Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: long and short



I don't have time to work it out now and I didn't notice the item in
my issue of Sci Am, but it sounds like another of our poorly
structured problems. Just how are the persons falling? Are they just
crumpling straight down? Or are they falling like a telephone pole,
in which case they would have rotational as well as translational KE?
Or is it something in between? And as Tim has pointed out, just what
does 210% mean? I hope that the editors of Sci Am din't take his
result at face value, because if they did, they could end up with egg
on theirs.

Hugh

In the November Scientific American on p. 28, Thomas Samaras is
referenced as claiming
that a person 20% taller than another, in falling over will hit the
ground with 210% more
kinetic energy than the shorter person.

Samaras is supposed to have calculated this result in a paper
recently published in Acta
Pediatrica.

To get that result, it would have to be quite a bit different than
energy conservation, I
would say.

--
Mike


Mike Moloney, Dept of Physics & Applied Optics, Rose-Hulman
Institute of Technology

(812) 877 8302 http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~moloney


Hugh Haskell
<mailto://hhaskell@mindspring.com>

Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because they
have to..
******************************************************