supersheep
Hashimoto Kōji
Former Admin
Posts: 2,242
|
Post by supersheep on Feb 24, 2009 18:18:43 GMT -5
Jumping Spider
Height = 41in = 1.04m Distance = 79in = 2.00m
The fact that i got very round numbers leads me to believe that these are almost certainly correct. I measured from the middle of the X on the trampoline.
Update: This means the distance you actually have to jump is 5^.5m = 2.23m = 88in = 7 1/3 feet
|
|
|
Post by japantv1210 on Feb 24, 2009 22:12:36 GMT -5
Thanks a lot ;D. I will now probably be able to see if I would have the distance and the height to get in between the walls of the Spider Walk jumping from the trampoline. I bet it's a lot tougher than they make it look on tv though haha.
|
|
supersheep
Hashimoto Kōji
Former Admin
Posts: 2,242
|
Post by supersheep on Feb 24, 2009 22:22:09 GMT -5
Take off an an angle of 26.25 degrees, that is ideal with the measurements i found.
|
|
|
Post by bigblind168 on Feb 24, 2009 23:08:17 GMT -5
supersheep: stop being so damn smart!
|
|
|
Post by Oti on Feb 26, 2009 23:49:24 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that's a bad idea. Your feet probably won't land on the walls with that kind of launch.
I'd aim for more of a 45 or so degree angle.
|
|
supersheep
Hashimoto Kōji
Former Admin
Posts: 2,242
|
Post by supersheep on Feb 27, 2009 14:54:28 GMT -5
Depends on how much strength you have, between 26-27 degrees will allow the bottom of your feet to reach the bottom of the wall where it starts with the minimum amount of force.
Taking off at an angle of 45 degrees will result in an equal length as well as height. This will make you physically jump farther, however, at an angle of 45 degrees, you'll get much more height that required, which means you'll now need to jump a distance of 2.82m total as opposed to 2.23m. So taking off an an angle of 45 degrees requires 26% more power in the jump to make to the walls. However, if you say wanting to leave yourself a little breathing room at the bottom and distance of 15cm (roughly 6in), that woud make the total jump 2.44m and require an angle of 28.14 degrees and require 9.4% more power in the jump.
|
|
|
Post by Oti on Feb 27, 2009 23:40:57 GMT -5
I would love to hear how you calculated the 26% more power. Oh, and everything else. Sorry, I'm not swayed by your "math" like bigblind. Also, when you jump off the trampoline, you do not travel in a straight line. You travel in an arc.
|
|
supersheep
Hashimoto Kōji
Former Admin
Posts: 2,242
|
Post by supersheep on Feb 28, 2009 0:27:54 GMT -5
26% more power:
The two distances traveled on the different angles, 2.82 and 2.23. 2.82/2.23 = 1.26
|
|
|
Post by Oti on Feb 28, 2009 2:18:35 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean any more or less power.
|
|
|
Post by bigblind168 on Feb 28, 2009 15:58:13 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm not swayed by your "math" like bigblind. dude im in 8th grade takin algrebra one, ofcourse im swayed by it
|
|
|
Post by japantv1210 on Feb 28, 2009 19:07:34 GMT -5
With all do respect oti, I don't think anyone here gives a crap about whether you're "swayed" by his math or not. He's at least giving his best estimates based on the information he was given. If you can prove him wrong with math of your own, feel free to do so. I'd be very interested to see exact measurements, so I can know exactly what to train for.
|
|
|
Post by Oti on Feb 28, 2009 19:47:39 GMT -5
Just saying, I think a lot of his calculations are off, especially the power thing. You can't simply find the power by using distances and angles. There are joules, newtons and all other kinds of units. Can it be calculated? Sure. Is he calculating it correctly? I doubt it.
I would be interested in seeing good measurements for obstacles as well, but when you get into bogus, useless math, it gets a tad annoying. It's like calculating wind resistance, resistance from your clothing and any possible insects that could hit you as you jump off the trampoline. Why worry so much? Hit the trampoline squarely and hard, with tons of momentum to bring you forward. It's simple.
Just do what I do. It works perfectly. Use screenshots to get a scale and rough idea of the obstacles specs. Then, when you build it, make it harder.
|
|
scnoi1217
Administrator
Retired Staff
Ummm...not sure what to say here...
Posts: 3,595
Staff Member
|
Post by scnoi1217 on Feb 28, 2009 19:55:57 GMT -5
You can at least respect another person's calculations instead of just saying, "No your wrong, I'm right." Either way, his method at least gives us figures that are in the ballpark instead of just going, "Yea, I see it like this, so then it works perfectly."
