Let's do the science

Quote from: Mbecks on January 14, 2016, 09:46:23 AM

Well this turned into a joke fast. Clearly people don't  want to do actual science and just want to spam the thread. Oh well I've found tfes.org and there seems to. E a few more mature people there.

Not spent much time at TFES. Is that site also overrun by trolls? This site is pretty unique in my experience. Could you imagine a site dedicated to, let's say, football, tolerating people joining and then trolling with:

Quote

"WTF is wrong with you all??? Football SUCKS losers!!!"

Or, a site for battered wives happily accepting a new member stating:

Quote

I'm a wife beater and I wish I could knock the stuffing out of all you women, too.

Nope. Wouldn't happen. Only here.

Quote from: SkepticMike on January 13, 2016, 11:49:33 PM

Trial 1. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I don't add any acceleration.
Trial 2. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I don't add any acceleration.
Trial 3. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I don't add any acceleration.
Trial 4. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I don't add any acceleration.
Trial 5. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 6. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 7. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 8. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 9. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 10. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 11. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 12. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 13. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 14. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 15. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.

Conclusion;
The f#$king turtle and the elephants are in on the conspiracy!

Your conclusions are false.  By keeping your quad hovering, you are constantly accelerating it at 9.8m/s^2.  It's sad you RE'ers can't even perform a simple experiment correctly but instead falsify the results/conclusions to fit your worldview.

Acceleration is NOT the same thing as Velocity.

While a quad is hovering the throttle control is set to turn the props at a CONSTANT VELOCITY, you can actually let go of the throttle control and it will hover.

To make the quad move at a CONSTANT ACCELERATION of 9.8m/s^2 you have to provide more and more throttle over time giving the quad more velocity, this would make the quad gain height NOT hover.

An acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 means an object is getting faster and faster every second.

Hovering means it is constantly accelerating.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 14, 2016, 05:22:00 PM

Hovering means it is constantly accelerating.

Really?

While its standing still with a velocity of 0, it has an acceleration independent of the earth in order to accelerate away from the earth in order to stand still?

Quote from: markjo on January 14, 2016, 10:46:38 AM

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 13, 2016, 11:15:36 PM

Quote

Post a method

FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.

Consequence:
Things not in contact with the earth, directly or otherwise will stop accelerating, continue at current velocity and will eventually be overtaken by the accelerating FE.

Simple test that can be done by the average user:
1. Pick up a pen.
2. Hold pen above the ground.
3. Let go of pen.
4. Observe.

Check me if I'm wrong, but the equivalence principle says that acceleration and gravitation are indistinguishable at such a small scale, therefore your experiment is inconclusive.

The OP didn't say anything about being conclusive.  He simply said "Let's do the science".  So I provided some simple science for him (and you) to do.

Quote from: SkepticMike on January 14, 2016, 05:52:59 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 14, 2016, 05:22:00 PM

Hovering means it is constantly accelerating.

Really?

Yes, really.

Quote

While its standing still with a velocity of 0, it has an acceleration independent of the earth in order to accelerate away from the earth in order to stand still?

What?

So about that experiment...are you going to try it and post your results?  If you are correct, why not do it and prove me wrong?

Results:
Trial 1:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 2.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 3.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 4:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 5.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 6.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 7.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 8.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 9:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 10.  Pen fell to the floor.

In 100% of the tests (with a sample size of 10), the pen fell to the floor.

1. While the drone is not moving it's velocity is 0

2. Hovering on one spot is NOT MOVING

3. If it's velocity is 0 it's acceleration is also 0

Of course the chip is calibrated to zero out by ignoring the 9.8m/s^2 gravity is pulling the proof mass inside the chip down.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 13, 2016, 11:15:36 PM

Results:
Trial 1:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 2.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 3.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 4:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 5.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 6.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 7.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 8.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 9:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 10.  Pen fell to the floor.

In 100% of the tests (with a sample size of 10), the pen fell to the floor.

Doesn't seem very ambiguous to me.

Quote from: SkepticMike on January 14, 2016, 08:28:21 PM

1. While the drone is not moving it's velocity is 0

Ok so far.

Quote

2. Hovering on one spot is NOT MOVING

Still ok.

Quote

3. If it's velocity is 0 it's acceleration is also 0

And that's where you run off the rails.

Quote

Of course the chip is calibrated to zero out by ignoring the 9.8m/s^2 gravity is pulling the proof mass inside the chip down.

Good job destroying your own argument.  Did you not even think when you wrote this?

Pray tell how a mass with a non-zero net acceleration can have a 0 velocity?  Extra points if you can do it with math.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 14, 2016, 09:28:48 PM

Pray tell how a mass with a non-zero net acceleration can have a 0 velocity?  Extra points if you can do it with math.

Ok.  Let's continue with the drone example:

A hovering drone has a velocity of zero in three dimensions.  Vx=0, Vy=0, Vz=0. 
Ok so far?

A hovering drone has a net acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 in the dimension normal to the Earth.  Ax=0, Ay=0, Az=9.8m/s^2.

There you go.  Non-zero acceleration with zero velocity.  Pretty cool stuff, huh?

Really?  Huh.  And here I thought being an engineer, I knew physics.

Oh, wait, I do. 

Tell me, what is your acceleration right now as you sit at your computer?

Really?  Zero, huh?  Are you in free fall at the moment or are you far out in space away from a gravitational field?

But you just said you were not accelerating.  Now you are in a gravitational field in a chair?  Which one is it?  Seriously, you can't even keep your story straight.

Net acceleration right now is 0. 

Except your net acceleration right now is not 0.  Want to try this again?

Except your net acceleration right now is not 0.  Want to try this again?

TheEngineer, Rama Set is obviously using the surface of the earth as a point of reference. In relation to the ground, Rama Set's net acceleration is 0, because the change in relative velocity between Rama Set and the ground is 0, since he is not moving in relation to the ground at any given time. And because acceleration is change in relative velocity (amongst other things), the net acceleration is 0. Not that you seem to understand these kind of concepts very well. However, you are right in that the quad copter's rotors are accelerating the the quadcopter, so if you change the rpm the acceleration changes (You didn't write this exact information out, I just explained it my own way).

TheEngineer, Rama Set is obviously using the surface of the earth as a point of reference. In relation to the ground, Rama Set's net acceleration is 0, because the change in relative velocity between Rama Set and the ground is 0, since he is not moving in relation to the ground at any given time. And because acceleration is change in relative velocity (amongst other things), the net acceleration is 0. Not that you seem to understand these kind of concepts very well. However, you are right in that the quad copter's rotors are accelerating the the quadcopter, so if you change the rpm the acceleration changes (You didn't write this exact information out, I just explained it my own way).

Quote from: Master_Evar on January 14, 2016, 10:53:02 PM

TheEngineer, Rama Set is obviously using the surface of the earth as a point of reference. In relation to the ground, Rama Set's net acceleration is 0, because the change in relative velocity between Rama Set and the ground is 0, since he is not moving in relation to the ground at any given time. And because acceleration is change in relative velocity (amongst other things), the net acceleration is 0. Not that you seem to understand these kind of concepts very well. However, you are right in that the quad copter's rotors are accelerating the the quadcopter, so if you change the rpm the acceleration changes (You didn't write this exact information out, I just explained it my own way).

Nope.

Quote from: Master_Evar on January 14, 2016, 10:53:02 PM

TheEngineer, Rama Set is obviously using the surface of the earth as a point of reference. In relation to the ground, Rama Set's net acceleration is 0, because the change in relative velocity between Rama Set and the ground is 0, since he is not moving in relation to the ground at any given time. And because acceleration is change in relative velocity (amongst other things), the net acceleration is 0. Not that you seem to understand these kind of concepts very well. However, you are right in that the quad copter's rotors are accelerating the the quadcopter, so if you change the rpm the acceleration changes (You didn't write this exact information out, I just explained it my own way).

All this is true, and if you are correct, then one wonders what point, The Engineer was trying to make, and how it is relevant other than as a point of fact?

Well, besides the fact that what you said was utterly incorrect, I don't need to defend myself.  My points and statements are perfectly valid and supported by science.  Yours on the other hand, no so much.

You up to do a little experiment to find out which of us is correct?