| Revision as of 14:14, 4 November 2022 editMr swordfish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,714 edits →Definition?: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:46, 5 November 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:G-force/Archive 5) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| 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 --> | ||
| == Biplane illustration == | |||
| The top illustration of a biplane seems to be claiming that an aircraft banking subjects the pilot to 2 Gs force due to the fact he is being acted on by earth's gravity and by the acceleration of the aircraft. Maybe I just read that wrong, but that's what it seems to say, and I don't think that's correct. Worse, it says "G increases as angle of bank increases", which is totally untrue. Angle of bank has nothing to do with the G force on the pilot. It's the rate of turn. Yes, frequently a tighter turn requires more bank, but other than that, no. You could fly a plane with a 90deg bank and not be "pulling" ANY Gs except for gravity trying to pull you straight sideways. It's banking and then pulling UP on the control column that causes the aircraft to turn. Increasing rate of turn is accomplished by pulling harder, or possibly by banking more. The G is a function of rate-of-turn and the speed of the aircraft. I'm no expert, but what is described there is misleading at best, because that's what it seems to be saying to me. ] (]) 04:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified (January 2018) == | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| I have just modified 6 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321182843/http://www.astronautix.com/astros/stapp.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/astros/stapp.htm | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217092615/http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/sensotec/accelerometers.asp to http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/sensotec/accelerometers.asp | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201150824/http://sensr.com/products/gp1/index.php to http://www.sensr.com/products/gp1/index.php | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202091041/http://delphi.com/about/motorsports/products/adr3/ to http://delphi.com/about/motorsports/products/adr3/ | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118161602/http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/facts/faq04.html to http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/facts/faq04.html | |||
| *Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.omegawatches.com/customer-service/faq | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 13:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == No reference to justify topic or opening statements == | == No reference to justify topic or opening statements == | ||
Revision as of 01:46, 5 November 2022
| 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  |
.jpg){kind=small} | Physics C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Measurement (defunct) | |||
| ||||
 | 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)
No reference to justify topic or opening statements
The article starts off with the following two statements. "The gravitational force, or more commonly, g-force, is a measurement of the type of acceleration that causes a perception of weight. Despite the name, it is incorrect to consider g-force a fundamental force, as "g-force" is a type of acceleration that can be measured with an accelerometer".
But there are no references following the two statements. The references at the end of the first paragraph do not in any way justify these two statements. It appears that this topic of g-force is something that has been made up but has no justification anywhere in the literature. RHB100 (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
citation #36.
Firefox warned me not to proceed to the second link "The original". the first link to the wayback machine is ok.I am not experienced at editing. Please email me at rickgellert@hotmail.com with subject "G-Force" to let me know when this is fixed. ThanksThatrick (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 7 January 2022
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Procedural close. Editor BarrelProof is correct in that a page move is not needed for this proposed change. Suggest this be discussed in a new section where editors can decide whether or not to remove {{Lowercase|G-Force}} from the 7th line. Thanks and kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Editing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. 03:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
g-force → G-force – COMMONNAME; the capitalised form is by far the normal form in English, by leaps and bounds. And only in rare and exceptional cases do we have our article titles be in lower case; making such an exception for something that is almost never, unless it's in French, written with in lower care in the real world is bassackwards, is jarring to readers, and is confusing. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:10BA:9558:7F4:32F (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I think this is about the
{{Lowercase|G-Force}}at the beginning of the article, which displays the letter 'G' in lowercase. At first I thought it was about capitalizing the "f" in "force". — BarrelProof (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose This is the force due to gravitational acceleration. In all of my studies, gravitational accelleration has been represented as "g". This n-gram would indicate about equal usage of the capped/uncapped versions of "g". The guidance at WP:AT (throught ultimately at MOS:CAPS is that we would rely only cap if this is done in a significant majority (nearly always) of sources. The evidence is that it should be "g-force" in running text. The article consistently uses lowercase. To how it should be in the title is a different matter. WP:TITLEFORMAT states: Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default ...
. MOS:LCITEMS gives guidance on names of units of physical quantities or their symbols - that they should always retain their specific case. In that respect, the article title is correct - ie "g-force". Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Definition?
The article currently defines g-force as:
- The g-force experienced by an object is due to the vector sum of all non-gravitational and non-electromagnetic forces acting on an object's freedom to move.
So what are these forces? Strong nuclear force? Weak nuclear force? Is there some fifth force that I don't know about?
"Mechanical" forces where one thing touches another (and both are ordinary matter) are due to electric field repulsion between the electrons in the outer shell of their atoms. So this definition doesn't make any sense. Perhaps if it came from a cited source I could check to see what the actual source says. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Categories: