Some fun math on Draggie.

Actually cyberdman, you're question was:

cyberdman said:
Doesn't it make more sense to type: m/s^2 or m/s*s rather than m/s/s?

---

So the answer then would be no. Without the parentheses, your m/s*s notation is not only misleading, but incorrect. And as far as being nitpicky, I do believe it was your post that started it and your post that asked for commentary on it. I'll stick with m/s^2 for clarity, but what do I know...

Thank you, Mr Halo. I couldn't have said it better myself. I wasn't trying to be nitpicky, just correcting something. I just don't understand why anyone would intentionally write something incorrectly and then expect the readers to decypher it.

Cyberdman, if I wanted to be nitpicky, I would point out your misuse of "parenthesis" in your second post. But I won't because I did figure out what you really meant.

---

Mr. Point said:
Now the cost of MF is 1.5min/1sec. That's 75% cheaper than TTD. So technically, you have to wait longer for TTD than MF.

Math is so fun, isn't it? See, I'm smarter than you think.

---

I have no idea what you just said but why wouldn't 6 trains compared to MF 3 effect the outcome of the time needed to wait for TDD?

---

jdubya said:
Cyberdman, if I wanted to be nitpicky, I would point out your misuse of "parenthesis" in your second post. But I won't because I did figure out what you really meant.

---

Please do try to educate me further. There are no problems with my second post. No parenthesis needed.

I still prefer m/s^2 - that is meters per second squared. You guys may have learned it that way, but I sure have never heard the force of gravity referred to as 9.8 meters per second per second. That just doesn't sound right.

------------------
cyberdman

Oh my its a war zone in here. I think that everyone is getting a good word in. I really did like the equations that everyone is showing. They are very interesting to me.

------------------
Teenie Weenie the Giggle Queenie!
Wicked Twister Crew 2002
I saw the Name first!

Cyberdman, the error in your second post that jdubya refers to is either a typo, a misspelling or an improper usage: A parenthesis is '(' or ')', while parentheses are '(' and ')' together.

Acceleration is rate of change of velocity over time, so if something accelerates at 9.8 m/s^2, then its velocity changes at a rate of 9.8 m/s every second, thus the 9.8 m/s/s notation.

Ok, both m/s^2 and m/s/s work, I personally prefer m/s^2 but don't worry about it...

------------------
Dragster "Top Thrills": 0
World's first strata-coaster!

Thanks Halo. If you could see me, right now I'm rolling my eyes....

------------------
cyberdman

While we're talking math stuff, has anyone else figured out that if CP also use a hydraulic BRAKE system, then they could run the ride a whole lot cheaper than if they have to pay some energy company for every time a train goes over that 420ft hill.

Basically, convert the kinetic energy of the incoming train into potential energy for the launch of the next outgoing train...the only costs in running the ride would be for maintenance, staff, and the energy losses due to friction during the ride - a very cheap way to run a very good ride!

------------------
Steve

"Will all those who expressed disappointment at the new ride please leave the park now"

Probably because that is dangerous! Remember that the way hydraulics works is a pump that fills a storage tank with hydraulic fluid, pressurizing it and then releasing it to the turbine. If a coaster train of multiple tons rams the fluid into the storage tank, it could possibly burn up the pump and rupture the storage tank. Not to mention it will also have a hard stop which could injure riders. Remember that in the launch the pressure of the fluid is equivelant to accelleration rate, the lower the pressure the lower the accelleration. When TTD launches, it will blast off at an incredible boost as it is the point inwhich the tank is the most pressurized. As the pressure drops, the accelleration also drops steadily until it is off on the launch. If this was repeated in reverse such as that notion and the most deccelleration was when it was near the end. With magnetic brakes they have been able to stop riders at great speeds because they can hit the riders with great decccelleration and then back off steadily instead of deccellerating constantly like pinch brakes which can give you a good jolt going 60 much less going 120.

Draggie ?????? LMFAO

------------------
WOOF !

I thought that the whole point of the magnetic brakes is that once they are in, they're in... in other words, they dont need powered like the old types of brakes. At least thats what somebody said on the discovery channel about Millie's brakes. Am i missing something??????

Well, yes, and that is evident in Dragster's brake run. However, the launch run brakes are unique - they must be disengaged to allow the train to launch, and since magnetic brakes "are in once they're in" and dont need power, the brake fins must be lowered mechanically down "into" the track in order for the train to pass over the track without encountering the braking force from the magnets.

------------------
Is that a pen?!

Fluidcoasters -

Yes, you're right that the acceleration will decrease as the train is launched - but this will only be noticeable if the volume of the pressure tank + the expanded launch piston is significantly bigger than the volume of the pressure tank on its own. (I'm using a piston model, but the principles still apply even if there are turbines driving cables)

If the pressure tank has a volume of 1000 cu ft, but the expanded piston has a volume of say, 1 cu ft, then the pressure before and after launch will be pretty well constant...which would mean (almost) constant acceleration or deceleration.

Additionally, if the "deceleration" piston had a smaller surface area (but longer travel) than the "acceleration" piston, then the deceleration would be slower than the acceleration (roughly in proportion to the surface areas of the two pistons).

Once the pressure tank had been charged, it would only need to be re-charged to account for energy losses incurred on each cycle, so a valve could seal the tank from the pump during the braking.

I'm not espousing the practicality of the idea, just commenting that a ride such as this could (in theory, anyway) cost very little to run.

I hope those magnetic brakes (both on the train and the track) have some serious heat-sinks on them, because they are going to be absorbing HUGE amounts of energy. This is probably another good reason for the high number of trains - more cool-off time between each train hitting the brakes.

------------------
Steve

"Will all those who expressed disappointment at the new ride please leave the park now"
*** This post was edited by Panman 1/14/2003 6:11:04 PM ***