| Revision as of 20:50, 24 July 2016 editLarry13 (talk | contribs)19 edits New talk section: Alpine skiingTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:29, 25 July 2024 edit undoDerpyhoi (talk | contribs)89 edits →Poor Sources for highest survived horizontal G forces.: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| (43 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{lowercase title}} | |||
| {{talkheader}} | {{talkheader}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| | |||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=mid}} | ||
| {{WPMeasure|class=C | |||
| | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no | {{WikiProject Measurement| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no | ||
| | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes | | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes | ||
| | b3 <!--Structure --> = yes | | b3 <!--Structure --> = yes | ||
| Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
| | b6 <!--Accessibility --> = yes | | b6 <!--Accessibility --> = yes | ||
| |importance=Low}} | |importance=Low}} | ||
| }} | |||
| {{Annual report|]|17,177,762}} | |||
| {{Top 25 Report|January 6, 2013|January 13, 2013|January 20, 2013|January 27, 2013|February 3, 2013|February 10, 2013|February 17, 2013}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| Line 15: | Line 19: | ||
| |archive = Talk:G-force/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:G-force/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Incorrect Physics == | |||
| The article claims that the variations in the acceleration due to the gravity of the earth are due to so-called centrifugal forces. This is a poor explanation. I believe a better one would be: | |||
| One reason involves the difference in the distance from the centre of the Earth between the two positions due to the equatorial bulge – this leads to a variation in the gravitational field strength. The equator is further away from the centre of the Earth than the poles leading to a difference of about 0.05 m s–2. The second reason is due to the rotation of the Earth. The person on the equator experiences a centripetal acceleration. Given that the scales read the normal (or reaction) force N, in this case N = m(g–ac). Therefore there is a slight reduction (of the order of the first effect) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| Further problems. The article states that weight is not the force on the object, but the reaction force ( from Newton's third law). However, the wikipedia article on weight does not define force this way! There is more than one way to define weight, and this article has chosen one, whereas the wikipedia article states that the other way is the usual way. | |||
| Another problem. There is massive confusion here about whether the force is a scalar or a vector. The force and the acceleration are both vectors. The direction might not always be stated, but that does not alter the fact that they are vectors. Very confusing. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::While we're about it, the article quite correctly states that G is not a force but an acceleration. Could we please give some though to this having higher prominence? ] (]) 11:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == g divided by time == | |||
| Shouldn't this article include the difference of g force divided by time? | |||
| There are great difference of experiencing 10 g's for a millisecond and for ten seconds. A person have experienced and survived over 46 g's in a certain amount of time, but it is lethal to experience for example 25 g's over a minute. This difference may not be understandable in this article. | |||
| : Something definitely needed here, particularly in reference to G onset. There is a prevailing thought, particularly among motorsport enthusiasts, that huge deceleration is survivable <i>because</i> of the short timeframe, as in the Kenny Bräck example. Were this true, we would not need crush zones in cars. The shorter the time the loading is experienced for, the more damaging the impact. ] (]) 09:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Roller coasters == | == Roller coasters == | ||
| Line 40: | Line 24: | ||
| I wondered about the paragraph on amusement rides, where it is said that they usually don't pull over 3 g with some listed exceptions. However, according to "rcdb.com" and other coaster-related sources, almost every looping coaster on the world pulls about 4-5 g on entering the loop (e.g. the Vekoma Boomerang which is found in many parks around the world is said to pull 5.2 g on its first inversion).<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | I wondered about the paragraph on amusement rides, where it is said that they usually don't pull over 3 g with some listed exceptions. However, according to "rcdb.com" and other coaster-related sources, almost every looping coaster on the world pulls about 4-5 g on entering the loop (e.g. the Vekoma Boomerang which is found in many parks around the world is said to pull 5.2 g on its first inversion).<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | ||
| == |
== Problem == | ||
| At some typical force level examples for starting and stopping at red lights in traffic. ] (]) 02:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Please include a section for non-scientists == | |||
| The title of the article "g-force" starts with small letter. ] (]) 20:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| just a few sentences that the non-science majors can use. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Motorsports in the "typical examples" section. == | |||
