1 Refactive Index of Light (n) = [(Speed-of-Light In Vacuum) / (Phase Velocity)]. 2 Light passing through Gross Matter (atmosphere), other than a perfect superfluid vacuum such as outer-space, will incur a certain Refractive Index. 3 MIT built a 1 Trillion Frames-per-Second (FPS) camera to "measure" the one-way-speed-of-light. This turned out to be a failure. Yes, the propagation of light from Point-A to Point-B was in fact 'tracked'. But, if the light can already be 'seen', then it has already incured two-way reflection & refraction across its propagation-medium ("diameter of light beam"). 4 Including what you mentioned, that Light is not proprgating through a "perfect vacuum": the Gross Matter (atmosphere) itself is acticulating inherent reflection & refraction, simultaneously. 5 More than likely, the 'one-way-speed-of-light' is either 'Unknowable' or 'Non-Existent'. 6 Cautiously using the phrase 'Non-Existent'. Just because we haven't figured-it-out, doesn't mean it "doesn't exist".

You're welcome!

Hi John! Absolutely true. This lecture was from seven (7) years ago, prior to earning my Aerospace Engineering BSc. Degree (Western Michigan University). In my previous career, I was an (A.A.S.) FAA A&P Mechanic. While at university, I uploaded this lecture. It is incomplete and not updated. A few recently uploaded videos are fundamentals-focused across: Fluid Mechanics & Thermodynamics. Including Aerodynamic Lift (L), Aerodynamic Drag (D), Power Lost to Overcome Aerodynamic Drag (P-aero-d), Lift-to-Drag Ratio (L/D), Oswald Number (e), Reynold's Number (Re), Conservation-of-Energy (1st Law of Thermo), and Navier-Stokes (∇). Revisiting propeller-fundamentals posits: Lift Equation, Simplified-Momentum, Re-Number, L/D or T/D, in abstraction with various Helical-Twist Schedules (differing by manufacturer). We could assume an 80% Propeller Efficiency (outside of innovative design + materials). The Lift Equation + Simplified-Momentum tends to generate 'base-values', and nearly 15% accuracy-loss. Breaking these into Logarithms places consistent-accuracy across practical limits. Much is missing from this lecture such as: Lift Equation (L) = [(Cl x A x P x V^2) / (2)] <==> Drag Equation (D) = [(Cd x A x P x V^2) / (2)] <==> T/D <==> Multi-Blade Logarithms <==> Power-Transfer (Conservation-of-Energy), and their Partial Differential Equations. Just to name a few. An updated 'Propeller Thrust' video-lecture is long overdue! Thank you John for your comment!

1 This presentation is with respect to Fluid Mechanics, Aerodynamics, Kinematics, and The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation-of-Energy). 2 The asteroid would naturally lock-into its Aerodynamic-Boundary-Layer (longitudinally) as it enters Earth's atmosphere. Naturally positioning across the lowest projected-frontal-area (length-wise), and thus least likely to "tumble". 3 It is a 'world of difference' to measure zero-drag Inertial Velocity in outer-space (12,600 m/s) compared to through Earth's atmosphere. This is like comparing motion through a 'vacuum' to motion through 'quick-sand'. The Dynamic Viscosity potential of Earth's atmosphere alone, decreases the velocity of Apophis by 81%, or to 2,445 m/s (Terminal Velocity) from its Initial Velocity of 12,600 m/s in outer space. 4 The Dynamic Viscosity of Earth's atmosphere is quite high at extreme velocities. In fact, rockets traveling at 'Mach 27' (17,000 MPH) CANNOT in Earth's atmosphere, and need to reach non-atmospheric-sub-orbit, while not completely separating from Earth's gravitational field. Examples: The former 'Space Shuttle' and any sort of 'Intercontinental-Ballistic-Missile'. 5 If Apophis strikes Earth, its actual destruction potential is DECREASED by 81%. Due to the Aerodynamic Drag slowing down the asteroid by 81%, substantially decreasing its Kinetic Energy. The maximum constant velocity limitation of an object in free-fall (due to Aerodynamic Drag) is its Terminal Velocity. 6 Impact Force is equal to the asteroid's Final Velocity times its Mass, then divided into Gravitational Acceleration. Impact Time = 1 second. Kinetic Energy of asteroid = 0.5 x Mass x Velocity^squared. Kinetic Energy (Joules) per Second is equal to Watts Power. The Impact Power of Apophis will ONLY equate to around 1300 Hiroshima-Type nuclear blasts. Not enough Energy-Transfer to completely destroy Earth. 7 Apophis will shut down the world's systems if it does hit Earth in 2029, 2036, or 2068 . But, Apophis will not "destroy Earth", and is NO WHERE near as powerful or deadly as the Asteroid(s) that destroyed the Dinosaurs. Survivors of Apophis rebuilding civilization is a CERTAINTY, should it hit Earth. 8 Apophis isn't is the "deadliest asteroid". The Earth has experienced FAR WORST!

