Patrick Elliott wrote:
Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the XT was originally registered to Chuck Norris. Therefore, it is true and it did survive the fall.




Maybe the XT had its previous life as a cat

BrianO wrote:
Absolutes...aren't.

Show me a true Perpetuum Mobile machine and I'll agree.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

and they tell you in school the chips can only take 3 feet static drops...

Lani Kai wrote:
Tattat wrote:
3. no dents or deep scratches (just to think that even if you drop a camera or anything into a body of water from a height of 3,000 feet would surely smash the object to pieces especially that he claims the velocity was 110 miles per hour, how much more if it landed on the ground?)
For the record, water is MUCH more dense than a pile of grass and dirt. Falling on water from 3,000 feet is like falling on concrete. If you don't believe me, try a belly flop at the pool, and then do the same thing on a pile of hay or a mound of dirt.
hehe how about you do that and show us the video results giggle!

Wow! That's cool.

abam wrote:
it was the protective filter that saved it. long live protective filters!



QFT!!!!
Totally FTW.

That is so amazing that the rebel "survived" the fall!

Cool story! Did he contact Canon? I am curious to see if they put this in their record books or something.

omarlyn wrote:
Oosty wrote:
I don't think the relative mass makes any difference at all. Gravity acts equally on all bodies irrespective of mass which is why a brick and a penny dropped from the same height will hit the ground simultaneously.

This is true but ONLY in a vacuum. Wind resisitence has a very dramatic effect...hense why a feather falls so slowly compared to a brick. Also, relative mass (regardless of wind resistance) definately has an effect on impact...I'd rather be hit with a feather at 120mph than a brick at half that speed!

Omar

Sorry, but I was just doing physics homework, and can't resist. Oosty has it right, gravity is a form of acceleration, and it is a scientific fact that it affects everything equally. Wind resistance does affect the free fall speed, but it does not affect the force due to gravity. They are two separate forces acting independently, and in opposite directions. So if you were to look at the net forces on the camera it would be the force of gravity (pointing down) minus the force of air drag (pointing up).

edit: First post, yay, and it only took me 4 years.

One problem with your statement is that air resistance (drag) is a function of velocity. The faster an object travels, the more air resistance it encounters. Therefore, strictly speaking, it cannot be said that gravity and air resistance are independent--acceleration due to gravity changes object velocity, which in turn changes air resistance.

Omar is essentially correct, in the Newtonian model. Oosty's statement is only true in vacuum, and the omission of this critical condition makes the statement incorrect. It is also inapplicable to high-velocity scenarios because, as we all know, objects dropped from the sky don't fall through vacuum, but through air.

A more precise (and correct) formulation of Oosty's statement might read: "For objects on Earth, the acceleration due to gravity experienced by an object is independent of its mass. A brick and a penny dropped simultaneously from the same height in vacuum will hit the ground simultaneously."

Furthermore, Omar refers to momentum--though he does not call it as such--as another important consideration. At a given fixed velocity, a massive object carries proportionally more momentum than a less massive object. This, combined with the law of conservation of momentum, explains why an impact with a brick is far more energetic than an impact with a feather at the same velocity.

No ground is soft at 110 mph not even water....

Harley D. wrote:
edit: First post, yay, and it only took me 4 years.

Congratulations. I'm sure you've set a FM record.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

wickerprints wrote:
One problem with your statement is that air resistance (drag) is a function of velocity. The faster an object travels, the more air resistance it encounters. Therefore, strictly speaking, it cannot be said that gravity and air resistance are independent--acceleration due to gravity changes object velocity, which in turn changes air resistance.

Omar is essentially correct, in the Newtonian model. Oosty's statement is only true in vacuum, and the omission of this critical condition makes the statement incorrect. It is also inapplicable to high-velocity scenarios because, as we all know, objects dropped from the sky don't fall through vacuum, but through air.

A more precise (and correct) formulation of Oosty's statement might read: "For objects on Earth, the acceleration due to gravity experienced by an object is independent of its mass. A brick and a penny dropped simultaneously from the same height in vacuum will hit the ground simultaneously."

Furthermore, Omar refers to momentum--though he does not call it as such--as another important consideration. At a given fixed velocity, a massive object carries proportionally more momentum than a less massive object. This, combined with the law of conservation of momentum, explains why an impact with a brick is far more energetic than an impact with a feather at the same velocity.

Hah, I knew that when I wrote it, but figured nobody would call me on it. Think of it this way, air resistance is dependent on speed caused by acceleration due to gravity, but gravity is not dependent on air resistance. Gravity is a consequence of two mass attracting each other, in this case the camera, and the earth. Drag is a consequence of an object moving through a fluid or gas. So it doesn't matter if an object is falling in a vacuum or maple syrup, the pull of gravity is the same, but the opposing force, drag, increases. A vacuum is just the easiest model to work with. In entry-level physics classes all problems will assume you're working with ideal gases/fluids, frictionless pulleys, frictionless surfaces, mass-less strings etc. Of course none of these things exist in real life, and must be taken into consideration when doing realistic calculations, but the underlying principles remain the same.

Lol, sorry for all that. The way you rewrote Oosty's statement is correct, I just wanted to clear up the first part.

You're right about the last part, and comes from Newton's second law of motion, simply F = mass * acceleration. And kinetic energy = .5 * mass * velocity^2
So like you said, an objects energy increases with mass and velocity.

Sorry, I'm a bored college student.

docnlaw24 wrote:
blackpill wrote:
takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'

Takes a lickin' and keeps on Clickin'



Takes a bootin', keeps on shootin'?

wickerprints wrote:
One problem with your statement is that air resistance (drag) is a function of velocity. The faster an object travels, the more air resistance it encounters. Therefore, strictly speaking, it cannot be said that gravity and air resistance are independent--acceleration due to gravity changes object velocity, which in turn changes air resistance.

Omar is essentially correct, in the Newtonian model. Oosty's statement is only true in vacuum, and the omission of this critical condition makes the statement incorrect. It is also inapplicable to high-velocity scenarios because, as we all know, objects dropped from the sky don't fall through vacuum, but through air.

A more precise (and correct) formulation of Oosty's statement might read: "For objects on Earth, the acceleration due to gravity experienced by an object is independent of its mass. A brick and a penny dropped simultaneously from the same height in vacuum will hit the ground simultaneously."

Furthermore, Omar refers to momentum--though he does not call it as such--as another important consideration. At a given fixed velocity, a massive object carries proportionally more momentum than a less massive object. This, combined with the law of conservation of momentum, explains why an impact with a brick is far more energetic than an impact with a feather at the same velocity.

shape also matter in terms of impact even in vacuum of course too, if you have someone lie flat on the ground and then take two blobs of the same mass and shape one into a spear point and the other into a flat rectangle the size of the guys outline and drop them both from 15' up in vacuum and they both weight 3lb on the Earth's surface. I know which of the two I'd rather have dropped straight onto me!

The fact that it is fallen on some kind of mud, in stead of concrete (for example) makes that energy-stuff more complicated. I think the mud saved it: All kinetic energy is decreased in the landing in the mud, which is a negative acceleration. When you look at the negative acceleration of falling onto concrete, that will be múch bigger. All that energy is spread in a delay of some centimeters (mud), not in a little millimeter (concrete)