Posted on 07/27/2002 8:30:11 AM PDT by JohnFiorentino
Retired airline Pilot Capt. Ray Lahr has brought suit against the NTSB for release of the data pertaining to the alleged "zoom-climb" by TWA800. NTSB has stated that this event was what the hundreds of witnesses observed prior to the TWA800 explosion.
You can view the amended complaint in it's entirety here:
http://www.twa800.com/lahr/lahr-amended.htm
WRONG again, Rok.
Newton's First Law of Motion
Inertia and Mass
Newton's first law of motion states that "An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force," that is, objects "tend to keep on doing what they're doing." In fact, it is the natural tendency of objects to resist changes in their state of motion. This tendency to resist changes in their state of motion is described as inertia.
Inertia is the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.
Nor is momentum stored energy. That would be Potential Energy.
Do you mean to tell me with a straight face that a bullet sitting on my desk has as much energy as a the same bullet travelling at 1100 feet per second?
I shall tell you a parable...
We take a small pellet of lead and pack it full energy by expoding a fast burning powder behind its a** and making it move at thousands of feet per second. CHEMICAL ENERGY (stored in unstable molecules) is converted to KINETIC ENERGY in a rapidly expanding gas. This expanding gas collides with our lead pellet (producing FORCE) which changes the inertia of the lead pellet acclerating it down the barrel of the gun. When the lead pellet leaves the barrel of the gun, the FORCE from collision with the expanding rapidly attenuates, leaving the bullet moving with the INERTIA OF MOVEMENT or MOMENTUM it has gained (we're going to assume this bullet was fired in a vacuum). Some of the CHEMICAL ENERGY was converted to KINETIC ENERGY in the rapidly expanding gas and SOME of the KINETIC ENERGY in that rapidly expanding gas was the FORCE that increased the MOMENTUM of the lead pellet. Because the lead pellet has MOMENTUM it will continue moving (being displaced) until it can TRANSFER the KINETIC ENERGY it is storing (in the form of MOMENTUM) by the application of FORCE to another object. FINALLY, our lead pellet collides with a rampaging bear, transfers the all of the energy we stored in it when we fired it to said bear, killing it instantly, and once again, coming to rest and assumes the INERTIA of an object at rest with ZERO MOMENTUM. Thus, we see that MOMENTUM is stored energy. So maybe you were with me, snoring in the back row.
No, I was up in front working as Lab Assistant to the Professor and often tutoring in Physics.
So let's compromise...I'll retract my statement that the counteracting force could be lift or momentum, and you can retract your statement that "Momentum is merely inertia, stored energy".
No retraction from this side.
Instead, I will say, "The counteracting force was lift." Better?
Not much... at least you admint you were wrong.
With regard to the units of force...Sure, you can use Newtons if you want. But you didn't. You used ft/sec in your original post. Nothing else. Therefore, your original statement is incorrect.
No, if you go back and look you will see I said the FORCE (which to implies acceleration anyone who understands physics) necessary to lift the 747 (a mass) 33 feet (a specific distance) in one second (a specific time). Because I did not, at that time, have a figure for the mass of a 747, I used the imprecise language of English to describe the concept for those who are physics impaired.To solve this problem in the future, I hereby invent a new unit of mass... the Boeing, which equals 547,000 Lbs.
Force to lift the aircraft = 33 footBoeings per second per second. ;)
Seriously, by including ALL of the elements of the FORCE, it was sufficient to merely state the distance as I did. Therefore it was not incorrect. It was just not precise.
It's a nitnoid point, but that has been the trend of most of our corresspondence.
YOU may have been picking nits... I was slaying dragons.
You were the advocate of the impossible... and I the defender of the facts.
Yet, in your own theory you believe TWA 800 experienced a significant pitch up that lasted for 3 seconds before the wings stalled. Therefore, the upward velocity HAD to be higher than 33 ft/sec, unless you believe an increase in the force of lift has no impact on momentum. (my point #7)
No, Rok, I merely allowed 3 seconds and 200 feet of climb as a generous possibility in my analysis of the scenario to show that the Zoom-climb could not have happened as described. I actually DO NOT believe that there were 3 seconds of lift after the initiating event. My math (which I demonstrated in the last post) shows that there was only ONE SECOND of continued climb.
Let us play a "what if" scenario out...
What if the entire horizontal Momentum of Flight TWA-800 was converted instantly into vertical Momentum? How long would TWA-800 climb straight up and how much higher could it climb before losing ALL MOMENTUM and begin falling? For this "what if" we will ignore the drag on the climbing aircraft (which will only mean shorter time and lower total climb) and consider only the pull of gravity.
I am assuming 330 MPH and 547,000 Lbs aircraft mass. These convert to ~147 Meters per second and ~249,000 Kgs aircraft mass.
The horizontal momentum of the 747 is ~36,500,000 Kg*m/s. and the acceleration of gravity is 2,440,200Kg*m/s^2.
2,440,200Kg*m/s^2 *t = 36,500,000 Kg*m/s - 5,350,000Kg*m/s (Momentum of the missing nose)
2,440,200Kg*m/s^2 *t = 31,150,000 Kg*m/s Again, solve for time (t) when s = 1
2,440,200Kg*m * t = 31,150,000 Kg*m
t = 12.75 seconds
If ALL of the FORWARD vectored MOMENTUM was magically changed instantly to UPWARD vectored MOMENTUM, Flight TWA-800 could only continue climbing for an additional ~13 seconds or so.
How high???
The aircraft, even though climbing because of its Momentum, is being acted on only by the FORCE of gravity... essentially it is in freefall.
The formula for this is:
Vf^2 = Vi^2 + 2 * a * d
(0 m/s)^2 = (147m/s)^2 +2*(-9.8m/s^2) * d
0 m^2/m^2 = 21609 m^2/s^2 + (-19.6m/s^2) *d
(-19.6 m/s^2) * d = 0 m^2/s^2 - 21609 m^2/s^2
(-19.6 m/s^2) * d = - 21609 m^2/s^2
d = (- 21609 m^2/s^2)/(-19.6 m/s^2)
d = 1102.5m = 3617 Feet
Remember, that is ignoring the not inconsiderable force of drag. Also WHERE does the amazing force that converts the vector of the plane's momentum come from?? The CIA and NTSB and you would have us believe that the aircraft's wing maintained its proper and most efficient angle of attack and applied lift force to accomplish this... but that force would have to come from converting the Momentum to lift... and therefore there would be a lot less momentum to continue climbing.
Of course, none of this could happen... the plane will continue mostly forward, decelerating from the initial velocity of 147m/s because of air resistance... not going instantly upward at the 147m/s.
The NTSB has filed an answer to Capt. Ray Lahr's lawsuit wherein he seeks release of the data upon which NTSB relied in the making of their zoom-climb cartoon.
You can read it in it's entirety here.
http://www.twa800.com/lahr/lahr-response.htm
An object at rest has inertia. An object at rest has no momentum. If you want to believe inertia is the same as momentum that's fine. But you are wrong. You are also wrong that momentum is equal to potential energy. Momentum is not energy. End of issue. All you have proven is that you are incapable of absorbing fact and admitting when you are wrong.
If you are going to allow three seconds of climb into your theory than use 3 seconds of climb. Don't say you are allowing it, and then ignore it.
"but that force would have to come from converting the Momentum to lift... and therefore there would be a lot less momentum to continue climbing."
Interesting that you are arguing here that you can convert momentum into a force, but I digress. Yes, there would be less momentum to continue climb as lift increases, and that is why TWA 800 did not end up on the Moon.
Now, why don't you get busy explaining the motorcycle jump. And no, Mach .8's idea that it has something to do with acceleration is incorrect since A. That's irrelevent, B. TWA 800 was accelerating in its upward velocity when it stalled, and C. Both the motorcycle and TWA 800 are assumed to have no lift or thrust at the initial point of their arc.
Can you name one of them who is not a "conspiracy theorist"?
Can you name one of them who is not a "conspiracy theorist"?
It's an old tactic for hucksters to try to attract a following of the gullible with "cliffhangers", as the readers can see for themselves by clicking here. But, as always, the proof is in the pudding.
"An object at rest has inertia. An object at rest has no momentum. If you want to believe inertia is the same as momentum that's fine. But you are wrong. You are also wrong that momentum is equal to potential energy. Momentum is not energy. End of issue.
Because you say it, it is so??? Rok, I provided you with a QUOTATION from an authoritative Physics text. Here it is again in its entirety:
------ Begin quotation -------
Newton's First Law of Motion
Inertia and Mass
Newton's first law of motion states that "An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force," that is, objects "tend to keep on doing what they're doing." In fact, it is the natural tendency of objects to resist changes in their state of motion. This tendency to resist changes in their state of motion is described as inertia.
Inertia is the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.
------- End Quotation ------- (stresses mine)
I decided to quote a physics authority because I wanted to be certain my memory was correct (it has been over 30 years since I finished college) and I knew you would try to obfuscate the issue. For your edification (and hopefully, the elimination of your misunderstanding of basic high school physics) I refer you to that reference. Brush up on your physics! The Physics Classroom.
NOW, End of issue. And, Rok, "All you have proven is that you are incapable of absorbing fact and admitting when you are wrong" is now applied to YOU!
"If you are going to allow three seconds of climb into your theory than use 3 seconds of climb. Don't say you are allowing it, and then ignore it."
I DID ALLOW IT and I DID NOT IGNORE IT. Both the 3 seconds and the additional altitude gained were included in the calculations on the ballistic fall. But, Rok, because of the laws of motion, three seconds of additional lift or climb cannot add very much to either altitude or upward momentum unless you provide a force of quite a few "g's" to impart it. Did the wings suddenly exceed their design parameters?
"Interesting that you are arguing here that you can convert momentum into a force, but I digress.
Of course you can... momentum is kinetic energy... when an object with momentum collides with another object, it exerts a force on that object. Momentum is converted to force and then back to momentum in the other object. Basic physics again. I refer you back to the The Physics Classroom again and suggest you read the section on Work, Energy, and Power... it comes right after the section on Momentum and its conservation.
Now, why don't you get busy explaining the motorcycle jump.
Why? Did a motorcycle crash on a stunt jump somewhere? Did the NTSB and CIA cartoons of that crash show the motorcycle and passenger behaving in an impossible manner inconsistent with physics? If Evel crashed, then either he miscalculated his ballistics, failed to meet the proper speed, or failed to include a force in his calculations (side wind? head wind?, etc.)
It reminds me to count my blessings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.