Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[TheDaver]

Heiwa, he’s my experiment for you:

1. Have a friend toss a .30’06 catridge at you (~40MPH). You practically don’t even feel it hit, right?
2. Now have him load it into an appropriate firearm and shoot you with it (~1700MPH). Keep in mind the round now heading at you is significantly lighter because it has left the powder charge and casing behind. Now how does that feel?

I eagerly await your results.

 

[Drudgewire]

Pizza cut into squares is heresy! Anyone who eats it that way shall be burned at the stake, or at least have to sit at the top of the Leaning Tower of Pizza Boxes.

And that's NOTHING compared to what should be done to those who eat their pizza with a fork.

 

[Whiplash]

And that's NOTHING compared to what should be done to those who eat their pizza with a fork.

Even deep dish? That's the only time I break out the cutlery.

 

[alexi_drago]

Another pizza box experiment, put your hand out flat palm up with a pizza box (or stack of boxes) on top and push up with as much force as you can. Take another pizza box (or stack as similar as first test) and place on the floor with your hand on top and push down with as much force as you can.
Observe which experiences the most deformation/destruction.

 

[phunk]

??? No - 1 kg remains 1 kg in the elevator and g is always abt. 9.82 m/s² in an elevator at sea level. Your mass do not change in a elevator and g remains the same. But the acceleration a on your mass may change by the accelerating elevator. The elevator floor is moving.

But why take the elevator? Just jump out of your window and drop down! Your mass remains the same and g is the same all the time when you drop.

You're halfway there, you are right that m and g don't change. But the force you exert on the scale changes when the elevator accelerates! Try it yourself! This is proof that F1 (the force exerted by an object on the surface it's sitting on, impacting, whatever) is not always mg like you insist.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Another pizza box experiment, put your hand out flat palm up with a pizza box (or stack of boxes) on top and push up with as much force as you can. Take another pizza box (or stack as similar as first test) and place on the floor with your hand on top and push down with as much force as you can.
Observe which experiences the most deformation/destruction.

Question: Do you leave the pizza in the box, or remove it? And does this apply to extra cheese?

 

[Heiwa]

You're halfway there, you are right that m and g don't change. But the force you exert on the scale changes when the elevator accelerates! Try it yourself! This is proof that F1 (the force exerted by an object on the surface it's sitting on, impacting, whatever) is not always mg like you insist.

If F1 is the force of a moving body and F2 is the force that develops due contact (deformation, etc) with another body, then evidently force F3 = F1 - F2 is acting on the the moving body after contact. As F3 < F1, the moving body decelarates. Force -F3 is then acting on another body.

Bazant assumes in his famous - peer reviewed?? - papers that F2 is added (???) to the moving body (that becomes rigid) so that F3 = F1 + F2 and the moving body accelerates after contact with another body. Another body for unknown reasons globally collapses into small parts - quite magic! Only idiots believe con men like Bazant.

 

[GreyICE]

If F1 is the force of a moving body and F2 is the force that develops due contact (deformation, etc) with another body, then evidently force F3 = F1 - F2 is acting on the the moving body after contact. As F3 < F1, the moving body decelarates. Force -F3 is then acting on another body.

Bazant assumes in his famous - peer reviewed?? - papers that F2 is added (???) to the moving body (that becomes rigid) so that F3 = F1 + F2 and the moving body accelerates after contact with another body. Another body for unknown reasons globally collapses into small parts - quite magic! Only idiots believe con men like Bazant.

I'm not getting on a boat you designed. A man could die of thirst in the Sahara doing something stupid like that.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Force F is only a function of acceleration a and mass m, F = ma, thus not a function of velocity v or how fast it is moving. So answer to your question is that velocity does not influence the force.

Yes, force is a function of acceleration and mass. But, in turn, acceleration is a function of velocity and time. Therefore, force is a function of velocity, time, and mass.

a = F/m !

No, original velocity of object doesn't matter! Any force applied/removed to the object properly will bring said object to a stop. Force only produces acceleration/deceleration or change of velocity.

Clearly demonstrated in the PBT experiment.

F=ma

a=(v_f-v_i)/(t_f-t_i)

Where

v_f = final velocity (No, not after it's stopped. "Final" after whatever time period you want to look at)
v_i=initial velocity
t_f=final time
t_i= initial time

Substituting,

F=m* ((v_f-v_i)/(t_f-t_i))

Clearly, force is dependent on velocity.
Also clearly, force is dependent on original (initial) velocity.

This was taught in my ninth-grade class. How come, as an engineer, you aren't aware of it? Are engineers in Scandinavia held to different standards? Are you required to take physics courses before getting a degree? This is very basic stuff.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I'm sure this must have been discussed before, but am I correctly understanding that there are ships sailing around that were designed by someone who doesn't understand impact force and thinks that running into icebergs can't damage them?

All the fun of this discussion aside, I'm quite serious about this: Shouldn't this be called to someone's attention so that those designs can be reviewed?

 

[GreyICE]

I'm sure this must have been discussed before, but am I correctly understanding that there are ships sailing around that were designed by someone who doesn't understand impact force and thinks that running into icebergs can't damage them?

All the fun of this discussion aside, I'm quite serious about this: Shouldn't this be called to someone's attention so that those designs can be reviewed?

If you knew the number of absolutely incompetent engineers, you'd never get out of bed in the morning. Suffice to say it's a testament to the system that they only wreck a few things every now and then.

 

[WilliamSeger]

If you knew the number of absolutely incompetent engineers, you'd never get out of bed in the morning. Suffice to say it's a testament to the system that they only wreck a few things every now and then.

That's frightening but probably true. But still, once you know that there's an engineer designing ships that people take to sea who doesn't understand impact forces and also thinks that "equal and opposite forces" makes energy disappear, shouldn't someone be alerted?

 

[Heiwa]

Yes, force is a function of acceleration and mass. But, in turn, acceleration is a function of velocity and time. Therefore, force is a function of velocity, time, and mass.



Clearly, force is dependent on velocity.
Also clearly, force is dependent on original (initial) velocity.

This was taught in my ninth-grade class. How come, as an engineer, you aren't aware of it? Are engineers in Scandinavia held to different standards? Are you required to take physics courses before getting a degree? This is very basic stuff.

Force is only a function of change in velocity in time, which happens to be acceleration. So what you learnt at school, you misunderstood.

A force acting on a mass will only accelerate it, unless there is an opposing force of equal size acting on the mass, when there is no acceleration.

In the latter case velocity is constant, incl. 0 velocity.

BTW - topic is the PBT experiment.

 

[nicepants]

Heiwa is looking more & more like another Pdoh sock

That's frightening but probably true. But still, once you know that there's an engineer designing ships that people take to sea who doesn't understand impact forces and also thinks that "equal and opposite forces" makes energy disappear, shouldn't someone be alerted?

Based on the quality & content of that site (and the fact that it's on tripod)...I call BS. I don't think the company on that tripod site even exists...or..if it does...it certainly doesn't do any ship building.

The only "heiwa corporation" I've been able to locate is a Japanese company that makes pachinko machines and automatic ball-replenishment systems. http://www.heiwanet.co.jp

The fact that this supposed company can't even be bothered to pay $9/year for a domain name certainly doesn't help Heiwa's case....and did anyone notice that he photo of Anders Björkman on his site looks a lot like the photos we've seen of pdoherty76? (I don't have any of his photos handy...perhaps someone else does)

Based on his claims, style, and apparent obsession with starting futile arguments, I would not at all be surprised if Heiwa is the same person as Pdoherty76.

 

[nicepants]

Force is only a function of change in velocity in time,

Back to my question:

So with an equal stopping distance...if an object is moving .00001mph it would require the same stopping force as an object moving 600 mph?

Apply your theory in reverse with a stationary object, and applying a force for 10 seconds. All other factors being equal, does an increase in force result in an increased end velocity?

 

[Heiwa]

That's frightening but probably true. But still, once you know that there's an engineer designing ships that people take to sea who doesn't understand impact forces and also thinks that "equal and opposite forces" makes energy disappear, shouldn't someone be alerted?

Thanks for your concern. Yes, at impact, when a moving body applies force F1 on another body, another body applies force -F1 to the moving body. It seems everybody agrees to that, finally.

Actually it does not have to be an impact. A static body applying force F1 on another body is subject to a force -F1 applied by another body. Compare PBT. There is an F1/-F1 couple between every pizza box in it.

Back to the moving body impacting another body. Apart from F1/-F1 then another force F2 appears out of the blue that another body applies on the moving body. Reason is that another body, e.g. the PBT, does not like being contacted by the moving body. Nobody likes things dropping on it.

So the moving body, the PBT impactor (also pizza boxes) has to apply force -F2 to another body/PBT to keep balance, so to say.