Oti, this isn't the G4 forums...
|
|
|
Post by talledega7 on Feb 28, 2009 20:40:17 GMT -5
Just saying, I think a lot of his calculations are off, especially the power thing. You can't simply find the power by using distances and angles. There are joules, newtons and all other kinds of units. Can it be calculated? Sure. Is he calculating it correctly? I doubt it. I would be interested in seeing good measurements for obstacles as well, but when you get into bogus, useless math, it gets a tad annoying. It's like calculating wind resistance, resistance from your clothing and any possible insects that could hit you as you jump off the trampoline. Why worry so much? Hit the trampoline squarely and hard, with tons of momentum to bring you forward. It's simple. Just do what I do. It works perfectly. Use screenshots to get a scale and rough idea of the obstacles specs. Then, when you build it, make it harder. First off, it is possible to calculate power, speed, etc. using angles. Scientists and mathematicians do it all the time. The Mythbusters guys were able to calculate the exact speed of a penny being dropped off of the Empire State building using math. If you don't believe its possible, think about the guy who cleared the First Stage in one of the earlier tournaments using trigonometry to calculate the exact spot to hit the Warped Wall at. Secondly, he used screenshots in his calculations. Using pictures of the Salmon Ladder and Gliding Ring and using competitor heights for reference, he counted and compared pixels and estimated. Until you provide your own system and demonstrate your own math, I suggest you butt out. But since you seem to have this incredible desire to poison atmospheres and ruin other peoples lives, I know that you wont grant us that one request.
|
|
|
Post by Oti on Feb 28, 2009 21:35:25 GMT -5
I'm not trying to spin it like he's wrong and I know everything. I'm just saying that angle is probably bad and I don't believe his calculations are correct.
Also, the penny and Warped Wall things are different. The penny's speed is easy to calculate using 9.8 as the acceleration, and the Warped Wall is, well, that's pretty interesting, honestly.
I don't have my own math, but then again, I'm not saying without a doubt he's wrong, am I? I'm saying I believe him to be wrong. What, you want everyone here to go along with anything they hear? That's a pretty bad idea.
Poison atmospheres and ruin lives? Sounds like you're overly sensitive and you need to grow up. HOWEVER, I DON'T have proof against his math, so I WILL butt out on this one. I stand by my opinion that he's wrong on the angle and power, and that's all it is. An opinion.
Don't make such a big fuss over it.
|
|
Ninja Chris
Jessie Graff
Chris Christensen
Posts: 1,037
|
Post by Ninja Chris on Mar 1, 2009 0:52:11 GMT -5
You're ruining my post. This is about the/my salmon ladder. Please let it be.
|
|
|
Post by Oti on Mar 1, 2009 1:18:53 GMT -5
You realize I wasn't the only one talking about something else, right?
But yeah, train your whole body, of course.
About the personal trainer, though... I wouldn't recommend one. If you research things yourself online and in books, you can save yourself the money AND learn everything about physical fitness. It really is fascinating, and this is from someone who more or less hated Biology.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Mar 1, 2009 15:48:12 GMT -5
If just learning about physical fitness is your goal, then Oti does bring up a very valid point. However, the value of a personal trainer goes beyond that in motivation and keeping a level of intensity during workouts. It's very easy to get complacent, and nobody with as lofty a goal as performing well on the Sasuke course would want that to happen to them.
I'm curious. How exactly did you connect the rungs of the salmon ladder to the sides? Whatever you've done, you've intelligently done twice to limit the rungs from rotating, but what did you use?
Also, I've not seen a direct mention of the correlation between how far the rungs on your ladder jut out from the side structures and the propensity of them breaking. Keeping them jutting out only a little more than necessary to hold the pole would theoretically lower the torque (read: shearing force) created by the impact of the bar.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to sound derogatory. I'm very impressed and look forward to seeing more of this project!
|
|
|
Post by Oti on Mar 1, 2009 16:01:11 GMT -5
You're right, they can help in motivation. I didn't think of that. I don't really use anyone to motivate me (other than myself, at least), so that's why I wouldn't use a personal trainer. My desire to be the best in everything I do motivates me well enough.
Is torque the right word on that? Torque is a twisting motion... but anyway, I'm not so sure having them longer would lower that impact. It could, but I don't really see how. Maybe explain your reasoning, if you don't mind?
And really, I wouldn't worry too much about that force. My Salmon Ladder is metal on metal and even that violent shock isn't that bad. It took a day or so to get used to at most. If this Salmon Ladder is to be built out of wood, the force should be MUCH lower. The wood should absorb it very well.
I think that's why my Salmon Ladder is so loud while everyone else's just makes a small "thud" noise.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Mar 1, 2009 23:45:55 GMT -5
Is torque the right word on that? Torque is a twisting motion... but anyway, I'm not so sure having them longer would lower that impact. It could, but I don't really see how. Maybe explain your reasoning, if you don't mind? Torque is indeed connected with the idea of twisting, as it involves forces that cause rotation about a fulcrum. In this case, we have a fixed fulcrum where each notch is bolted to the side structure. The torque is then the force of the bar landing on the notch multiplied by the ditance between the points where the notch of bolted to the structure and where the bar lands. Increasing that distance would make things worse. What I'm saying is that distance each notch juts out needs to be minimized into order to reduce the torque. Torque is the signicant value here since the notches are breaking as a result of being able to provide the counter-torque. And really, I wouldn't worry too much about that force. My Salmon Ladder is metal on metal and even that violent shock isn't that bad. It took a day or so to get used to at most. If this Salmon Ladder is to be built out of wood, the force should be MUCH lower. The wood should absorb it very well. I think that's why my Salmon Ladder is so loud while everyone else's just makes a small "thud" noise. Well, I'm talking about the Salmon Ladder we have a video of in this thread, so that may have led to some confusion. The shock of landing affecting the user's body isn't the concern here. Rather's the shock (impulse torque) affect on the Salmon Ladder is the concern and what caused his to break.
|
|