Don't dispute any of what you say here because there's a lot of long science words. Jargon aside, we can't do anything about and it will cause a mess wherever it hits so why worry? And 'ONLY 1300 Hiroshima type blasts'? That's alright then as long as it lands on the Idiot Trump's house when he's having a pool party with Elon the Sad. :-)

Obtain your Binance Deposit Address + Initiate Withdrawl on OKX + Confirm The Transaction + Wait For The Transfer To Complete. Be careful. Double-Check.

Chevy Volt & Bolt models, their software plaftorm, tend to use partial piston-electric AC generator interface along with battery draw. Depending on acceleration vs. constant speed (no-acceleration) driving techniques. Thus, prolonging battery runtime. This analysis models 67% battery draw for practicaliity. At 90% draw, residual charge (10%) would trigger LVC (Low-Voltage-Cutoff). Triggering startup of onboard piston-electric AC generator. At constant-speed (no acceleration), increased weight has little effect on power draw (W x V x 0.012) / (550) = Watts Power To Overcome Tire-Rolling-Resistance. However, Watts Power to accelerate an object: (m x v^2) / (2 x t) ===> substantially higher. You seem like a conservative driver (slow acceleration, constant speed, cruise control). 250 mile range on 60,000 Watt-Hours charge is feasible with Chevy Bolt: tons of abstract software architecture and partial piston-electric AC generator during heavy acceleration, unlike during cruise speed on level road. QUESTION: How much has your onboard Gasoline decreased after 250 miles? Chevy Bolt and Volt both have onboard piston-electric AC generator(s).

@@markscythian7179 The bolt is pure electric with a 65 KWH battery . It gets about 4 miles per kilowatthour.

@@donalddouglas5988 What is the mAh capacity of your Bolt's battery? Is it greater than 30,000 mAh?

@@donalddouglas5988 More specifically, what are the Battery Specifications for your Chevy Bolt EV? ===> 1.) mAh capacity. 2.) Battery Voltage. 3.) Discharge Rate Limits (usually 2.0C to 5.0C). Knowing you have a 65,000 Joule charge, we can work out the calculations based on 4 miles/kW-Hr. That is after the mAh capacity, discharge-limits, and battery voltage are known. Thanks.

At -20 degrees C, the vehicle's Amenities-Related Latent Heat (mass x temperature) is a fraction of the vehicles Amenities-Related Latent Heat at Standard Temperature conditions (15 degrees C). Approximately 10% of vehicle weight would comprise 'Amenities-Mass'. An 'LH Differential' (outside environment <=> vehicle amenities), substantially decreasing Battery Runtime, and yielding the following calculations: [((15) x (9/5) + (32)] - [(-20) x (9/5) + (32)] = -63 F or -52.8 C ===> [(3,500 Lbm x 0.1) x (-63 F)] = -22,050 BTUs' or -5,556.6 Kilo-Calories ===> Assuming one (1) hour battery run-time at (15 C) Standard Temperature Conditions ===> [(-22,050 BTUs') / (3,600 seconds/hour)] = -6.125 BTU/Sec ===> [(-6.125 BTU/Sec x 1,056 W/BTU/Sec)] = -6,468 Watts (lost to colder -.20 C temperature) ===> [(1) - (31,200 Watts DC Power - 6,468 W)] / [(31,200 Watts)] = 0.21 ===> 21% reduction in battery run-time. Approximate Runtime = [(1 - 0.21) x (1 hour)] = 0.79 hours = 47 MINUTES. If your runtime is lower than 47 MINUTES, then the assumed Amenities-Mass is greater than 10% proportionality.

@@markscythian7179 can you explain this in english (im not smart)

@@DarthLeopard This analysis calculates the equivalent Potential Energy of a typical Electric Vehicle's FULL-BATTERY-CHARGE to the equivalent Potential Energy of UNBURNED GASOLINE. A typical EV's Full-Battery-Charge has a Potential Energy equivalent to the Potential Energy of 1.9 gallons of unburned Gasoline.

@@markscythian7179 sorry I meant the -20°c maths

@@DarthLeopard The calculation decribes the temperature difference at -20 C from Standard Temperature (15 C), multiplied times the Amenities-Mass (mass of car involved in heating or approximately 10% of total vehicle weight ===> 0.1 x 3,500 Lbm = 350 Lbm). Thus, calculating the required change in Latent Heat (mass x temperature), or in this case the (negative-value) -BTUs/Hr to maintain 15 C temperature within -20 C outside air temperature. -BTUs'/Hr then converted to -BTUs'/Sec by dividing into 3,600 seconds per hour. Conversion Factor: 1 BTU/Sec = 1,056 Watts. Hence, -BTUs'/Sec converted to -Watts, or the additional battery power needed to support amenities.

Thanks! In this particular analysis video, I decided to screen-record a Slide Presentation instead. Usually, I'll animate sequential handwritten text from blank to populated whiteboard. Graphical animations comparing the Energy Densities of Gasoline & Lithium-Ion-Battery (materials) seems like a start. Thanks for the suggestion!

