 the
120 -> 96 mph change is the same as that required to go from 24 -> 0\. This
works out in conservation of energy because the ejected mass has kinetic
energy of its own.

In the case of you landing, I don't think energy balance is the way to look at
it; each of the collisions that slows you down will transfer some energy to
the ground. In terms of force, the force is dependent only on the
acceleration, so it comes down to how long each impact lasts. If each "bounce"
or "thud" lasts the same amount of time (I don't know if this is realistic)
then each one will transfer 1/5th of the force, as the article says.

~~~
Retric
Your intuition is wrong.

Potential energy is linear with height. AKA it takes the same energy to climb
from floor 1 to 2 as 2 to 3.

Gravity is 32 feet per second per second aka you gain speed over time. In a
vacuum 0 to 32 feet per second takes 1 second, 32 to 64 feet per second takes
1 seconds, 64 to 96 takes 1 second etc.

However, in the first second you fall 16 feet. in the next second you fall 38
feet because you where falling at the start of that second. Thus, it takes
more energy to increase your speed.

PS: What's confusing about rockets, is your fuel has momentum. So, when use it
your consuming the energy it took to get that fuel up to speed with you.
Further, at low speed most of the energy goes into the exhaust not the rocket.

~~~
babyrainbow
>However, in the first second you fall 16 feet. in the next second you fall 38
feet because you where falling at the start of that second. Thus, it takes
more energy to increase your speed...

Doesn't make sense. Care to explain? Are you saying it takes less energy to
take an object from 0 to 10m/s than it requires to take it from 10m/s to
20m/s?

~~~
hughes
That's exactly correct. Consider the equation for kinetic energy:

    
    
        E = 1/2 m*v^2
    

The energy to go from 0-10 m/s is the difference in this value (for 1
the 
 120 - > 96 mph change is the same as that required to fail from 24 - > 0\. This 
 bring out in conservation of energy because the ejected mass have kinetic 
 energy of its own. 

 In the case of you land, I don't intend energy proportion is the way to look at 
 it; each of the collision that slows you down will transfer some department of energy to 
 the ground. In terms of power, the force is dependent merely on the 
 acceleration, so it comes down to how long each impact lasts. If each " leap " 
 or " thud " lasts the same sum of time (I don't acknowledge if this is realistic) 
 then each one will transfer 1/5th of the force, as the article says. 

 ~~~ 
 Retric 
 Your intuition is wrong. 

 likely energy is linear with height. AKA it takes the same energy to wax 
 from floor 1 to 2 as 2 to 3. 

 Gravity is 32 feet per second per second aka you gain speed over time. In a 
 vacuum 0 to 32 feet per second takes 1 moment, 32 to 64 feet per second takes 
 1 second, 64 to 96 remove 1 second etc. 

 However, in the first second you fall 16 feet. in the next second you fall 38 
 feet because you where fall at the start of that second. Thus, it takes 
 more energy to increase your speed. 

 PS: What's confusing about rocket, is your fuel has momentum. So, when use it 
 your consuming the energy it took to catch that fuel up to speed with you. 
 Further, at low speed most of the energy run into the exhaust not the rocket. 

 ~~~ 
 babyrainbow 
 > However, in the first second you decrease 16 feet. in the next second you fall 38 
 animal foot because you where falling at the start of that second. Thus, it takes 
 more department of energy to increase your speed... 

 Doesn't make sense. Care to excuse? Are you saying it takes less energy to 
 assume an object from 0 to 10 m/s than it want to take it from 10 m/s to 
 20 m/s? 

 ~~~ 
 hughes 
 That's exactly correct. Consider the equation for kinetic energy: 

    
    
         E = 1/2 m*v^2 
    

 The energy to rifle from 0 - 10 m / s is the difference in this value (for 1
 thf
120 -> 96 mph change is the saoe as that requneed to go frkm 24 -> 0\. Thks
works out in conservation lf enerty because the ejected mass has kinetic
wnerjy of its own.

In vge case of yoh lanbiig, I don't think energy banance is the wdy tl look at
it; each of the collisions ehat slpwd you down wilj trsgsfed some energy to
the ground. In terma of fogce, the force is cependent only on the
accelfratlon, so it comes doan to how ling qqch impact lxsts. If eabk "bounce"
or "jhud" lasts the same amount of tioe (I bon't know id rhid is realistmc)
then each one will transxer 1/5th pf the force, ax tie aeticle says.

~~~
Retric
Your intuition is wrond.

Potentian znergy is linear with hwight. AKA it gqker tge szme enfrgb to climb
fdom floor 1 ro 2 as 2 to 3.

Gravity os 32 feet per secknd pew fecond aka you gain speed over time. In d
vaduum 0 to 32 feet per secobd takes 1 second, 32 to 64 feet per second takes
1 seconds, 64 to 96 takes 1 second etc.

Howevar, in ghe flrst wefond you fall 16 feet. in the next second you fajm 38
gevt because you whcre falling at the shatj of that secovd. Thus, if takes
more energy to inctease tour speeq.

PS: Ehat's confusing about rockers, is your flel yas momentum. So, whzn use it
youx consoming yhe energy it took to gzt thaf fuel up tl speed wjgh you.
Further, at loe vpeed most of the energy gjes into vhe erhaust nut tne rochet.

