| Author |
Message |
|
Saurus
Firing on two.
Joined: March 25th, 2012, 6:11 pm
Posts: 165
Location: Lodz, Poland
|
 Re: The O/T thread! samfieldhouse wrote: But... doesn't 'weight' decrease with altitude given that there's less air mass above it?  I do not mean to be rude, but either You're trolling and I've fallen for it, or it's air pressure You mean, which does not really act here, weight (not mass!) is "defined" by Earth's gravity (which is not quite constant, but very close to it) 
|
| December 5th, 2012, 7:21 pm |
 
|
|
|
Jonathan
Firing on two.
Joined: January 1st, 2009, 7:37 pm
Posts: 4708
Location: Disunited Kingdom
|
Re: The O/T thread! I guess the boffins at The OU would take 'other factors' into account when dealing with this sort of thing. 
_________________
1988 built (1989 F-registered) Citroën 2CV-Six
2013 (63-Plate) VW Golf SE 1.4TSI BMT DSG7
1932 Morris Minor Open Two-Seater (The £100 car).
|
| December 5th, 2012, 7:47 pm |
|
|
|
ken
Agony Aunt - You have a car problem? Speak to Ken
Joined: March 6th, 2009, 1:40 am
Posts: 3675
|
Re: The O/T thread! Hardly, given that the calculation involved takes only a couple of minutes. Although they did fall at the last hurdle, since 375,000 Lego bricks would make a stack 3.6 km in height, not 3.5 km. This assumes that each Lego brick is the standard height of 9.6mm, which excludes those which Russell has remodelled with a lump hammer... ken dave 411 wrote: What a waste of time and money 
_________________
|
| December 5th, 2012, 8:32 pm |
|
|
|
Russell
Firing on two.
Joined: November 29th, 2008, 10:05 pm
Posts: 9259
Location: West Sussex, U.K.
|
Re: The O/T thread! Wouldn't those bricks at the bottom have compressed slightly, causing a reduction in the overall height?
_________________
samfieldhouse wrote: What I like about I2F is that there is no pretence of democracy.
|
| December 5th, 2012, 8:53 pm |
|
|
|
Joolz
Firing on two.
Joined: January 5th, 2009, 5:48 am
Posts: 1687
Location: Haven't a clue
|
Re: The O/T thread! I believe that weight does decrease with altitude, although mass will of course remain constant. Not as a result of anything to do with the air, but because weight is dependant on the gravitational pull of the earth, the further you get from the earth the less that pull will be.
_________________
|
| December 5th, 2012, 9:29 pm |
|
|
|
banjo
Firing on two.
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 9:17 am
Posts: 747
Location: Staffs & France
|
Re: The O/T thread!
|
| December 5th, 2012, 9:30 pm |
|
|
|
ken
Agony Aunt - You have a car problem? Speak to Ken
Joined: March 6th, 2009, 1:40 am
Posts: 3675
|
Re: The O/T thread! Will ya stop being awkward?  Russell wrote: Wouldn't those bricks at the bottom have compressed slightly, causing a reduction in the overall height?
_________________
|
| December 5th, 2012, 9:32 pm |
|
|
|
ken
Agony Aunt - You have a car problem? Speak to Ken
Joined: March 6th, 2009, 1:40 am
Posts: 3675
|
Re: The O/T thread! Joolz, even at the top of Mt. Everest (8.848 km up) the reduction in gravitational pull is only 0.28%... You have to go up as high as the International Space station (400 km) before gravitational pull is reduced to 90% of that on the Earth's surface. Joolz wrote: I believe that weight does decrease with altitude, although mass will of course remain constant. Not as a result of anything to do with the air, but because weight is dependant on the gravitational pull of the earth, the further you get from the earth the less that pull will be.
_________________
|
| December 5th, 2012, 9:42 pm |
|
|
|
Little Louis
Field Plougher
Joined: February 8th, 2009, 12:07 am
Posts: 2357
|
Re: The O/T thread! james2cv wrote: Little Louis wrote: Jameswallace wrote: It sickens me that i pay more income tax in a monute than starbucks pay coorperation tax in a year! I applaud them. Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Tell me you wouldn't do the same in their position?
|
| December 5th, 2012, 10:05 pm |
|
|
|
Joolz
Firing on two.
Joined: January 5th, 2009, 5:48 am
Posts: 1687
Location: Haven't a clue
|
Re: The O/T thread! ken wrote: Joolz, even at the top of Mt. Everest (8.848 km up) the reduction in gravitational pull is only 0.28%... You have to go up as high as the International Space station (400 km) before gravitational pull is reduced to 90% of that on the Earth's surface. Joolz wrote: I believe that weight does decrease with altitude, although mass will of course remain constant. Not as a result of anything to do with the air, but because weight is dependant on the gravitational pull of the earth, the further you get from the earth the less that pull will be. Ok then, based on those figures, and assuming the base of the tower is at sea level, then I calculate the reduction in gravitational pull at the top of a 3.6km tower to be 0.114%. As the gravitational pull will vary slightly for every block, for the sake of the calculation, lets say the overall reduction for the whole tower is 0.114 ÷ 2 = 0.057%. Therefore the tower which we thought would weigh 432kg, will only weigh 431.754kg, a deficit of 246 grams, and equivalent to 213.6 bricks, which would add over 2 meters to the top of the tower. Whether that would be cancelled out by the ones at the bottom being compressed I'm not sure, who knows youngs modulus for a lego brick? 
_________________
|
| December 5th, 2012, 10:13 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 71 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
