OT: Physics question
- peeplj
- Posts: 9029
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: forever in the old hills of Arkansas
- Contact:
OT: Physics question
This is way off-topic, but...a question came up at lunch today and as of yet no one has proposed a serious (well, semi-serious) answer.
Here's the question: suppose you could have an entirely frictionless, completely level surface. You are standing beside it trying to move an object which is sitting on the frictionless surface. The question is how do you figure out what weight of object you'd no longer be able to move due to inertia?
All thoughts welcomed.
--James
Here's the question: suppose you could have an entirely frictionless, completely level surface. You are standing beside it trying to move an object which is sitting on the frictionless surface. The question is how do you figure out what weight of object you'd no longer be able to move due to inertia?
All thoughts welcomed.
--James
I can move an object with far more mass than me even on rough surface. Also, the problem did NOT state that you were on the surface...it said you're standing BESIDE it.
My take on this is that even with a modest effort you can move any mass... just not very quickly.
My take on this is that even with a modest effort you can move any mass... just not very quickly.
Remember, you didn't get the tiger so it would do what you wanted. You got the tiger to see what it wanted to do. -- Colin McEnroe
- Ridseard
- Posts: 1095
- Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Contact:
All you have to do to make it move is to touch it with your hand. Suppose M is the mass of the object, m is the mass of your hand, and you move your hand sideways with a velocity v until it makes contact with M. For simplicity, suppose your hand remains in contact with M. Then according to the conservation of momentum, since M is originally at rest and therefore has 0 momentum,
mv + 0 = (m + M)V
where V is the final velocity of the system consisting of the hand stuck to the mass M. Solving this equation for V,
V = mv/(m+M)
which obviously is not 0. Therefore the mass M is moving. (Note that the larger the mass M, the slower its velocity V.)
mv + 0 = (m + M)V
where V is the final velocity of the system consisting of the hand stuck to the mass M. Solving this equation for V,
V = mv/(m+M)
which obviously is not 0. Therefore the mass M is moving. (Note that the larger the mass M, the slower its velocity V.)
- Martin Milner
- Posts: 4350
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: London UK
I don't think the mass of your hand matters so much as the mass of your whole body, because you are going to move your whole body in an equal and opposite direction to the force you apply to the object assuming that you are also standing on the frictionless level surface.
Suppose you have half the mass of the object you are pushing, you will move in one direction at velocity V while the object moves in the opposite direction at the velocity V/2. If you had one tenth the mass of the object, you would move with ten times its velocity. The amount of force you use will determine the actual velocities.
Although the surface may be frictionless, there will still be air resistance, so the object will eventually stop moving, assuming it hasn't slid right off the (finite) surface first.
If as Tyghress pointed out you are really standing beside the surface, you could move the object no matter what its mass. This is akin to a sailor standing on a quay pushing an ocean liner. While the sea is not completely frictionless, she can still move the ship move.
1) Back to Peep's original question, the problem is how hard to push the object to move it at a safe velocity. The answer may be to use good old trial & error (easy does it), or as JF might have it, use just too much force and then ease off a tad.
2) As a secondary part to this problem, if you were alone and naked on a finite frictionless level surface, could you get yourself off it?
3) Third question. If you had a weight (say a shoe) on the end of a length of string, could you use this to move yourself off the surface, or would the act of reeling in the shoe for repeated throws bring you back to your original starting point?
Suppose you have half the mass of the object you are pushing, you will move in one direction at velocity V while the object moves in the opposite direction at the velocity V/2. If you had one tenth the mass of the object, you would move with ten times its velocity. The amount of force you use will determine the actual velocities.
Although the surface may be frictionless, there will still be air resistance, so the object will eventually stop moving, assuming it hasn't slid right off the (finite) surface first.
If as Tyghress pointed out you are really standing beside the surface, you could move the object no matter what its mass. This is akin to a sailor standing on a quay pushing an ocean liner. While the sea is not completely frictionless, she can still move the ship move.
1) Back to Peep's original question, the problem is how hard to push the object to move it at a safe velocity. The answer may be to use good old trial & error (easy does it), or as JF might have it, use just too much force and then ease off a tad.
2) As a secondary part to this problem, if you were alone and naked on a finite frictionless level surface, could you get yourself off it?
3) Third question. If you had a weight (say a shoe) on the end of a length of string, could you use this to move yourself off the surface, or would the act of reeling in the shoe for repeated throws bring you back to your original starting point?
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that schwing
-
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Uppsala,Sweden
2) Yes. By removing parts of your body and throwing them in the opposite direction of where you want to go.Martin Milner wrote:
2) As a secondary part to this problem, if you were alone and naked on a finite frictionless level surface, could you get yourself off it?
3) Third question. If you had a weight (say a shoe) on the end of a length of string, could you use this to move yourself off the surface, or would the act of reeling in the shoe for repeated throws bring you back to your original starting point?
3) See 2).
- Zubivka
- Posts: 3308
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Sol-3, .fr/bzh/mesquer
You'd move in the right direction. The trick is the shoe has to be thrown fast, on a long enough string (to avoid an end shock when the string gets taut), and reeled back slowly:Martin Milner wrote:3) Third question. If you had a weight (say a shoe) on the end of a length of string, could you use this to move yourself off the surface, or would the act of reeling in the shoe for repeated throws bring you back to your original starting point?
Reaction propulsion is proportional to the ejected mass, but squared by the velocity of ejection.
However, you'll have more efficiency by throwing the first shoe unattached:
1) The mass to be moved decreases on second thrust. You just invented the multi-stage rocket.
2) The neighbour downstairs can sleep once second stage (shoe) separates.
BTW, a related trick is how you can propel yourself on a bicycle (or skateboard if you lack balance) just by body impulsions. To make it work, the motion-inducing jerk is faster than the movement back.
Last edited by Zubivka on Thu Jun 19, 2003 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Jerry Freeman
- Posts: 6074
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Location: Now playing in Northeastern Connecticut
- Contact:
- Zubivka
- Posts: 3308
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Sol-3, .fr/bzh/mesquer
This will help mainly out of the atmosphere.Jerry Freeman wrote:It seems to me that a good sneeze would send you on your way. Or spitting. In either case, some liquid would be expelled in one direction while you slide happily in the other.
Inside it, you'll save fuel by repeatedly blowing 3rd octave D's, aka stratospheric diatonic pulse jet.
- Flyingcursor
- Posts: 6573
- Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Tell us something.: This is the first sentence. This is the second of the recommended sentences intended to thwart spam its. This is a third, bonus sentence!
- Location: Portsmouth, VA1, "the States"
This sounds like a Larry Niven type issue.
Frictionless would imply absolutely no adhesive properties due to friction. Therefore it seems to me that controlled movement would be nearly impossible. About the closest I've ever seen to frictionless is a patch of ice with a film of water on top. Try getting footing on that sometime and imagine the same effect multiplied.
Thus I would think that as long as you were not on the surface yourself and pushed any object, itself on the surface, it would slide for a long way. The only thing to stop it would be air resistance.
Frictionless would imply absolutely no adhesive properties due to friction. Therefore it seems to me that controlled movement would be nearly impossible. About the closest I've ever seen to frictionless is a patch of ice with a film of water on top. Try getting footing on that sometime and imagine the same effect multiplied.
Thus I would think that as long as you were not on the surface yourself and pushed any object, itself on the surface, it would slide for a long way. The only thing to stop it would be air resistance.
- Jerry Freeman
- Posts: 6074
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Location: Now playing in Northeastern Connecticut
- Contact:
- Walden
- Chiffmaster General
- Posts: 11030
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Coal mining country in the Eastern Oklahoma hills.
- Contact:
While, several angels could conceivably dance on the point of a needle (somewhat fewer in the case of seraphim, due to the whole six wings thing), it is my contention that, being celestial entities, and thus not mindful of bodily amusements, they would choose not to dance on the point of a needle. . . oh, wrong question.
Reasonable person
Walden
Walden
- Martin Milner
- Posts: 4350
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: London UK
It's the massxvelocity balance here that worries me. The actual contents of a sneeze or spit won't have much mass.Jerry Freeman wrote:It seems to me that a good sneeze would send you on your way. Or spitting. In either case, some liquid would be expelled in one direction while you slide happily in the other.
If a 70kg adult sneezed a 0.01 gramme sneeze at 100mph parallel to the floor, s/he would move in the opposite direction at Xmph, where
Xmphx70,000g = 0.01gx100mph
= or .00001428571 mph, which is slow in anyone's book, and I'm not sure a sneeze really weights even that much. The spit would weigh more, but how fast can you spit?
I appreciate Andreas's mutilation idea, but I doubt I could even tear off a finger with my bare hands, let alone throw it fast enough afterwards.
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that schwing