That's disappointing you should have listened to the entire video because he covers that

@NVAfilm Maybe I would have it weren't so dry. Still the point of his title is just nonsense here. There are so many more variables. Just the "typical" ev battery charge may be 2-3 times his assumed number

The energy-density of most EV batteries do not possess the energy-density of crude oil: [(60,000 Joules / 454.5 Kg) = 132 Joules/Kg = Typical EV Battery] vs. [(20,000 BTU x 1056) / (1/2.2 kg) = 46,464,000 Joules/kg = Crude Oil/Hydrocarbon-Fuel]. 132 Joules/kg = EV Battery vs. 46,464,000 Joules/kg = Crude Oil. The Pu-238 nuclear-electric battery has an energy-density of 2,200,000,000 Joules/kg. Used experimentally and safety in non-civilian applications. Even at higher electromotive efficiency (85%) compared to gasoline-piston-engine thermal efficiency (33%), conventional EV battery materials have TERRIBLE energy-density. This analysis EXCLUDES onboard gasoline-piston-engine driving AC Generator to power AC-Electric-Motor, for which most EVs' are equipped with. EV Battery run-time ALONE is not competitive.

DOF calculation + equations ONLY. Angular Velocity (w) = 2(Pi)(RPM/60), w = radians/sec, not posted in video. The Motion Equations can be used for design (long-hand or CAD).

Sir can u upload how to create Linkage 3.0 for it​@markscythian7179

Hi!

0402 0.1uF

"On 31 January 2008, the U.S. Navy tested a railgun that fired a projectile at 10.64 MJ with a muzzle velocity of 2,520 m/s (8,270 ft/s).[80] The power was provided by a new 9-megajoule prototype capacitor bank using solid-state switches and high-energy-density capacitors delivered in 2007 and an older 32-MJ pulse power system“ - Wikipedia

@@alexipeck4201 So I would need an aircraft carrier size subwoofer..

"The fireball is a result of pieces of the projectile shearing off during launch and igniting mid-air."

Arc Flash. Google arc flash videos. The device is effectively a purpose built arc flash device designed to fire a projectile

nope thats the result of quite a large amount of electricity 🤣

vaporized aluminum explodes when it touches air

@Angryharry1 Yeah, if the wires were exposed to the air. The full gun would explode and not be able to fire again if the explosion was electricity.

Reality is Mathematical. Critical-Thinking Skills. Thanks!

@markscythian7179 You read my greater signal! Given the context of course.

You're welcome Seb!

We'll know April 13, 2029... I think it's a continent destroyer and it would disrupt the planet for at least 10 years... in don't look up, the chalkboard had the same numbers, 0.000...

Seriously, how would you get there and where would you live?

[(10,791 kW-Hrs/Yr) / (12 months)] = 899.25 kW-Hrs/Month ===> [($63.00) / (899.25 kW-Hrs)] = $0.14 per kW-Hr. Localized (smaller) steam-turbines could reduce the cost of AC Electricity by 50%. Excluding taxes, fees, regulations, overhead, etc.

Can some one help us we live in Bardwell Kentucky and I promise u will find these objects hidden in are home day and night it’s used!! “Contact fbi” please

@@MichaelDerousse Are you certain that you are T.I.? If so, Electronic or Frequency Countermeasures can solve your problem. If you find various Frequency-Meter Apps and download them onto your phone, you could measure the Hertz Frequency(s). If above 20KHz or below 20 Hz, then you'll have proof of unauthorized frequencies within civilian domain. There are other ways of shielding harmful EMF frequencies. Even changing which foods you eat such as herbs, water, electrolytes, as these too dampen EMI frequencies. Countermeasures include: mechanical, electronic, biochemical, structural, and material. Faraday Clothing used by those who work on Radar Systems also works. Tell me more. Maybe we can connect outside of YT.

Gordon's Reloading Tool (GRT) software is industry-specific: not bad for reloading. However this video utilizes Thermodynamics, Gas Mechanics and Engineering Physics to derive given application(s). I could make another video with an Excel Ballistics Software platform that I designed a few months ago for viewer simplicity. Deriving physics equations to solve engineering problems is what I do. Hence, I prefer to solve/prove sub-systems by means of long-hand calculations. Should I make another video for viewer simplicity by publishing an Excel Ballistics Software Platform?

