Author Topic: Episode #349  (Read 6031 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dileas

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Episode #349
« Reply #165 on: Apr 01, 2012, 12:18:46 AM »
Speaking as an ugly bag of mostly water, I must say that the various states of H2O seem like a good basis to peg our temperature scales on.

Offline Skeptic

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 137
  • skype bumchuzzler
Re: Episode #349
« Reply #166 on: Apr 01, 2012, 05:21:24 AM »
Novellons, Skeptigrade comes along for the ride.

Offline Trinoc

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4435
  • Dumb, in a pocket, and proud of it.
Re: Episode #349
« Reply #167 on: Apr 01, 2012, 05:43:02 AM »
What used to be called Skeptigrade is now called Skelcius.
Do people who say "First World Problems" really think the only concern of people in developing countries is where the next bowl of rice is coming from?

Offline mst206

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 2
Re: Episode #349
« Reply #168 on: Apr 04, 2012, 07:25:22 PM »
re: This Day in Skepticism: Exxon Valdez
I couldn't help but think of this quote: "Well, I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up." By General "Buck" Turgidson in Dr. Strangelove.

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12107
  • Apteryx Pessimistus
Re: Episode #349
« Reply #169 on: Apr 05, 2012, 12:01:23 AM »
What used to be called Skeptigrade is now called Skelcius.

or Faroutheight -- how high on the 'this is fucking ridiculous' scale something is.
Quote from: La Rochefoucauld
If we had no faults we should not take so much pleasure in noting those of others.

Offline Jbo

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 2
Re: Episode #349 - Metric System
« Reply #170 on: Apr 25, 2012, 04:16:55 PM »
(Just finished episode # 349, so I'm a little behind.....)

As an engineer, I just don't see a big deal with units.  Looking at temperature, I know what 70F feels like and what it means in terms of clothing and weather.  We can argue that some other temperature system is "better", but I have one that works and I don't necessarily see a good reason to change.  If I'm driving, there's a big number posted on a sign at the side of the road.  I make the number on my speedometer match the number on the sign.  I could care less about units.  My F system works fine and I don't get speeding tickets.

Industries and scientific areas tend to have units that they use and work with that are appropriate for their business.  I'm an electrical and aerospace engineer; there are measurements that are made in volts/foot and slugs per inch (the dreaded "slinches").  We picked those units because they're convenient for the work that we're doing.  Some chemicals are sold by the gallon, others by weight in pounds.  In any industry, we know what we're doing, it's how we communicate with each other, and changing it would only cause confusion. 

Now, if my customers wants different units, I'll either work in the units they want or else convert measurements as a final step.  I'm not going to tell my customer that he can't have 80 lbs of resin because we only sell it in liters.  It's quite common to see different spec sheets for both metric and english units for the same part.  Some people order in F, some people order in C.

Regardless of what any law mandates, it can't mandate how I do my work.  What a law can do perhaps is demand that items at the retail level be sold in metric units and that the government will only use metric units for anything they do.  This just means that all results are done in the accepted units for any given industry and then translated to metric. 
« Last Edit: Apr 25, 2012, 06:00:13 PM by Jbo »

Offline Jbo

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 2
Re: Episode #349 - Skydiver Simulation
« Reply #171 on: Apr 25, 2012, 05:57:53 PM »
I've been watching for the Red Bull Stratos jump; last time I'd heard, it had been stuck on some legal stuff. 

Still, I created a skydiver model and then ran a simulation in Mathematica (not Matlab).  I tuned the model to the Kittinger jump, although it's pretty close to his maximum speed and altitude/velocity without it.  The Stratos jump was compared to the Kittinger jump and jumps at 200,000 ft and 105 Km.



Kittinger reach a maximum velocity of 614 mph; based upon my simulation, I expect the Stratos jumper to reach a top speed of 763 mph. The top speed also breaks the sound barrier, which I think is a first for a human not in a vehicle.  The G-forces experienced on the Stratos skydive are about 1.6 G, well within human tolerance.  Note that skydivers from higher altitudes can get well over 2,000 mph.

I expect the simulation of the Stratos jump to match reality reasonably well, as its 's close in altitude to the Kittinger jump.  I expect the higher jumps are still a reasonably good match, although not as close as the Stratos jump.  Even at Kittinger's altitude, you run into issues with estimating air density, which can vary quite a bit depending upon solar activity (space weather).

At a typical skydive height off maybe 13,000 feet, height differences don't mean much and the skydiving experience is essentially the same. At higher altitudes, there is little atmosphere and the jumper picks up a very high velocity.  Entering the thicker atmosphere results in significantly higher g-forces imparted to the jumper as drag begins to slow the skydiver down.  You can see that at an altitude of 105 Km, the jumper can reach well over 2,000 mph.

Note from the velocity graph that at about 40,000 ft, all high-altitude jumpers end up with about the same velocity.  That means that jumpers from higher altitudes have to shave off a lot more velocity.  The acceleration curves shows the peak acceleration versus times, with a 105 Km jumper experiencing almost 6 G's. 



A question was raised on the podcast regarding spin.  The first though might be to consider aircraft spin, but people aren't aircraft, so a lot of the basic assumptions are wrong.  Any aerodynamically unstable body will start to spin even in minimal atmosphere, people are about as uneven, ungainly and floppy as projectiles can be.  As one reader points out, angular momentum is conserved, so jumping out at altitude with even the slightest uneven torque will cause spin and tumble that's hard to correct.  Add to that the limited atmosphere at altitude to push against, and most of the time not even a basic knowledge of what torque it would take to stop the spin, and it can get messy fast.  At lower altitudes, there's more chance for uneven drag to start a spin, but there's also more drag to correct it with. 
« Last Edit: Apr 25, 2012, 06:00:30 PM by Jbo »

Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Episode #349
« Reply #172 on: Jul 29, 2012, 09:50:12 PM »
I did one of these, too, and I'll be curious to see how close they match:
http://www.math.unl.edu/~bnolting2/SGUSkyDive.pdf

 

personate-rain