It should not be too difficult to understand? Newton and Arkimedes got it long time ago.

Bazant got it wrong and thought it was the impactor that applied F2 on WTC lower structure and that total force applied by impactor (now rigid) suddenly became F1 + F2 after impact (starting a global collapse), when it should have been F1 - F2 as shown in the PBT experiment.

If Bazant only changes a + (plus) to a - (minus) in his equations (trusting Newton), he will find that the global collapse is arrested very quickly.

 

[Heiwa]

Back to my question:

So with an equal stopping distance...if an object is moving .00001mph it would require the same stopping force as an object moving 600 mph?

Apply your theory in reverse with a stationary object, and applying a force for 10 seconds. All other factors being equal, does an increase in force result in an increased end velocity?

We have two objects A and B of equal mass m = 1 kg.

A is moving at 1 m/s and B is moving at 100 m/s constant speeds, i.e. no (net forces are acting on them.

Now you want to to stop (decelerate to 0 velocity) A and B and you evidently apply a force F on them and the result is that they stop.

Say that F = 1 N. Then the decelaration is 1 m/s² . If you apply F = 10 N, the deceleration is 10 m/s².

A stops quickly and quicker when F = 10 N than 1 N and it takes a little longer for B to stop. But both stop! And it goes quicker if you apply 10 N than 1 N. The stopping distance is shorter if you apply 10 N than 1 N.

You can probably work out exact times (seconds) and distances (meters) yourself as function of F - it is not too difficult.

It is like a car breaking on a road. If the car has higher initial velocity (100 m/s in lieu of 1 m/s) the stopping distance/time are longer. And if the road is slippery and the breaking force is smaller (1 N in lieu of 10 N) the stopping distance/time are again longer. It is all basic physics. But you always stop.

According Bazant of NWO fame, when you try to brake your car, the brake funnily acts as an accelerator and you increase speed, i.e. accelerate. It appears the reason is Bazant stepped on the wrong pedal?

Result? Full speed to hell! That's where the US admin is going today believing Bazant and NIST. Not very funny actually, but I always try to see everything from the bright side and tell my clients the truth. Oh, how many times haven't they been crying and weeping hitting their heads in the walls maintaining they did the right thing. When it was the wrong.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

a = F/m !

No, original velocity of object doesn't matter! Any force applied/removed to the object properly will bring said object to a stop. Force only produces acceleration/deceleration or change of velocity.

Clearly demonstrated in the PBT experiment.

Force is only a function of change in velocity in time, which happens to be acceleration. So what you learnt at school, you misunderstood.
.

If you are trying to bring something to rest within a certain time period, initial velocity certainly does matter.

It takes a greater force to go from 60mph to 0mph in 2 seconds than it does to go from 30mph to 0 mph in 2 seconds.

 

[nicepants]

We have two objects A and B of equal mass m = 1 kg.

A is moving at 1 m/s and B is moving at 100 m/s constant speeds, i.e. no (net forces are acting on them.

Now you want to to stop (decelerate to 0 velocity) A and B and you evidently apply a force F on them and the result is that they stop.

Say that F = 1 N. Then the decelaration is 1 m/s² . If you apply F = 10 N, the deceleration is 10 m/s².

A stops quickly and quicker when F = 10 N than 1 N and it takes a little longer for B to stop

Wrong.
Read the question again for comprehension:

So with an equal stopping distance...if an object is moving .00001mph it would require the same stopping force as an object moving 600 mph?

Stop distance is equal, the only variable is time (and thus, acceleration).

It is like a car breaking on a road. If the car has higher initial velocity (100 m/s in lieu of 1 m/s) the stopping distance/time are longer.

No, original velocity of object doesn't matter!

?!? Contradict much?

And if the road is slippery and the breaking force is smaller (1 N in lieu of 10 N) the stopping distance/time are again longer. It is all basic physics. But you always stop.

Not if the brakes aren't strong enough to create a negative net force.

 

[Dave Rogers]

According Bazant of NWO fame, when you try to brake your car, the brake funnily acts as an accelerator and you increase speed, i.e. accelerate.

This is a lie, and potentially a libellous one. Heiwa's continuing refusal to recognise the existence of acceleration due to gravity, his inability to determine a resultant force in a one-dimensional problem, and his unfounded belief that there is no such subject as dynamics, are the actual fallacies here. There's nothing new about that, but it's worth mentioning now and then.

Dave