AndyP
Active Member
this is absolutely no different than what I said... and if you think so, either I wasn't clear enough, or you interpreted it wrong... either way, I agree with you... but for someone to say that the train could gain the potential to travel at full speed without consideration for the kinetic and potential energies of the full climb/gravity influnce is wrong.. like I said... if the first 'drop' was 25% of the inital climb, you would spend/transfer 25% of the energy transfered into the train.. if there was a second drop that covered the remaining 75%, it would absorb the last remaining kinetic energy.... without another lift, or grade change, there is zero chance of converting more energy than achieved at the initial lift into kinetic energy..
And btw... I DO know what I'm talking about..
I did say that as far as I can see that you seemed to generally have the right idea, and I'm sure that you do know what you're talking about in your own mind, what bothered me is the way you wrote to the other posters on here while at the same time making mistakes in what you are writing as I pointed out in my previous post. I can now see what you meant but simply reading what you wrote did not explain the physics correctly which is what you seemed to be trying to correct in the first place.
I have realised that by grade you mean the elevation of the base of the track in comparison to the base of the initial lift hill, fair enough, you can forget my previous comments on that bit.
Again sorry if I seemed harsh and seemed to accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about, its just it would have been nicer if you had explained what the correct reasons to any previous poster without all the capitalised corrections of what they had put in order to emphasise your point and then also writing in such a way that the physics is not correctly explained anyway.