Don't be so difficult:
Regards, Joe Agro, Jr. (800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244 Automatic / Pneumatic Drills:
Yes.
Following disregards effects of air resistance, and thus isn't entirely accurate, but note that air resistance on a smooth, dense object is not very large. Velocity at return is obviously the velocity attained by a body falling from the maximum height attained -- and is also approximately equal to launch velocity.
Where: s = vertical distance fallen g = Earth's gravitational constant = approx 32 ft / sec^2 t = flight time in seconds v = velocity
s = g * t^2 / 2 v = g * t
t(round trip) = 2.5 minutes = 150 seconds t(one way) = 75 sec
s = 32 * 75^2 / 2 = 90,000 feet. v = 32 * 75 = 2400 fps = Mach 2.2
Methinks you overestimate the flight time slightly. :-)
"Joe AutoDrill" wrote
Although it may have gone up quicker than down, and just guesstimating the terminal velocity at roughly 120 mph, or two miles/minute, about a minute of freefall oughta put you up somewhere around the 10,000' mark.
But at half that, not bad for a trainee canoncocker. :)
Anyway, now that that ice is broken, we can stand back and wait for the geniuses/smartasses to chime in, so maybe you'll finally know with some precision.
By your calculations, it looks impossible even to me... I'll admit that.
However, I can tell you it took 2 minutes 38 seconds for the ball to drop back down - as timed with a human watching a digital watch. Unless someone held it up there or there were currents affecting it like a really large, smooth piece of hail.... My numbers are pretty accurate however unbelievable.
Even if it were one minute off... That would still be 32,400 feet up. Hmm.... 981 MPH... Better than 1600... But I'm certain it was 2:38....
It did land about 1/4 mile away from where it was shot... But I can't imagine I had that good of aim if it went 90,000 feet up! 90,000 feet is a
17 mile shot, both ways, landing within 1/4 mile of origin... Seems impossible...Regards, Joe Agro, Jr. (800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244 Automatic / Pneumatic Drills:
No, Joe... not Vermweer as a source, but as a source of inspiration. Look at what they do. Now do it so it suits YOUR needs.
I'm willing to bet a couple of K, that I can do that job without breaking the bank. It is NOT a 'moonshot-grade' challenge.
Terminal velocity for a billiard ball oughta be a *lot* higher than that --
120 mph is (approx) TV for a clothed human, and a billiard ball is denser and smoother by a long stretch.
Agreed... Useless info but... a 400 lb. Rubber band ball dropped from an airplane reached over 500 MPH and the free-fall skydivers could not keep up with it. I'm guessing that a much more dense item like the bilalrs ball with a smooth surface would best that number by quite a bit... Which makes
*my* story look even more like I made it up.Got me scratching my head here wondering how we did it...
Hmm - ever consider that the guy you almost hit returned fire with your own billiard ball? :-)
Gives new life to the old saying:
"Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules."
What are the odds I'd ever use that? :-D
Terminal velocity for a billiard ball should be about 43.5 m/s, or 97.4 mph. The drag coefficient for a smooth sphere is C =3D 0.5.
Some info on terminal velocity with examples:
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:ZY1mk.19230$ snipped-for-privacy@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com:
Ah, no. The object will start up at muzzle velocity and slow due to gravity and air resistance - Yes. It will then fall at a constant speed after it reaches zenith and acclerates down until air resistance equals force of gravity, ie terminal velocity, which is NOT the same as the muzzle velocity.
.. snip
No leads,but it seems like having the cylinder left behind would be a benefit -- the remaining cylinder could either be drilled to a smaller diameter, or used in some other way. Seems like a drill that operated in the typical manner would generate a lot of waste needlessly.
About the same as me knowing what it means withoit a Google search. :)
spend and how hard they are willing to work, doesn't it?
Two hundred years ago, this was done by hand. Logs were bored out and used underground in municipal water systems. I recall reading a few years ago that there were some still in use, but that may not be so. If you look for "pump auger" or "pipe log auger" you may find some of the antiques that were used. According to Mercer, it took two men about a day to bore 16 foot white oak logs in 1926.
Could you drive it by power instead? Certainly - perhaps a post hole auger or a pipe threader. Check rec.crafts.metalworking and you'll see that oldjag just successfully used a pipe machine to bore through
20 feet of earth with a 2 inch pipe.For a machine made for doing exactly this kind of work, albeit in metal, look for a horizontal boring mill. Lots of them available at auction, and an old clapped-out machine would still be much more accurate and powerful than they would need. They could probably find one for little more than scrap price, although you're probably looking at 10 tons at the least.
Coring the log sounds nice, but I wouldn't insist on it. Coring doesn't leave much room for chips, and there will be a lot of them. Also, the core will contain the pith of the log, so it won't be much use as is. The guys doing it by hand bored a small (2 inch ?) hole which they then enlarged with reamers, which seems like a good method.
John Martin
LOL. Yes.
CLIP
I was following that one closely. However, it looks like his hole was 2" diameter and he used one heck of a contraption based on a magentic base drill...
Good point...
Would love to see a time lapse film of that... If only they had good film back then. Must have been an interesting job and LOTS of work to pipe a street, etc.
I don't know what the application is but wouldn't it be easier to rip it on a bandsaw mill, core box bit the insides and glue it back together?
Regards, Tom.
Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
That is what we said... But I guess they need it in one piece for some reason. All I could picture was high end sail masts for sailboats with an aluminum mast hidden inside... And customers who were too picky to accept a "split down the middle" wood look...
...But God only knows what they will actually be using the wood "tubes" for after they are done...
These days, high end sailboat masts are strictly carbon fiber.
If you have to ask, you can't afford.
Lew
Maybe as cannons on mythbusters?
scott
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.