RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] computer and car prices (was Re: [MLUG])

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Ross, Matt wrote:

> > The whole idea of cars smashing like tin cans has to do with energy
> > transfer. Smashing the car body consumes its kinetic energy and slows
> > the colliding objects down. The frame is what should keep the 
> 
> The problem is that it slows them down, transferring energy, too
> fast. A ricochet would transfer some energy, but not so much
> that inertia would kill you.

I don't follow you.  To richochet, you have to slow down just as
much (to 0 velocity in that direction), too, but you store the
kinetic energy as potential energy in the spring/your frame and then
re-accelerate, which doesn't make things any better really.

The ideal situation is to slow the car down over as long a period of 
time as possible.  So if you literally had 500 feet of stacked coke 
cans on the front of your car, you could probably survive a pretty 
impressive crash since you would be decelerating for quite a long 
time. :-)

Or am I missing something?

> We're not talking about a rubber ball that would bounce off
> anything. Just a bumper designed to deflect cars rather than
> take a head on impact. You'd slow down and straighten out on the
> first wall or rail you ricocheted into.

That sounds really bad if you're on a multi-lane road.

jking

--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/