Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Aubrey McClendon will not be down for corn flakes.!
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tRidiot" data-source="post: 2856524" data-attributes="member: 9374"><p>Mine's not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, the difference is <strong>quite </strong>significant. The kinetic energy imparted in a crash is only linearly dependent on the mass of an object, but is equally dependent on the square of the velocity of said object. So going faster makes a much bigger impact on the kinetic energy.</p><p></p><p>Thus, extrapolating from his 5500 pound 2013 Tahoe (if I remember right) at various speeds, we get these values (in newton-meters, or joules):</p><p></p><p>50 mph - 623,205J (459,652 ft-lb)</p><p>85 mph - 1,801,063J (1,328,396 ft-lb)</p><p>100 mph - 2,492,821J (1,838,610 ft-lb)</p><p>115 mph - 3,296,756J (2,431,562 ft-lb)</p><p></p><p></p><p>As a comparison, your standard 230-grain .45 ACP round fired from a government model 1911 has just under 477J of energy, or almost 325 ft-lb.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tRidiot, post: 2856524, member: 9374"] Mine's not. Actually, the difference is [B]quite [/B]significant. The kinetic energy imparted in a crash is only linearly dependent on the mass of an object, but is equally dependent on the square of the velocity of said object. So going faster makes a much bigger impact on the kinetic energy. Thus, extrapolating from his 5500 pound 2013 Tahoe (if I remember right) at various speeds, we get these values (in newton-meters, or joules): 50 mph - 623,205J (459,652 ft-lb) 85 mph - 1,801,063J (1,328,396 ft-lb) 100 mph - 2,492,821J (1,838,610 ft-lb) 115 mph - 3,296,756J (2,431,562 ft-lb) As a comparison, your standard 230-grain .45 ACP round fired from a government model 1911 has just under 477J of energy, or almost 325 ft-lb. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Aubrey McClendon will not be down for corn flakes.!
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom