-
Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!
A question of physics, or is it?
- Thread starter e36wchmstr
- Start date
Devedander said:Devedander said:
Care to render a guess here Novesh?
I like logic puzzles...
I'm assuming its a little harder than just saying your going to instantly go 180mph for the entire second lap, even though u said to assume.
if we can't assume and everything is relative, you would have to factor in rate of accel and bend of lap (since laps are round) energy out during accel and decel (for overall understanding) and distance of said laps. also what it is your driving, riding, etc...
Infinite.Devedander said:
Say it's a 1 mile track, you do that in 1 minute. To do it at 120, you need to do 30-sec a lap, and as you've already used up the minute needed, the remaining lap has to be done in 0 seconds.
Damn, that one actually made me think.
Novesh said:Devedander said:Devedander said:
Care to render a guess here Novesh?
I like logic puzzles...
I'm assuming its a little harder than just saying your going to instantly go 180mph for the entire second lap, even though u said to assume.
if we can't assume and everything is relative, you would have to factor in rate of accel and bend of lap (since laps are round) energy out during accel and decel (for overall understanding) and distance of said laps. also what it is your driving, riding, etc...
You can assume instant accel. Driving a car... no funny business for this one like lack of air resistance or anything, just plane pure math
So yes, it's not as hard as you assume, but also no... 180mph for the second lap does not give you a 120mph overall average speed of 120mph
You can also assume I solved it a few posts back.Devedander said:You can assume instant accel. Driving a car... no funny business for this one like lack of air resistance or anything, just plane pure math
There is a mountain with a single path spiraling up it.
An old man starts at the base at 7am on the first day and walks up the mountain path arriving at the top at 7pm the same day.
The old man walks at randomly varying speeds and stops for a random number of breaks to rest. Each break is a random amount of time.
The second day the man starts at 7am and works his way down, doing the same thing, and arrives at the bottom at 7pm.
Bearing in mind that the number of breaks, speed he travers and time he spends resting are not necessarily equal or related in any way other than that he gets all the way in 12 hours, is there necessarily a point on day 2 at which he is in the exactly place on the path he was on day 1 at that time of day?
(and by exact I don't mean his feet are in exactly the same spot, but you know, he is at the same place on the path)
An old man starts at the base at 7am on the first day and walks up the mountain path arriving at the top at 7pm the same day.
The old man walks at randomly varying speeds and stops for a random number of breaks to rest. Each break is a random amount of time.
The second day the man starts at 7am and works his way down, doing the same thing, and arrives at the bottom at 7pm.
Bearing in mind that the number of breaks, speed he travers and time he spends resting are not necessarily equal or related in any way other than that he gets all the way in 12 hours, is there necessarily a point on day 2 at which he is in the exactly place on the path he was on day 1 at that time of day?
(and by exact I don't mean his feet are in exactly the same spot, but you know, he is at the same place on the path)
Pugwash said:You can also assume I solved it a few posts back.Devedander said:You can assume instant accel. Driving a car... no funny business for this one like lack of air resistance or anything, just plane pure math
Yes and you can assume I posted another one shortly after
Actually at the beginning and end he absolutely will not be at the same place at the same time (ie day 2 7am he is at the top and day 1 he is at the bottom and vice versa).
Oh, in that case, yes, he has to cross his path at some point. Sorry, I read he went up twice.Devedander said:
Haha, what took Devedander less than a page, maybe a full one; took 27 pages on the other board.
That is correct. Jet size is thrust requirements are irrelevant, as given an infinitely long conveyor outdoors any plane should be able to achieve enough lift over a long enough distance to take off.
Now the man, and the car; I'll leave those to you guys.
That is correct. Jet size is thrust requirements are irrelevant, as given an infinitely long conveyor outdoors any plane should be able to achieve enough lift over a long enough distance to take off.
Now the man, and the car; I'll leave those to you guys.
Haha, no not RWG. The board will remain unnamed. 1/2 on the fence one way though, 1/2 on the other. It was never explained until I spoke to an engineer for Boeing personally who happened to come to my shop daily and showed me on paper.
Yeah but he called me a cheat on RWG for working out how he cheated in the 'triangle' problem.e36wchmstr said: