Re: Weight of a Juggler

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>]

At 03:24 PM 9/2/2004, you wrote:
> ///I juggled at different rates, but I didn't try different masses yet
> (partly because 0.5 kg was the heaviest set of matched objects I could
> find in a shape that I could reasonable handle).
>
> The initial data is summarized here.
>
>   rate    mean    st.dev.
>   0 Hz    878 N      0.9
>   1.5 Hz  880 N     57.7
>   2.4 Hz  873 N     40.4
>   4.4 Hz  880 N     25.8
>
> 0 Hz is standing still holding the 3 x 0.5 kg masses.    So the answer is
> indeed "no", the average weight doesn't decrease when you are juggling
> three objects instead of holding them!  Also no surprise is that the slow
> juggling (which means a few big throws) had the biggest variation in force.
>
> If there is interest, I could give a few more details - or email the
> original files (contact me at folkertst@bartonccc.edu).  I'm thinking of
> expanding this into an article for TPT, so if you can think of other ideas
> to incorporate, I'd be interested in any suggestions.
>
> Tim F


It is interesting to extend the slow juggling side of the experiment.
There is no reason why one could not extend the time between
ascents - say with a long, gear wound compression spring to eject a rocket....
the net effect should be the same, so long as the projectile comes home to
roost, between ascents.
  ...But then, why stop with human-power?   What would be the effect
of using model rocket engines, I wonder?   There would be a small net
loss in weight from the combustion of the pellets, but if the rocket excursion
 took say 20 seconds, wouldn't the net weight measured over a suitably
 long period amount to the same?



Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!