Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by her209, Nov 4, 2012.
Wow, so much physics fail by the OP it hurts.
Couldn't he just get surgery?
Also, the OP MUST be trolling.
The shards are too close to his heart and would kill him.
So I did some quick calculations and it looks like a space shuttle requires 900MWHs to reach orbit. So the Mark I chest piece was in the ball park for being able to take shuttle to orbit.
I think the writers are under estimating how much power his chest piece has and how much energy he's using.
Incorrect. The shuttle never reaches escape velocity which is around 7 miles a second. It only reaches 5 miles per second which is orbital velocity.
Although I wish you gentlemen were discussing the elongated whangus of my Iron friend, I think he's referring to escape velocity and not orbital velocity; hence the "straight up" wording.
Oh so its wrong because you say so? That's rich.
He was quite far from the opening.
Doesn't matter. Escape velocity is higher than orbital velocity. The shuttle would reach a maximum height and come back down. There's not enough energy in the external tank and SRBs to escape the Earths pull.
Btw you deserve a custom title for the pics you find.
This is an outrage!
No. Its wrong because its simply wrong, Its a fact.
I know, I'm just stating that was what he was referring to.
Now that's something I can get behind!
Couldn't he just get a new heart?
I guess you get the honor of telling NASA they are providing misinformation.
That link doesn't mentioned the bernoulli's effect. It offers an extremely simple version of lift for public mass consumption which doesn't involve bernoulli's, and all it is, is equations and a extremely bottom of the barrel explanation of lift that doesn't get into the details of what is happening.
And even if it DID, there would be an asterisk saying that bernoulli's principle is not a recognized way of describing lift and it is used either erroneously, or to give a easy to understand but wrong description of what causes lift.
From the Wiki.
Bernoulli's principle does not explain why the air flows faster over the top of the wing; to explain that requires some other physical reasoning. It is in providing that additional reasoning where some explanations oversimplify things.
Limitations of explanations based on Bernoulli's principle
The explanation above does not explain why the streamtubes change size. To see why the air flows the way it does requires more sophisticated analysis.
Sometimes a geometrical argument is offered to demonstrate why the streamtubes change size: it is asserted that the top "obstructs" or "constricts" the air more than the bottom, hence narrower streamtubes. For conventional wings that are flat on the bottom and curved on top this makes some intuitive sense. But it does not explain how flat plates, symmetric airfoils, sailboat sails, or conventional airfoils flying upside down can generate lift, and attempts to calculate lift based on the amount of constriction do not predict experimental results.
In deriving Bernoulli's principle, assumptions may be made (such as constant energy or incompressible flow) that are not applicable to real-world airfoils. For instance, a sailboat that is accelerating is removing energy from the flow while an airplane in level flight is adding energy to the flow, so energy is not constant. For high speed aircraft moving at transonic speeds the effects of incompressibility can't be neglected.
A common explanation using Bernoulli's principle asserts that the air must traverse both the top and bottom in the same amount of time and that this explains the increased speed on the (longer) top side of the wing. But this assertion is false; it is typically the case that the air parcels traveling over the upper surface will reach the trailing edge before those traveling over the bottom.
Bernoulli's is not the reason lift exists. Lift is a combination of many many different factors and have many different explanations of what happens including stuff like vortices, end effects, balance of forces, separation, etc etc. So please enlighten us on your simple easy to use understanding of lift that no one in the entire world knows about.
they did. its called The Avengers. the whole movie was dead to me in 5 minutes. i tried staying awake the rest of the movie and was like WTF is this crap?
the only physics fail is that more people didnt hurt their necks at a 45 degree angle falling asleep watching this movie.
From your own source:
Also, decades of engineers designing to maximize the BE is wrong because you say so. Hilarious!
this thread is sad
Yeah. Your little section says that the Bernoulli's principle itself is correct, not that its correct in describing lift, no one disputes that the principle is incorrect. The parts that you highlight don't mean anything in the context of the argument because it is an argument against using Bernoulli's to calculate lift
The fact that Bernoulli's equation is not a comprehensive description of flight and the theory of using Bernoulli's equations do not correspond to real life in many scenarios. The fundamental assumptions for lift using bernoulli's is flawed. There are in fact pressure differences that can be calculated using bernoulli's equation on the top and bottom of the airfoil. However, that does not mean it is a correct way to describe lift.
Also, I'm a 4th year aero-engineer. You are not. So its not like I'm pulling facts out of my ass. I've seen dozens of different ways of attempting to describe lift analytically and experimentally. There is much dispute over a comprehensive way to describe lift. So please, stop posting about a subject you have NO IDEA about. I dislike using wiki because it leaves out much detail on what actually goes into lift, but its the only way to get simple information to you.
How powerful is Loke? He was able to pickup the cosmic cube, but the red face guy in captain america totally got owned when he touched it.
I guess it all depends whether gravity could go through a portal. I'm assuming it can
Here's a graph from wiki that shows the strength of gravity vs distance from earth
So with energy numbers we looked at earlier in the thread I decided if I could figure out what type of energy an Arc reactors was using.
I made the following assumptions based on the Mark I chest piece:
1) Total energy was 750Megawatt Hours based on Starks comments about 3 GJ/s and running for 15 minutes.
2) Based on the movie the chest piece is about a half cup in volume.
3) Most of that volume is taken up by the device. Fuel accounts for less than 1% of the total volume based on the scenes where he's building the device.
4) The device converts energy with over 99% efficiency. Based in the fact he'd spontaneously combust if it was producing a bunch of waste heat.
So calculating the energy density of the device gives us a range from 2.28 x 10^9 MJ/L - 2.28 x 10^10 MJ/L which according to Wikipedia puts us around deuterium tritium fusion.
Well, it does look like fusion considering that the arc reactor looks almost exactly like a tokamak with the swirling plasma.
But its supposed to be a extension of the energy that powers asgard. Howard Start started work to try and harness asgardian energy but was limited by the lack of advanced materials and elements to replicate it. This was the reason why when IM was hit by Thors lightning, it supercharged him. He runs off a man made version of that same energy.
He's a god, not a human. Thor was 1v1'ing Iron Man pretty easily. Loki can keep up with Thor so hes clearly very stron.
Also, he has knowledge of the Cube that the red skull didn't.
Accidental double post
But what if it blows up before it gets there?
YA! your'e not the only one that watches star trek.