For an American, Goddard built the best rockets during his time (Cold War Era). As a kid Goddard almost got into a lot of trouble building stainless-steel rockets and launching them near-horizontally over his hometown! lol As an adult rocket engineer, Goddard's rockets were very innovative. However at the time, his fellow Americans did not take him seriously, even ridiculing him. Goddard got his break during the Cold War, and became the American version of von Braun. It's all history now: Goddard, von Braun, and Johnson remain as the Western world's aerospace engineering legends. Media is never qualified to share their opinions on anything STEM-related, because Media are not Physicists, Chemists, Engineers, or Mathematicians. Typically, Media takes Big Money from industrialists to downplay competition or innovation toward maintaining the Status-Quo. The lay public should never take Media seriously. In fact, the lay public should demand that ONLY qualified Engineers & Scientists share their thoughts on technological innovation. Anyone with a Mechanical/Aerospace Engineering or Physics background after let's say Sputnik (1950's Sergei Korolov & Valentin Glushko = Eastern/Soviet world's best Cold War aerospace engineers), and especially during the 1950's Jet Age, should have clearly known that the Conservation-of-Momentum supports rocket propulsion in a vacuum or in outer-space. Thrust pushing against an atmosphere, at best, will harness no more than 8% to 10% of total thrust.

Love and La Ratta

1 EVs' (5.28 MJ/kg) just don't have the Energy-Density compared to Hydrocarbons (21.12 MJ/kg). However, the Overall Efficiencies of EVs' are higher compared to Heat Engines (70% vs. 25%). Portability, recharge/refill, and cost are substantially lower regarding hydrocarbons as well. 2 Modern 4-stroke Gasoline piston engine-driven cars literally reduce 1 Gasoline Mole (C8H18) + 25 Oxygen-gas Moles (O2) to carbon-dioxide gas (plant food), and water-vapor made possible by: Anti-Detonation-Sensing supporting 11.5:1+ Compression Ratios', Variable-Valve-Cam-Timing (VVCT), thus maintaining 100% Volumetric-Efficiency at all RPM-settings, Power-Recovery-Systems (mechanical, electrical, thermal, pneumatic, hydraulic), graphene-die-electric-subtrate-electrical-and-electronic solid-state materials (rather than wiring), looser tolerances, nano-graphene, software-heavy, and fewer parts. 3 The 'late-model automobile' is literally a water & carbon-dioxide output generator, with very low or trace-levels of Oxides-of-Nitrogen (NoX), and Oxides-of-Sulfur (SoX) emissions. Not to mention that literally all engine blocks are recycled aluminum, 3-D-Printed, if not graphene-substrates, or CNC-Machined, inlcuding reuse of CNC-subtracted scraps. 4 Recycling aluminum takes very little effort and energy to re-form into components, compared to titrating aluminum from bauxite-ore in the absense of oxygen, using fluorine-gas at around 900 degrees C and 14 ATMs', i.e. Aluminum-Smelting: almost a thing of the past, as most if not all aluminum-reserves have been processed into aluminum-alloys over the last 90 years. Forming engine blocks from recycled aluminum is cheaper and MORE environmentally-friendly compared to manufacturing parts for EVs'. 5 EVs' and their electromagnetic and inductive-field isolation systems also require many exotic polymeric materials, some of which are radio-active carbon-isotopes, also having manufacturing emissions which are difficult to contain, and damage the environment. 6 As for Nuclear Power, all nuclear and thermo-nuclear power sources are created UNEQUAL. If we're just talking about discharging neutrinos at higher electron-count and quantum-spin-propgation compared to naturally-existing Atomic Number(s) for let's say Uranium, then we're dealing with issues of Fall-Out, an unacceptable source of high-energy-density potential-energy. However, if we're working with Depleted Fall-Out artifacts such as Plutonium-239 having an energy density of 1.8 million times that of Hydrocarbons, HANDLING is already INERTED. Such as in our University Nuclear Engineering research, we work directly with INERTED Pu-239. Or else it would never have been commercially-viable. 7 Nuclear-Battery would work with respect to electron-discharge applications, NEVER fission, NEVER Fall-Out. The real source of clean, safe, and reliable electrical power are the HUGE stockpiles of INERTED Pu-239-Isotope: the reduced/spent material of Uranium-235 Nuclear-Testing. 8 Regarding nuclear weapons, ONLY Kilo-Ton warheads could ever be set-off into weapons applications. All Megaton warhead applications are just "science experiments" and are NOT usable for warfare, unless EVERYONE on Earth is to be killed. 9 Clearing atomic neutrons or the word "nuclear" means nothing outside of SPECIFICS! All of us in the Engineering, Physics, Chemistry or STEM Communities know this. Unlike the non-engineers and non-scientists across 98% of the population. The Media isn't real. The Media relies on scientifically-illiterate people to accept their nonsense. 10 Electric Vehicles would work well if they were powered on INERTED Pu-239. This goes for Electric Power Utility Companies too. 11 Elon Musk already told the public this as well. But no one listens. Everything is hype and "feelings" rather than pure science/engineering: Calculus, Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering. Only 2% of the US adult population are accredited scientists/engineers. This is the real problem. 12 Science is not a "Democracy". Science is limited only to: Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology (across Newtonian, Quantum, and Informatic paradigms). There are also many systems in Mathematics/Science that are TRUE but NOT provable! 13 However, we in the STEM Community have already solved all problems regrding the "energy crisis". The real problems are: politics, business, economics, and the burdern of monoplies having huge stakes in governmental affairs. 14 Most if not all of the "green energy" products are literally worthless, and only function as Investment Slush Funds at best. 15 However, eventually INERTED Pu-239 Substrate nuclear-electric cores will be used (probably by Musk & Tesla), within ten years. This is when million-mile (non-chargable) EVs' roll-out. Trust me, "they" will never tell the public these are nuclear-electric-solid-state EVs', even though they will be the SAFEST, MOST RELIABLE and MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY-CLEAN EVs'. 16 Not much one can do with any sort of Battery (Lead-Acid or Ni-Cad or Lithium-Polymer) to support continuous-operation RPM/Torque. Except scam people out of their money. lol 17 It's all about squeezing enough profits $$$ until everyone knows it is a scam. Followed by suddenly releasing the "real technologies". People quickly forget and it becomes 'business and usual'. 18 Mastering Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Calculus, Computer Science, Operations-Research, Statistics, across a Mechanical Engineering or Electrical Engineering, or Physics, or Chemistry Bachelor of Science degree is the first step to understand what is really going. Followed by at least ten years of work experience, plus a Master's of Science and PhD degrees' in either Physics, or Chemistry, or Mathematics. 19 Remember, only 2% of the US adult population are accredited engineers & scientists. Everyone else literally has no clue what's really going on. 20 Science is NOTHING without Mathematics. 21 In fact, science is just a "word". 22 Real 'science' is DESCRIBING sub-atomic particles, energy, atoms, molecules, and all natural & synthetic systems MATHEMATICALLY (Differential & Integral Calculus). Or else it is not science at all. Science is nothing without Mathematical-Modeling. 23 Lastly, 96% of the known universe is Energy and described by Quantum Physics-Chemistry-Biology-Mathematics. Only 4% of the known universe is Physical and described by Newtonian/Classical Physics-Chemistry-Biology-Mathematics. 24 The DETAILS are EVERYTHING! lol Subscribe to my channel to gain access to the lastest fundamentals & concepts in engineering/science. Thanks for you comment!

@@markscythian7179 And thanks for your utter nonsense.

@@markscythian7179 The only reason I would subscribe to your channel would be to to counter the endless stream of bullshit you’re spewing.

Because the right-side is the MIDDLE OF THE CIRCUIT, for which positive-electron-flow transitions to negative-electron-flow. In DC Electrical Circuits, electricity flows from positive (+) to negative (-) ONLY. DC = Direct Current. By starting at the MIDDLE OF A DC SERIES-PARALLEL CIRCUIT or at the 'right-side', resistances can be combined sequentially and accurately.

Yes. 3-dimensional vortical displacement. I'm glad you asked this question. Another video is on its way focusing on: Heart "Valves" (Magneto-Oscillation Nodes), blood displacement Magnetic Resonance, and Bio-Transduction.

If the heart is not a pump (and that certainly makes sense), then what does that mean for blood pressure as a biomarker?

@mikeobrien1559 that volume versus capacity has a particular balance in order for the oxygen in the hemoglobin to be transferred properly. Also allows for things like insulin to balance sugar for ribosomes to make glycerin for cells. The heart makes a delicate balance between volume and capacity.

@@buckaroundandfindout I thought oxygen was "disassociated" from hemoglobin via the Bohr's effect. (We're getting to the point where I'm in over my head, so type slowly.🤣)

@@mikeobrien1559 I'm not sure to what context you're referring to when you say disassociated because hemoglobin is responsible for oxygen being fed to tissues. Now. It is true that oxygen has an s figure and that precludes it from attaching to the external arms of the hemoglobin, but I'm not sure that that is a disassociative factor so much as a limiter.

'Chaos Theory' or Non-Linear Dynamics [(xn+1 = rxn(1-xn))] = Finite-Elemental or Discrete. Quantum Numbers and 'Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle' yield more accurate abstraction-decoding compared to "unrecognized-pattern" (non-linear & colinear systems) aka "Chaos". Even the 'Double-Slit-Experiment' makes 'Chaos Theory' obsolete = too specialized. If one has completed their Bachelor of Science degree in either: Mechanical/Aerospace Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Computer-Science, or Operations-Research, one would know that 'Chaos Theory' is too specialized, and could, at best, quickly solve 'Structural Resonance' models. However, Quantum Mechanics and Fractals are more efficient, and correlate Order w/ Chaos, as one system, under Fractals, and/or '8-D Quasi-Crystalline Matrices'. Even Partial-Derivatives across Fractals out-perform Chaos Theory. Please write the Differential Equations you find most useful pertinent to 'Chaos Theory'. Thanks.

'Chaos' (Non-Linear Dynamics) brings forth Order, in Reverse Entropic Systems. 'Order' brings forth uncertainty but not Chaos across random position and momentum (Heisenberg). Proving Chaos approaching the Limits of positive or negative Infinity yields 'No Solution'. Non-Linear Dynamics (Chaos) models are useful when isolating Structural Resonance (Linear Algebra and Eigen Values = Scalar NOT Vector). 'Maxwell Field Equations' and 'Fibonacci Sequence' (also) yield complete Order-Chaos models across Wave-Particle-Duality (Lambda-Cubed Wave Function). What are your thoughts?

Thanks!

COME OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON BITCH UPLOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD INSIDE MY BRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brilliant idea! Emergency response. Fire-fighting. Regardless to elevation-angle, Hydrojet Water Range will equal 50 to 100 feet. High-velocity waterflow would disperse as atomized water droplets (Turbulent Reynold's Number) over a 33-Foot-Range. Effective Range: Approximately (1.5 to 3.0) x 33 feet = 50 to 100 FEET RANGE. Relevancies: 'Water Impact Force' and 'Water-Mass-Flow' upon Target/Fire: -2,565 Lbf, and 96.8 Lbm/Sec (11.7 gallons/sec = 702 GPM). If this Hydrojet Application was used to fight fires, it could also cut through barriers such as brick and most non-reinforced structures.

Also, consider these metrics: Delivering 96.8 Lbm/Sec of water upon a Wood-Fire will REMOVE heat at this rate: [(-1000 BTU/Lbm) x (96.8 Lbm/Sec)] = -96,800 BTU/Sec. Specific Gravity of Wood = 1.5 ===> [(96,800 / 1.5)] = 64,533 Lbm. Delivering 96.8 Lbm/Sec of Water upon a wooden-house-fire, removes sufficient heat to halt 64,533 Lbm of Wood from burning. However, about 50% of the water's heat-removal-effect is LOST during water-transfer. So, [(64,533 Lbm Wood) x (0.5)] ===> 32,267 Lbm/Sec of burning Wood will quickly lose sufficient heat to extinguish. Latent Heat = Mass x Temperature ===> Decreases water's heat-removal-effect by 10%, or [(0.9 x 32,267)] = 29,040 Lbm/Sec. 96.8 LBM/SEC WATER-FLOW DELIVERED UPON A WOODEN-HOUSE-FIRE EXTINGUISHES 29,040 LBM/SEC BURNING WOOD. Regarding Forest-Fires, the water content within trees would decrease extingushing by 60% or: [(0.4) x (29,040)] = 11,616 Lbm/Sec. 96.8 LBM/SEC WATER-FLOW DELIVERED UPON FOREST-FIRE EXTINGUISHES 11,616 LBM/SEC TREE-WEIGHT.

You're welcome!

Hi! You're wecome! Since we're using Lbf Force for weight of object instead of Newtons Force, we can equate the Momentum (mass x change-in-velocity) as: Lb Weight x Final Velocity in Ft/Sec (if dropped from rest), in the US System of Measure. Followed by dividing that product into gravitational-acceleration or 32.2 Ft/Sec^2. We will have to do the calculation that way IF USING the US System of Measure. If we're using the Metric System, then it is Kg-m/s^2 or (mass kg x change-in-acceleration m/s^2) WITHOUT needing to divide into graviational acceleration (9.81 m/s^2). This is because Absolute Weight in the US System of Measure is Slugs. 1 Slug = 32.2 Lbf Weight. This unit is what correlates Lbm x Gravity with Lbf Weight. It seems like Force-Weight = m x g is only evident in the Metric System. However, what differentiates Lbm from Lbf is the Absolute Weight or 32.2 LbF Weight per Slug. The easy way using the US System of Measure is: [(Lb Weight x Final Velocity Ft/Sec) / (32.2)] ===> Impact Force in the opposite direction or the same value, but a negative (-) value. This is the Normal Force in the opposite direction immediately after impact ===> Newton's Second & Third Laws of Motion.

Henry, if you are interested in private physics tutoring, please let me know. I provide broad fundemantal concept-based learning strategies. Thanks.

If delta v is in the last equation, wouldn't you have to use the 439.5 ft/s? Velocity started at 0 and ended with 439.5, so wouldn't delta v be the 439.5?

Hi! You may want to view this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p3qraJyXjZmqn7s Design plans and narrated-lecture regarding a technology congruent with your inquiry(s). The first Alternative-Power-Concept (in green). 'Non-Combustion Compressed Hydrogen Gas Piston Engine'. Cost-effective, environmentally-friendly, and high energy-density. Hydride-Electroysis of Water split into Hydrogen & Oxygen gases: 66.7 times less expensive compared to DC Current Water-Electrolysis Feasible Liquid-Hydrogen filling-stations: cost-effective Gaseous-Hydrogen liquefaction to Liquid-Hydrogen. Non-Combustion Liquid-Hydrogen Gas-Expansion-Ratio = 1:848 Emissions: 100% Water Vapor. Thanks for your comment!

Among the fastest methods, yes! This video was more of a "proof-analysis" to fall-back-on, if faster methods are not understood. Thanks for your comment!