| :I've simplified the lede a bit. It's been trying not to say the obvious, which is that all the forces we're talking about, are mechanical contact forces between objects. They propagate through the object as mechanical stresses. These forces then cause what we call "g-force acceleration." This is why g-forces always (without exception) ''produce'' mechanical stress. This is because of their origin from a contact-point. Electromagnetic and gravitational forces, which act on all parts of an object at once, don't produce any g-force (g-force acceleration), and don't produce any mechanical stress. No matter how much you tow an object with gravity, it always experiences zero-g, which means zero g-force. Presumably the same would be true of a uniformly-charged object or uniformly magnetic object uniformly levitated or moved by a magnetic or electric field. Objects floating by buoyancy experience surface contact forces (as in a water bed). A frog floating in water would feel a g-force just as a person does in a water-bed. But a frog levitated in a strong magnetic field should feel something very close to zero-g, and no g-force acceleration. ]]]] 00:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| We don't need formula 1 referenced 4 times, the only motorsports refs should be breaking G-force, and Kenny Braeck's crash. The Verstappen/Hamilton incident is clearly inflammatory if you're a fan of the sport, and the Grosjean example is superfluous. Perhaps the V8 example is 'good enough', but I stand by removing the two formula one crash references. ] (]) 02:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, we are not talking about mechanical forces between objects here; those are ] or ]. An authoritative resource is ] sect 516.6,para 2.1.1.1 which talks about shock being short duration where its frequency is near the natural frequency of the object. Thus a high speed fighter jet making a sharp turn produces g-forces. Also a racing car produces g-forces during a quick start. Also a roller-coaster produces g-forces. An automobile hitting a brick wall produces a shock. A dropped package produces a shock. A dropped glass of water produces an impact or shock. Shocks are also measured in g-s which is part of the confusion. g-forces relate to the perceived effects of longer accelerations. Let's work on the opening paragraph to clarify this. ] (]) 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Article does not proceed logically == | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| In many places, this article jumps around from concept to concept, perhaps following the train of associations in the mind of a writer. This has led to inconsistent terminology, inconsistent logic, and difficult reading. | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| The slight helpfulness of knowing which topics are related in an author's mind doesn't seem worth it in this case. ] (]) 19:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: | |||
| *Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090302163947/http://www.esa.int:80/esaLP/ESAK4XZK0TC_LPgoce_0.html to http://www.esa.int/esaLP/ESAK4XZK0TC_LPgoce_0.html | |||
| == This article needs improvement == | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tl|Sourcecheck}}). | |||
| Should that banner thing at the top of the page that says "This article doesn't meet the standards for Misplaced Pages" or whatever be at the top? Theres 2 sections without any citations, and multiple needed citations ] (]) 23:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
| == Poor Sources for highest survived horizontal G forces. == | |||
| Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 08:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| "The highest recorded g-force experienced by a human who survived was during the 2003 IndyCar Series finale at Texas Motor Speedway on October 12, 2003, in the 2003 Chevy 500 when the car driven by Kenny Bräck made wheel-to-wheel contact with Tomas Scheckter's car. This immediately resulted in Bräck's car impacting the catch fence that would record a peak of 214 Gs" | |||
| == Alpine skiing == | |||
| The citations for this are practically unrelated. The first source says it is "believed" he survived 214Gs, and does not have any citation. I couldn't even find anything about this in the second source. ] (]) 22:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:29, 25 July 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the G-force article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 28 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2013, when it received 17,177,762 views. |
| This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 7 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Roller coasters
I wondered about the paragraph on amusement rides, where it is said that they usually don't pull over 3 g with some listed exceptions. However, according to "rcdb.com" and other coaster-related sources, almost every looping coaster on the world pulls about 4-5 g on entering the loop (e.g. the Vekoma Boomerang which is found in many parks around the world is said to pull 5.2 g on its first inversion).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.203.254.65 (talk • contribs)
Problem
The title of the article "g-force" starts with small letter. JelloMello24 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Motorsports in the "typical examples" section.
We don't need formula 1 referenced 4 times, the only motorsports refs should be breaking G-force, and Kenny Braeck's crash. The Verstappen/Hamilton incident is clearly inflammatory if you're a fan of the sport, and the Grosjean example is superfluous. Perhaps the V8 example is 'good enough', but I stand by removing the two formula one crash references. Ruby.Boulton (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Article does not proceed logically
In many places, this article jumps around from concept to concept, perhaps following the train of associations in the mind of a writer. This has led to inconsistent terminology, inconsistent logic, and difficult reading.
The slight helpfulness of knowing which topics are related in an author's mind doesn't seem worth it in this case. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This article needs improvement
Should that banner thing at the top of the page that says "This article doesn't meet the standards for Misplaced Pages" or whatever be at the top? Theres 2 sections without any citations, and multiple needed citations Smirkjuice (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Poor Sources for highest survived horizontal G forces.
"The highest recorded g-force experienced by a human who survived was during the 2003 IndyCar Series finale at Texas Motor Speedway on October 12, 2003, in the 2003 Chevy 500 when the car driven by Kenny Bräck made wheel-to-wheel contact with Tomas Scheckter's car. This immediately resulted in Bräck's car impacting the catch fence that would record a peak of 214 Gs"
The citations for this are practically unrelated. The first source says it is "believed" he survived 214Gs, and does not have any citation. I couldn't even find anything about this in the second source. Derpyhoi (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories: