Wednesday, January 11, 2012

--exponential geo-sync degredation forces--


   i saw something on tv today...a russian bird came home...
very rare, and making quite an impact--

  some math to predict when to put out the "bird-feeder"--


the heart of the matter--

    well...when a bird( satellite/craft), is in geo-sync orbit, there is neither force pulling it
to earth, or force throwing it away, the foot-pounds are 0, coming, or going--

an epiffany--

   this concept shows why trying to force objects, or satellites, to fly a flight-path that is wrong for their weight, does not work( they come home early), thus objects that are too light, would orbit in a geo-sync path, that is too close to the atmosphere, and they burn-up...a lighter satellite might need the correct amount of ballast, added to it's total weight, to keep it from coming home( using "distance-to-geo-sync" math, to calc the amount of weight to add)--

   also, i might suggest, that for each pound of weight, that is put on the international space station, the more ballast must be removed( to maintain geo-sync orbit, and "fly" in the range desired), or, the distance from the earth must be increased( due to a heavier bird), to "fly" at the proper geo-sync distance, and prevent a "bird-feeder visitation moment", from arriving unpleasantly--

calcing hours/min/seconds to bird-feeder--

   i suggest, that if the orbit of a 2 ton object, degrades 1 foot, then it has one pound of thrust, pulling it towards earth, i calculate there would be 114.9cm traveled towards the earth, the first minute...then the numbers would have to be re-crunched again, because the pull is "exponential", (1 foot-pound of pull, added per-foot out of geo-sync orbit), 60 re-calc's in an hour, ect...until touchdown number is crunched-out...

  --( the math for this calc, is to be found on the "distance to geo-sync" post)--


another way to crunch the numbers--

      114.9 seems like a very fine point being put on the problem, but, not enough, as both the problem, and the "margin of error", are "exponential"...here is as fine a point, as i can put on the problem( i want "wil-e-coyote" to be able to put out the bird feeder, the very moment before the feeder has a visitor)--

      --( here are the not-so rough numbers to crunch this one)--

  geo-sync degradation calc--

 ( foot-pounds)       ( lbs)            ( feet)
     (  force)   -      ( weight)  =  ( distance)
         1         -        2000     =    -1999

  as the number is a negative number, convert feet to meters( the system they use "on the other side of the pond")-- 

   feet to meters calc--

  ( feet) x 0.3048 = ( meters)

    ( feet)                           ( meters)
  -1900    x   0.3048  =   -609.2952

  calc for meters to decimeters  =  bang the decimal over, 1 spot to the left--  ( left, due to number)
                                                                                                                       ( being negative)

  calc for meters to decimeters--

      ( meters)             ( decimeters)
    -609.2952   =      -60.92952

  calc for decimeters to centimeters = bang the decimal over 1 spot, to the left again--


  calc for decimeters to centimeters--

    ( decimeters)             ( centimeters)           
    -60.92952       =       -6.092952                       

     the number is still a negative, the calc must go to mm--


    centimeters to millimeters calc--

   ( centimeters)    =        ( millimeters)            ( this gets us back to a whole # )
    -6.092952               - .6092952      or       + 0.6092952 mm per-second     
       

note--

   if the value is still negative we may need to go to "micro-meters"...in this case, once all the numbers in the value are on the right side of the "decimal point", we can consider the value to be "positive"...and no longer a "negative number"--


millimeters to micrometers calculation--

(millimeters)  =  (micrometers)
 -.6092952            609.2952


note--

  as we can see above, i have purposely moved the "decimal points" in the inverse direction of the traditional manner, each time i reduced the increments of measurement, that i converted the values to, this was done to move the "negative value", to a "positive value", in an equal way( "congruent"), i am aware that the numbers would normally increase, deeper into the "negative values", each time the unit of measurement gets smaller, but, this is new math, so, i am "scrapping" some "math traditions", in "the name of progress" here, the point is, that an "inch-pound" is less than 1 full pound, and in this regard, the value is "negative", or, "off the scale"...meaning, that i suggest we may view each conversion to the next smaller system of measurement, as one "decimal place" moved to the left, closer to a "positive value", instead of to the right, further into the negative values( in the traditional manner)--

  this completes the first calc...happy-time :o) Dancing is permitted, depending on venue--

note--

  we may now add 609.2952 micrometers, to the next calc's "exponent"...if we choose to proceed with micrometers--


the values(calculation-1)--

1 foot = 30.48 cm
1 foot = 304.800 mm


the skinny--

millimeters per-second object moves, after force is applied, x 60 = "total movement per-minute"( if force was not "exponential")...


the idea is to see how long it takes, to reach 1 foot, and then re-calculate( and add one more "foot-pound of force", to the previous amount of "foot-pounds of force")--


note--

if it takes less than one minute( sixty seconds), to reach one foot, then adjust seconds to less that sixty...to calc "seconds to one foot", divide "millimeter per-second" by the "re-calculated time", and then add each "re-calculated distance", and seconds, together...to get the problem "crunched out"--


geo-sync degradation calculation (continued)--

   multiply 0.609252 mm by 60, to get "millimeter per-minute"--

(millimeter per-second)  x  (seconds) =  (millimeter per-minute)
        0.609252                          60                36.55512


note--

"1 foot = 304.800 mm"


calc continued--

304.800  %  36.55512 mm per-min = 8.33093 minutes to 1 foot( if motion was a constant)--


  --(the amount of time to reach one foot is needed, in case one foot is reached before one minute has passed...the point is, to calc until one foot is reached, in one minute)--

--it takes longer than 1 minute to reach 1 foot--


note--

   if millimeters per-minute is greater than one foot, in distance...calc for the number of seconds it takes, to reach 1 foot( in millimeters)--

( 1 foot in millimeters)  +  (millimeters per-second)  =  (seconds to 1 foot) 
        304.800                            0.609252                              500.2856

re-phrase terms--

(millimeters per-second)  x  ( seconds to 1 foot)  =  (1 foot in millimeters)
    0.609252                               500.2856                       304.800









from this point, i have completed this calc in my book, i will revisit this post soon..john kruschke--
________________________________________________________________________________

   1 foot  =    30.48 cm
   1 foot  =  304.800 mm

the skinny--

    mm per-second object moves after force is applied, x 60 = total movement per-minute( if force was not exponential)...the idea is to see how long it takes to reach 1 foot, then re-calc( add 1 more foot-pound of force to the previous amount of foot-pounds of force)--

note--

   if it takes less than one minute( 60 seconds),  to reach 1 foot, then adjust seconds to less than 60... to calc seconds to 1 foot, divide mm per-sec by( re-calc time), then add each re-calc distance, and seconds, together...to get the problem crunched out--
  
 --( the amount of time to reach one foot is needed, in case 1 foot is reached before 1 minute has passed)--

  multiply 6.09252 x 60 to get mm per-min--

    (mm per sec)      (sec)
      6.09252       x    60   =   365.5512 mm per-min

       (1 foot)       =     304.800 mm

       mm per-min is greater than 1 foot... calc for number of seconds it takes to reach 1 foot--
    
       calc for seconds to 1 foot--

      divide1 foot in mm( 304.800), by the "mm per-second"( 6.09252), to get the seconds it takes to reach 1 foot( in mm)--

      ( 1 foot in mm)        ( mm per-sec)           ( seconds to 1 foot)
           304.800      %      6.09252        =           50.02856 

      ( mm per-sec)        ( seconds to 1 foot)         ( 1 foot in mm)
         6.09252       x          50.02856            =       304.800

  ( mm per-sec)      ( mm traveled)    ( does total mm traveled almost = 1 foot in mm)
  6.09252 x 50  =     304.626       304.626( mm traveled)  =  304.800 ( 1 foot in mm)-- ( acceptable)

      info to add to next calc--

       add 304.626( mm traveled) to the next "mm traveled" value from the next calc, to get the "total mm traveled" from all calcs--

      add the seconds to reach 1 foot, from each calc, to the seconds of the next calc, to get the total seconds to "bird-feeder"--
     
       re-calc--                                                           

        2   -     2000   =    -1998

       -1998 x 0.0348  =   -69.5304( meters)

         ( meters)          ( millimeters)
        -69.5304   =     +6.95304

  this re-calc process continues( ad nauseum), for about 333 calcs( feet), at this point, 1 foot is reached in 1 second-- this means we can add 1 foot, and 1 foot-pound, per second, there-after--

   333  -  2000  =  -1666

   5.077969 mm per-sec

   5.07796 mm per-sec x 60 seconds = 304.6776mm, compared to 1 foot( 304.800mm)...acceptable--


    next calc--

      5.07796  x  the remaining 1665 feet to bird-feeder  =  8454.80434  ( sec to bird-feeder)

     8454.80434 ( sec to bird-feeder)   %  60  =   140.91339 ( min to bird-feeder)

      140.91339 ( min to bird-feeder)   %   60  =   2.34855  ( hours to bird-feeder)


       rough estimate from first 333 calcs--

      it took about 50 seconds per-calc to reach 1 foot--
      50 x 333 = 166650 seconds--
      166650  %  60  =  277.5  min
       277.5  5  60  =  4.625    hours

      add 4.625 hours, from first calc, to 2.34855 hours, from second calc  = 6.97355  hours to "bird-feeder"

conclusion--

      this suggests to me, that a satellite that weighs 20,000 pounds, flys at 333 feet above the
  atmosphere...

   taking the problem from mind numbing, in the beginning of the calc, to a comparative "no-brain-er"...
  --in an instant--
____________________________________________________________________________

the material below needs more work...but not today--  :o(
    
 
   5.07 x the remaining distance = total seconds...
   total seconds % 60 = min








    
   having fun with decimal points...  it seems the easy way was close( i lost that math, scribbled over it)--

    decimal putting procedure( bang decimal over left/right)--

    example--

      6.09 divided by 30.48=5.3  ( bang the decimal points over on both numbers being crunched, and proceed)...

    example--

      6.09 % 30.48 can be crunched as--    609.0 % 3048.0 = 5.3--   ("easy money")

 --time, and care, taken while deploying the decimal putting procedure, improves "short-game"...exponentially--

     --procedures to deploy if seconds to 1 foot are less than 1 second( nano-seconds)--
    example--





  re-calc continued--
    by adding together, how long it takes in seconds to reach 1 foot, after re-calcing for new foot-pounds value( 1 more foot-pound is added, after 1 more foot is reached, above the value of the distance of the previous "geo-sync degradation calc")...the total seconds of"geo-sync degradation process" can be known--
continue re-calcs...until bird feeder has a visitor--
















   as numbers get bigger, bang the decimal over 1 to change up to decimeters, then to meters, ect...
possibly re-calc back to feet(from the metric system)--

  out of time again at the library-- also, missing a page out of my note-book again..making things difficult...best wishes,  john kruschke--
  --this one is crunched, but needs  the nano-second calc stuff, and some tidying up...i will work on this one tomorrow--



No comments:

Post a Comment