Steve, your perceptions are totally flawed. You are a technician not an engineer. "Associate" degrees are not offerered at universities, only four-year Bachelor's degrees are. lol Until you complete a four-year Bachelor of Science in an engineering discipline at an accredited university (like I have), you cannot call yourself an engineer. Your US Navy career as an electronics technician means nothing. Your civilian career as an electronics technician means nothing. Your fixed-perceptions of "science" since high school means nothing. Your son earning a four-year engineering degree has nothing to do with you. I think you're you're a bit alienated and lonely, and have a bone to pick with other YT users. Complete your four-year Bachelor of Science degree in a STEM discipline, earning a 3.50 GPA or higher. Do that first. Then you may realize there are multivariable methods of deriving solutions. You failed to even understand that vertical-climb-acceleration is NOT instantaneous! VSIs' will never instantaneously "jump" to "800 FPM" climb! Therefore, vertical-climb is an average-rate-of-acceleration, or distance divided into time squared. Ultimately, the idea is to calculate total absolute pressure at the lower wing surface. Which is a summation of: (average lift-force / 2D-wing-area) + (force-wieght / 2D-wing-area) + (atmospheric pressure). The Average-Climb-Acceleration must be derived first, as a product-function with airplane mass, to yield average Lift-Force. You need to know that Projected-Height-of-Airfoil increases with increased-AOA. The bifurcated boundary-layer-airflows (upper & lower) incur increased height differential at increased AOA. Which induces inversion of kinetic and potential energies across upper & lower bifurcated airflows: Upper surface airflow will increase in kinetic energy (velocity), and lower surface airflow will increase in potential energy (pressure). A function of h2/h1-Differential across the 'Bernoulli Equation'. This is why Symmetrical Airfoils disprove "Transit Theory". It is NOT "distance differential" across upper-and-lower-wing-surface-lengths. It is Projected Height Differential (h2/h1) with increased AOA. This inverts kinetic & potential energies at upper-and-lower-boundary-layer-airflows, respectively. Lastly, most of your comments are littered with numerous GRAMMATICAL ERRORS and FALSE STATEMENTS. But, I chose to look past that, and instead have a civil conversation with you. No need to get mad at me due to your insecurities. But, if you want to call yourself an engineer, first complete your Four-Year Bachelor of Science degree in an engineering or STEM discipline at an accredited university, earning a 3.50 GPA or higher. A 30-year-long career as a technician, does not make you an engineer. If you actually read my previous comment at the 'Aerodynamic Lift' video, you would know that I retired from a previous aviation maintenance career after earning a Two-Year Assocate of Science degree from a Community College + FAA A&P License + seven (7) years of experience in the aviation maintenance industry. FOLLOWED BY 'starting-all-over-again" and completing a Four-Year Bachelor of Science degree in Aeronautical Engineering at Western Michigan University, earning a 3.68 GPA. Subsequently working for several Start-Ups, and also teaching STEM coursework at private charter colleges for the last five (5) years. I don't why you are "disappointed" with me Steve. If anything, you should be disappointed with yourself for coming to my channel and posting comments about "engineering", when you yourself are not a degreed engineer.

@@markscythian7179 I see you can't address any of the points correctly. Sorry. Your assumptions are far off. Your research has also failed you, here . With other studies, I have a full BS University of Illinois '71 - High in my class. Second highest offer from a leading development company. . I also learned from and discussed some of these very things with leading aerodynamics authors / professors. . You ignore your most obvious errors and just go ad hominem. . In the older video you state two of the most common fallacies. The second and third items on that July 16 2016 paper. . - Higher speed flow has lower pressure than ambient - we easily measure the jet from a blower with a standard static pressure probe as having static pressure the SAME as ambient pressure of the still, near-by air, NOT lower as you state. - Lower speed flow, in relation to ambient will be at a higher pressure than ambient - Yet it is well known that stagnation pressure of a jet toward a surface is at the SAME speed as that stationary, ambient, yet has a higher pressure. Not to mention that is is hard to go slower than still air, thus a poor claim. You also can't clearly define what the ambient air is. . . . In addition, in my Fig 7., I show measured data showing that the air below a wing has higher pressure than ambient, but is accelerated to a higher speed that the air above the wing when referenced to the stationary air's inertial frame of reference. Also showing that the upper air has a greater acceleration. Therefore clearly showing that the 'faster' air having lower pressure, is a fallacy. . Yes, there is accelerations at the start and end of a climb, but only for a short time. while the bulk of a smooth limb is with a relatively steady VSI. Thus, making your calculation using 800 f/s *completely* invalid. AND ignoring that it is the incorrect equation to boot even if it was a constant Acceleration of 800 f/m^2. . . Remember that the 800 f/s is YOUR definition - and that equation is incorrect as I carefully explained . There is no way to defend that and simply denying that is not refuting with any justification. . Your made up term of Bernoulli Pressure". . You refuse to admit your misconceptions and errors expressed in those videos. Too bad. I took the time to watch and carefully detail the errors, but you won't even try to provide justification because you can't. Have a good life.

​@@Observ45er Steve, most of your assumptions about me are wrong. English might be your second language. You make so many grammatical, spelling, and sentence-structure errors. Not an aspect of a university graduate. You have so much to offer, graduating at nearly the top of your class (University of Illinois), and decades of experience. So, why don't you have much content at your YT Channel? All I see are two (2) videos, and 47 Subscribers at your YT Channel. Not an aspect of an "expert". Are you scared of publishing your work on YT? Why are you hiding out at your own little site with insignificant traffic? You're unaware of my intention(s) regarding this two-part aerodynamics video series, designed for audiences with very basic intro-level aerodynamics experience. Nothing too complex. STEM graduates are a very tiny market. Can't reach as many people compared to the general population. Now you know the marketing side of why people do what they do. Crazy people are 'concrete thinkers', categorizing everything into "black-and-white". Reality is not ideal. In fact, reality is highly abstract. Which is why I set my videos up the way I do. If you are as qualified as you claim, then surely, you would have published more than two (2) videos and have more than 47 Subscribers at your YT Channel! lol You want to disprove me, go ahead. But so do by making videos on your own YT Channel, rather than flooding my channel with your comments. Don't be lazy. You'll have to start publishing far more content at your YT Channel for the world take you seriously. We'll just leave it at that. Have a good life Steve! Smiles. :)

@@markscythian7179 Hi Mark, I understand your desire to help others, your good intentions. That is a good goal. . My aviation interest started in grade school since my dad learned to fly in biplanes and was an engineer with intense interest in fully understanding many things. And, yes, long ago I saw “equal transit’ in ground school, but wasn’t interested in anything but passing the test because the pilot license was a side interest from my chosen profession of engineering. . I built many model airplanes and did considerable radio control. . In the Navy, after high school, I was asked by Command to teach others in technician school. . After my BS at U of IL, in my professional capacity I learned from others & mentored less experienced engineers . I gave seminars as part of my profession as a development engineer. Along the way, I was as asked by two colleges to teach, as well as two elementary schools and scouts to do to STEM demos. . Volunteering at one of the 30+ national Challenger Learning Centers, I ran SETM demos for students and adults and was asked to manage the full cockpit flight simulator, donated by a local aircraft controls company, shown in my Quora Blog. I had 5th and 6th grade students landing the Space Shuttle at Kennedy Space Center in it. . Because I put aside flying decades ago, it was that simulator that motivated me to brush up in many aviation related areas, knowing I could be asked all kinds of questions by attendees. . Seeing all the lift misconceptions spread on the internet, by so many people with those very same good intentions to ‘explain’ physics to others; I read the writings of some well-known teachers and authors such as John D. Anderson, Anderson & Eberhardt, Doug McClean, Charles Eastlake, Holger Babinsky, Mark Drela and Krzysztof Fidkowski. . I also contacted some of them to insure I had complete understanding of various points. And, yes, my son, Embry-Riddle AE Grad who works in aircraft engineering, was a good resource to discus and clarify some things that helped me better explain things going forward. . I’ve also engaged in discussions under some of the many KZbin videos to learn how others viewed the misconceptions, so I could better explain things going forward. Good teaching requires knowing your audience. . My observations, NOT assumptions, of your videos comes from that background and that you clearly made errors: … In simply writing numbers thus: “930,79 Pa”. NOT good engineering. … Treating an 800 ft/min constant Climb as an 800 ft/sec^2 acceleration. … Then, using a faulty equation to calculate the nonexistent acceleration that does not add to gravity in the physical world. ... A significant one I mentioned earlier where you say: "because of the curve, the airflow will want to speed up and accelerate". What principle in physics shows us that a flow has a desire to speed up due to a curved surface up ahead? . Those errors are IN YOUR videos and I see you have nothing to say about them, but vague, non physics comments about crazy people, the 'wants' of air and numbers of KZbin videos. Can you either agree you made errors, or refute any with physics principles that support your claim? . . . . . . The worst thing is that you won’t own up to your errors and learn. That is not what I, my father, nor the many good engineers I’ve worked with for decades, would do. Full understanding of our craft and the best possible designs were always the combined goal. . I’m sorry to be candid like this, but if you are actually working in aviation as an engineer, I recommend that you ask some authoritative aerodynamicists to review your videos and see what they say. My solid knowledge and experience tells me they will undoubtedly agree with me. . . . . Actively working for decades with the national Challenger Learning Centers, two elementary schools & colleges, scouts and beginning engineers is hardly a sign of laziness. . . In closing, IF your only metric is the number of KZbin videos that indicates true expert knowledge, then you’ll worship this guy with new videos every few days and the way he describes Aerodynamic Lift, here. .Copy and paste the link and it should skip the beginning chatter at 3:53: . Sometimes KZbin deletes URLs so fix the DOTs. . www. DOT youtube. DOT com/watch?v=VhReoAJZzpE&t=233s - - Good luck going forward.

P.S. That bad notation is not at time 7:48 as stated in the transcript, but 8:08.