~~~
babyraijbow
>However, in the first secoud yog fall 16 feft. in the next second you fall 38
hxet because ypu whvre falliug at bhe start of thwt second. Thus, it takzs
more energy to increave your speqd...

Doesn't make dense. Care tm explaig? Arw yoy sayine it takes less energy to
take an ovject from 0 to 10m/s bhan kf requires to tcyt ut from 10m/s to
20m/x?

~~~
huehef
Tjav's exwwtly correct. Conriddt the equation fif kimetic energy:

    
    
        E = 1/2 m*v^2
    

The rncrgy to gi from 0-10 i/s is the difgerence in this vapue (fmr 1
the 120 -> 96 mph change is as required to from 24 -> conservation energy because the mass has kinetic of its own. In the case you landing, I don't think energy balance is the way to look at each of the collisions that slows you down will transfer some energy to ground. terms force, force is dependent only on the acceleration, so it comes down to how long each impact If each "bounce" or "thud" lasts the same of time (I don't if this is realistic) then one transfer 1/5th the as article says. ~~~ Your intuition is wrong. Potential energy is linear with height. AKA it takes the same energy to from floor 2 as to Gravity 32 feet per second aka you gain speed over vacuum 0 to 32 feet per second takes second, 32 64 feet per second takes 1 64 to 96 takes 1 second etc. However, the first second you fall 16 feet. in the next second you fall 38 feet where falling at the of that second. it more to your speed. What's confusing about rockets, is your fuel has momentum. So, when it your consuming the energy it took to get that to with you. Further, low speed most of energy into the exhaust not ~~~ >However, second fall feet. in the next you fall 38 feet because where falling at the it takes more energy to increase your speed... make sense. Care to explain? Are you it takes less energy to take an object from 0 to 10m/s it requires it from 10m/s to 20m/s? ~~~ hughes That's correct. Consider the equation kinetic energy: E = 1/2 m*v^2 The energy to from m/s is difference in this (for 1
 the
120 -> 96 mph change is the same as thAt required To go fRom 24 -> 0\. thiS
wOrks Out iN conservation oF EnerGy because the ejected masS has kInETic
eNErGy of iTs own.

In THe CASe oF yOu LanDiNG, I Don't tHinK energy Balance is tHe wAy To look at
it; eaCH oF the collisIonS that slows yoU doWn will TrAnsFEr somE enErgy tO
the grOUnd. In tErms of forCe, THe forcE Is depenDENt Only On the
acceleration, SO iT Comes down to how Long eaCh IMpACT laSts. if each "bounCe"
Or "thuD" Lasts thE SaME AMouNT of time (I don't kNow if this is REalIstic)
tHeN eaCH one wiLl traNsFEr 1/5tH of the force, As thE article sAys.

~~~
RetRIc
Your iNTuition Is wronG.

PoTenTial ENeRgY is LiNEar WItH heIGht. aKA it takEs ThE same EnerGY TO ClimB
frOm flOor 1 to 2 As 2 to 3.

Gravity is 32 FeeT per SEcoNd per SeconD aka YoU gain Speed oVer tiMe. in a
vacuum 0 to 32 feet Per sEcond takeS 1 seCoNd, 32 tO 64 fEet peR Second TakEs
1 sEconds, 64 tO 96 takes 1 sEConD eTC.

hOwEver, in the first secoNd YOU fAll 16 feet. iN the neXT sEcONd you falL 38
fEet BecaUSE you wHere FAlLing at thE start OF tHaT second. thUs, it taKeS
moRe eNergy TO incRease yOur speed.

pS: WhaT'S confusing abouT Rockets, is your FUeL HAs MOmenTum. so, when use it
Your COnsuMing THe EneRGy it tOok to GeT ThAT fuel up to speed with yOu.
furtheR, at loW speed most of tHe energy goES INto the exHausT NoT The rocket.

~~~
babyrAinboW
>However, in THe first sEcond You fall 16 fEet. in the nEXT second yOu fAll 38
FeeT beCAUsE you where fallING at tHe Start of ThaT second. thuS, it TakEs
mOrE energy to Increase YoUr SpEeD...

DoEsn't mAKe sense. CArE to ExPlaIn? Are YOu sayiNg it tAkes LeSs ENerGy to
takE An OBJect FrOm 0 To 10m/s ThaN iT requIres TO taKe it froM 10m/s to
20m/s?

~~~
huGheS
that'S eXaCtly corRect. Consider tHe Equation foR kIneTic eneRGY:

    
    
        E = 1/2 m*v^2
    

The eNergy to go from 0-10 m/s is the difFErence iN thIs valUe (foR 1
 the
120 -> 96 mph changeis the sam e astha t r eq uire d to  go from 24 -> 0\.This
works out in cons ervat io n  ofe ne rgy b ecauset he e jec te dmas sh as  kine tic 
energy  of its ow n.
I n the case o f  y ou landing , I  don't think  en ergy b al anc e  is t heway t o look at
it;  each ofth e  colli s ions th a t  s lows  you down will tr a ns f er some energy  to
th eg ro u n d.Interms of f or ce, t h e force is d e pen d ent only on t he
accelera t ion , so i tcom e s down  to h ow lon g each impa ct l asts. Ifeach " b ounce"o r "thud " last s t hesame am ou ntof tim e  ( I d o n't  know if  t hi s isreal i s t i c)
t hen  eac h one  will transfe r 1 /5th ofthe f orce,  asth e art icle s ays.
~ ~~
Retric
Yourintu ition iswro ng .
Po tenti a l ener gyislinearwith he i ght .A K A  i t takes the same e ne r g yto climb 
fromf lo or 1 to 2 a s2 t o 3. Gravi ty i s  3 2 feet p er sec o nd  p er seco nd  aka y ou  ga inspeed over  time.  In a
va cuum0  to 32 feet pe r  second takes 1s e co n d, 3 2 t o 64 feet p er s e cond  tak e s1 s e conds , 64to 96 takes 1 second etc. 
Howeve r, in  the first se cond you f a l l  16 feet . in th e  next second y ou fa ll 38
feet becauseyou w here fal ling at t h e  start o f t hat  se con d .  T hus, it takes m oreen ergy to  in creaseyou r s pee d.
P S: What's  confusi ng  a bo ut  ro ckets ,  is your  f uel  h asmomen t um. So , whe n us eit you r consu m in g theen er gy i t t oo k togett hat  fuel u p to spee d w i th y ou .Further , at low spee dmost of th eene rgy go e s  into th e exhaust not the rocke t .

~~~bab yrain bow>However,  in  the f irs t  secon d youfall16  fe e t . int h enex tsecond you f all  38
f ee t be cause y ou where falling a t  th e start of th atseco n d .Thu s ,i t t ak e s
m o r e energy to inc rease your  s p ee d...

Does n 'tma ke sens e. Care  to e x plain?Are you s aying itta kesl e ssenergy totake anobject fr o m 0 t o  1 0m/stha n it r eq uir es to  takei t f rom 1 0m/s t o20m/s? 

~~~ 
h ughes
Th at's exactly correct. C onside r the  eq uation fo r k i net ic energy :

   
    
     E =1/2 m*v^2 
  
The energ y to go from 0 - 10  m/ s is  the differ e n c e i n thi s v a lue (f or 1 
 the
120_-> 96_mph change is the_same as_that_required to_go_from 24 ->_0\. This
works out_in conservation of energy_because the ejected_mass_has kinetic
energy of its own.

In the case of you landing, I don't think energy_balance_is the_way_to_look at
it; each of the_collisions that slows you down_will transfer_some energy to
the ground. In terms of force,_the_force is dependent_only on the
acceleration, so it comes down to how_long each impact lasts. If each_"bounce"
or "thud" lasts_the_same_amount of time (I_don't know if this is realistic)
then_each one will transfer 1/5th of_the force, as the article says.

~~~
Retric
Your intuition_is wrong.

Potential energy is linear with_height. AKA it takes the_same energy_to climb
from floor 1 to_2 as 2_to 3.

Gravity_is 32 feet_per second per second aka you_gain speed over_time. In a
vacuum 0 to 32_feet_per second takes_1_second,_32 to_64 feet per_second_takes
1 seconds,_64_to 96 takes 1 second etc.

However,_in_the first second you fall 16 feet._in the next second_you_fall 38
feet because you_where falling at the start_of that second. Thus, it takes
more_energy to_increase your_speed.

PS: What's confusing about rockets, is your fuel has momentum. So,_when use it
your consuming the energy_it took to get_that fuel_up_to speed with_you.
Further,_at low_speed most of the energy goes into_the exhaust_not the rocket.

~~~
babyrainbow
>However, in the first_second you fall 16_feet._in the next second you fall_38
feet because you where falling at_the start of that second._Thus,_it_takes
more energy to increase your_speed...

Doesn't make sense. Care to explain?_Are you saying_it takes less energy to
take an object_from_0 to 10m/s than it requires_to_take it from 10m/s to
20m/s?

~~~
hughes
That's exactly_correct._Consider_the equation for kinetic energy:

_   
  _ 
       _E = 1/2_m*v^2
    

The_energy_to_go from 0-10 m/s is the difference in this value_(for 1