Non-Protected Camera Survives 100,000ft Fall

CptFalcon said:
I'm pretty sure just about anything would break going 240 mph or at least be extremely pliable.
Click to expand...

Drop a flat piece of paper versus a crumbled up one. Shape does make a difference.

Also, the iPad was bent when the guy picked it up off the ground. It just happened to land right across the middle of its back... not on a corner or face down, so that's likely the "best" way for the iPad to become distorted without the screen shattering.
 
I need to see what would have happened to it without the "extreme" case to make any definitive judgments. The camera surviving is more impressive imo
 
Looks like it fell into grass (at 1:47). As if it wasn't ridiculous enough (slow speed, camera being intact without case).
 
It's 2012 and cameras still record in 4:3 and BTW are people blind? the camera was in a case.
 
Should have it fly up in space further. Use better material and more cameras 360 view. Attached a small super light string to it to see if they move it in space ;)
 
flawed testing, when it hit the ground it easily could of hit the metal pole first thus absorbing most of the impact, they should have dropped the IPad alone not attached to anything
 
MrGuvernment said:
flawed testing, when it hit the ground it easily could of hit the metal pole first thus absorbing most of the impact, they should have dropped the IPad alone not attached to anything
Click to expand...

This is marketing not testing.
 
Phoenix333 said:
You are incorrect. The basic effect of air resistance on a solid body is a function of volumetric density, not of weight
Click to expand...
Uh... No, it isn't.

The force due to air resistance is a function of the velocity and the physical proportions of the object. The resulting acceleration depends on the force and the mass. Acceleration is less for the steel feather because it's heavier. Density doesn't enter into it.
 
collegeboy69us said:
wow the guy who replied early on -- needs some serious physics lessons.

(not in a vacuum) Drop a sheet of paper and a sheet of paper smashed up into a ball from the top of a building.... which one hits the ground first?

I weep for the education system in this country.
Click to expand...

Technically, F = G ((m1*m2)/r^2), so objects with larger mass are attracted to each other faster.

Alternatively, in general relativity, objects with larger mass curve spacetime to a larger degree, producing deeper gravity wells. Thus, an object of greater mass will have a greater force of attraction than a smaller one.

So he's not wrong, but it's likely he's correct for reasons he doesn't know. Additionally, the difference is so small as to be negligible in any practical experiment.
 
Tawnos said:
Technically, F = G ((m1*m2)/r^2), so objects with larger mass are attracted to each other faster.
Click to expand...
More force ≠ "faster".

Of course gravity pulls harder on a jumbo jet than a grain of sand. But it also takes a lot more force to move it. An object twice as heavy experiences twice the gravitational force, but has twice the inertia, so the acceleration is exactly the same.

Relativity says the same thing. A reference frame in gravitational free fall is indistinguishable from one at rest outside a gravitational field. One object in such a frame cannot be falling faster than another.
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
More force ≠ "faster".

Of course gravity pulls harder on a jumbo jet than a grain of sand. But it also takes a lot more force to move it. An object twice as heavy experiences twice the gravitational force, but has twice the inertia, so the acceleration is exactly the same.

Relativity says the same thing. A reference frame in gravitational free fall is indistinguishable from one at rest outside a gravitational field. One object in such a frame cannot be falling faster than another.
Click to expand...

I think I'm may be misthinking this, because I was considering force without taking into account it's scaled by mass to get acceleration, i.e. F/m = a. However, let me see if I can convince you and myself otherwise.

In the event you are dropping an item of mass a, the force exerted by the earth (mass E) on that item is the same as the force exerted by that item on the earth and it equals G*a*E/r^2. The acceleration on the item is G*a*E/r^2 * 1/a = G*E/r^2, and the acceleration on earth is G*a*E/r^2 * 1/E = G*a/r^2. If one drops two items of masses a and b, the acceleration on those items is still G*E/r^2, because G*(a+b)*E/r^2 * 1/(a+b) simplifies out the increased mass of those items. However, the acceleration on earth is now G*(a+b)/r^2, because G*(a+b)*E/r^2 * 1/E leaves a greater value in the numerator. The earth is experiencing a greater acceleration because the force exerted by the larger mass is greater. Wouldn't that mean that the collision point is somewhat closer, making the total time of falling smaller when a larger mass is "dropped"?
 
My professor dropped his iPad2 3 feet and cracked the whole screen.

If this thing had landed on it's face, I don't know how well it would have faired.
 
JosiahBradley said:
This thread is officially about physics now. I can't believe it's still going.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to kill sacred cows. The assertion wasn't that the object falls faster, but it hits the ground earlier. I'm arguing that is likely true, unless I really have forgotten all of my physics.
 
Tawnos said:
*snip*
Click to expand...
You're right, it was an oversimplification. All you can truthfully say is that they're accelerating at exactly the same rate at the instant that you let go. A 1kg mass falling for 1 second will shift the Earth by a bit less than 1 ym (around 0.000000000000001 times the diameter of an atom). Not only does it hit sooner than a lighter mass, but because it's closer to the ground, it will actually move faster (r is smaller, so GMm/r^2 is bigger).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top