.

like the fingers on my hand.

Hands, hands,
I meant hands.

lol
looks like some people's brain is reducing like the sun.

Did u know that the sun is becoming lighter at the rate of 4 million metric tons per second ?
It looses 4 million metric tons of mass every second.
So where does that mass go ?
That mass is converted into energy by fusion reaction.

Scientists are trying to reproduce this reaction on earth and they are really close !
This after complition will undergo development and will be fully refined till 22 nd century.
Then we will have a star right here on earth !!


Thats y i love science !!

And thats y im the SCIENCE_DUDE

That would be handy on a cold day

here is one more thing

WHAT IS THE WEIGHT OF THE BOMB ?

Well lets do the math.

Let us assume the weight of the plane to be x and the weight of bomb to be y.

I did an experiment and found out that the max speed of red baron is 160 without the bomb and 120 kmph with the bomb.

The speed of the plane is inversly proportional to the total weight.

Therefore. Weight with the bomb = x+y and without the bomb =x.

Now , x/x+y = 120/160

therefore , x/x+y = 3/4

Therefore, 4x=3x+3y.

Therefore, x = 3y.

Therefore y=1/3 x

therefore the weight of the bomb is approx = one third of the weight of the plane red baron.

Isnt it amazing ?!!! .


Although i feel the weight is too much for a bomb.

Anyone else has a different method ?

I've got a shovel in my hands right now so I can't do the math... unless I write it in the dirt... nah... anyway, you might want to rerun the numbers using v-squared, not just v. Lift (=weight in equilibrium flight) is proportional to v^2. But the ratios will turn out even worse, with a biggah bomb.

You are assuming also that the bomb has no drag. The numbers will make much more sense when you decrease total coefficient of drag when you lose the bomb.

Back to shoveling.

Manfred

hey guyz

here are more questions

what is the length of the carrier ?

And what is the speed of carrier ?.

Well let us assume that the length of carrier is x and its speed is y.

Now when i was flying over it in its direction with a speed of 120
kmph = 33.33 meters per sec, i took 1.5 sec to go over it.

So the speed of carrier with respect to me is 33.33-y which is equal to the length of the carrier upon the time taken.

Therefore, 33.33-y=x/1.5

:- x+1.5y=49.995
this becomes our equation 1.

Now when i was flying over the carrier with same speed opposite to its direction, it took me 1 sec.

The speed of carrier with respect to me becomes y+33.33 which is also equal to the length of carrier divided by time taken.

Therefore, y+33.33=x.

This becomes our equation 2.
Now subtracting equation 2 from 1 we get, 2.5y=16.665

:- y=6.66 meters per seconds = 23.9976 kmph.

Now substituting the value of y in equation 2 we get x+1.5*6.66=49.995.

Therefore x= 40.005 meters.

Therefore the speed of of the carrier is 23.9976 kmph and the length is 40.005 meters.


Pretty amazing ! Ha ?

Anyone else got some other method ?
Or any other answers ?

I think these are pretty reasonable answers.

I mean i didnt get any wierd answer like speed as 80 kmph or length as 200 meters.

The measurement of time is approximately 1 and 1.5 for easier calculation.)



Well i dont think there are any more questions like these now.

At least i cant think one.

Anyone has a question ?
Id be happy to check the math.

And remember. NUMBERS DONT LIE !

AtharvBhat wrote: here is one more thing

WHAT IS THE WEIGHT OF THE BOMB ?

Good question. Well, your math made a big omission: air resistance.
The reason the bomb slows down the airplane is not only because its weight but also because it is outside stopping the aerodynamics. It could weight very very little but place it perpendicular to the plane and it would slow it down to stall.

Having said that, the bomb math is not exact. I hard coded the number to some value because the mobile couldn't handle doing the math of the airplane + bombs. This formula will change in a near release since I will allow for more than one bomb in the plane (smaller bombs with less explosion power).

what about my carrier length and speed calculations ?

AtharvBhat wrote: what about my carrier length and speed calculations ?

Speed calculation doesn't take into account the tidal conditions. High, low, ebb?

i dont think the tidal conditions affect the speed.

And there are no tides in such small lakes.

AtharvBhat wrote: i dont think the tidal conditions affect the speed.

And there are no tides in such small lakes.

...or carriers...

And the wind. I mean, if you're playing DF in the UK's gale right now, you're flying backwards

lol

Ok I tested for the acceleration due to gravity in this game. First, I got a stopwatch, and I went straight up, cut my engine, stalled, and recorded the acceleration in the first second. Since I was going only 30 km/h at the highest, there wasnt much air resistance. The average seemed to be an acceleration of 30 km/h/s. Converted to m/s/s (the standard SI unit for acceleration) it was about 8.33 m/s/s. The gravitational acceleration on earth is 9.81 m/s/s. If you take in the little air resistance and human error, GREAT JOB ZUP.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask, I don't mind explaining, but the math is right.

i gave it a lot of thought and finally came up with one more question.

Is The accuracy of the plane's engines in df good?

For this i conducted an experiment on red barron.

I found out the weight of red barron plane on the net . It was in lbs , so i converted it to kg.

Its approx 584 kg.

It took the plane approx 7 seconds to reach 120 kmph from zero which is 33.33 meters per sec.

So the acceleration becomes 33.33/7 = 4.76 m/s^2.

The force applied by the prop = mass*acceleration = 584 * 4.76 =2780.67 N.

Ao the power of engine = f*velocity = 2780.67*33.33 = 92679.87 watt.

Which is equal to 92679.87/746 horsepower. = 124 hp.

I did a little research and found that the power of redbarron was 110 hp.

Thats extremely accurate , assuming that i didnt consider factors like air drag, bouyant forces, and other stuff.

WELL DONE ZUP !!

i gave it a lot of thought and finally came up with one more question.

How accurate are the engines in df ?

For this i conducted an experiment on red barron.

I found out the weight of red barron plane on the net . It was in lbs , so i converted it to kg.

Its approx 584 kg.

It took the plane approx 7 seconds to reach 120 kmph from zero which is 33.33 meters per sec.

So the acceleration becomes 33.33/7 = 4.76 m/s^2.

The force applied by the prop = mass*acceleration = 584 * 4.76 =2780.67 N.

Ao the power of engine = f*velocity = 2780.67*33.33 = 92679.87 watt.

Which is equal to 92679.87/746 horsepower. = 124 hp.

I did a little research and found that the power of redbarron was 110 hp.

Thats extremely accurate , given the fact that i didnt consider factors like air drag, bouyant forces, and other stuff like air density.

WELL DONE ZUP !!

zuperman wrote:

AtharvBhat wrote: here is one more thing

WHAT IS THE WEIGHT OF THE BOMB ?

Good question. Well, your math made a big omission: air resistance.
The reason the bomb slows down the airplane is not only because its weight but also because it is outside stopping the aerodynamics. It could weight very very little but place it perpendicular to the plane and it would slow it down to stall.

Having said that, the bomb math is not exact. I hard coded the number to some value because the mobile couldn't handle doing the math of the airplane + bombs. This formula will change in a near release since I will allow for more than one bomb in the plane (smaller bombs with less explosion power).

Now that there is day and night in the game there should also be temperature variations which would have a significant effect on air resistance.