Jump to content
Mechanical Engineering

Noyanikavats

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Noyanikavats last won the day on October 23 2012

Noyanikavats had the most liked content!

About Noyanikavats

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 01/09/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Thiruvanathapuram
  • Interests
    Comics , Debating , Swimming

Recent Profile Visitors

4,631 profile views
  1. The Millenium Problem of Navier Stokes Equation . Waves follow our boat as we meander across the lake, and turbulent air currents follow our flight in a modern jet. Mathematicians and physicists believe that an explanation for and the prediction of both the breeze and the turbulence can be found through an understanding of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations. Although these equations were written down in the 19th Century, our understanding of them remains minimal. The challenge is to make substantial progress toward a mathematical theory which will unlock the secrets hidden in the Navier-Stokes equations.
  2. You can use opencourse of MIT http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm. You're suggested to follow NPTEL too .
  3. The physicist James Kakalios shows in his book The Physics of Superheroes that, consistent with Newton's laws of motion, the sudden stop would have killed Gwen Stacy. In flat word Gwen was accidently killed by Spiderman web itself. Let’s check the physics behind it. Assuming that Spidey's webbing catches her after she has fallen approximately 100m, Gwen's velocity turns out to be nearly 44.29 m/s. Let us consider her weight to be 50 kg . If webbing bring her in rest after 0.5 Sec . V-u= 44.29-0 = 44.29 => a= 88.58m/s^2 F= Ma = 88.58(50) N = 4429 N Then the force applied by the webbing to break her fall is 4429 N Two years later, the August 2002 issue of Peter Parker: Spider-Man # 45 (written by Paul Jenkins and drawn by Humberto Ramos) featured a storyline in which the Green Goblindemonstrated that he had also Finally learned this physics lesson. In this issue the Goblin had sent a videotape of Gwen Stacy’sdeath to the news media in order to psychologically torment Spider-Man. Portraying himself as the reluctant hero of this tragedy,the Goblin narrates in the tape: &Realizing the girl had fallen, I naturally made a course correction on my glider in an attempt to save her. I began an immediate de-scent. But before I had a chance to reach her, Spider-Man did something incredibly stupid: despite the speed of her fall, he chose to catch her in that rubber webbing of his. In the next instant, her neck was snapped like a rotten twig. It may have taken the Goblin nearly thirty years . but apparently heat last understands that it wasn&'t “the fall& that killed Gwen Stacy ,but the sudden stopping .If a twisted ,evil maniac like the Green Goblin can learn his physic ,the there is hope for Us all
  4. Gwen_Stacy Gwendolyn "Gwen" Stacy[1][2] appears as a supporting character in Marvel Comics' Spider-Man series. Created by writer Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko, she first appeared in The Amazing Spider-Man #31 (December 1965). A blonde college student, Gwen was originally the second love [3] of Peter Parker (Spider-Man) before the introduction of Mary Jane Watson and after Betty Brant. The Green Goblin (Norman Osborn) killed Gwen in The Amazing Spider-Man #121 (June 1973). Both the decision to kill Gwen and the method in which Marvel implemented it remain controversial among fans, but the death became a pivotal point in both Spider-Man’s history and in American comic books in general. Many point to Gwen's death as the end of the so-called Silver Age of comics.[4] Spider-Man writers and fans disagree about who is the character’s "one true love;" Gwen or his subsequent love-interest Mary Jane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Stacy
  5. Rules for mechanical engineering forum This forum is created for exchange of ideas. It is not for mindless babble of nonsense. Nor for clashes of personalities. We are not interested to dig more ditches but to build more bridges. 1. Do not insult other members. Not in any way. Not even subtle sarcasms. 2. No spamming, flaming, and puns 3. Think before writing. Quality matters more than quantity. 4. You’ll be reproached by other members if you behave un - scholarly. You do not have to be a scholar to participate in this forum. But always do substantial research before forming opinions and posting them. 5. It is not a club to kill time. Quantity of members does not matter. Their adherence to factual accuracy and intellectual honesty does.
  6. This forum is created for exchange of ideas. It is not for mindless babble of nonsense. Nor for clashes of personalities. We are not interested to dig more ditches but to build more bridges. 1. Do not insult other members. Not in any way. Not even subtle sarcasms. 2. No spamming, flaming, preaching. 3. Think before writing. Quality matters more than quantity. 4. You’ll be reproached by other members if you behave un - scholarly. You do not have to be a scholar to participate in this forum. But always do substantial research before forming opinions and posting them. 5. It is not a club to kill time. Quantity of members does not matter. Their adherence to factual accuracy and intellectual honesty does.
  7. What's really interesting is when people call something "art" when the reality is that it is little more than an engineering necessity. Take a look at the Golden Gate Bridge as an example. The bridge wasn't built that way because they thought it would be "pretty", it was built that way because from an engineering standpoint it was the only way it COULD be built... And it's not painted that color because it looks good that way, That's the color of the primer you use on Iron, and by the time you get dome priming the huge monstrosity of a bridge, the salt air has resulted in you having to go back to the beginning and start all over again... In other words, it's that color because there isn't time to actually paint it. Then we get down to the nitty-gritty of things being art simply because an "artist" does it. For example, when a performance artist in New York City who has AIDS cuts himself and splashes passers-by with blood, it's called "art"... When a prisoner with AIDS does it to the guards it's called "First Degree Assault." A more recent example would be that if you broke into an Orthodox Cathedral and desecrate the alter, that would be a "Religious Hate Crime"... But when a couple of musicians do it, suddenly it becomes "artistic expression".
  8. My personal favorite was the claim; "Scientists have Doctorate Degrees while Engineers only have Master's Degrees." That made me laugh my ass off simply because most of the major scientific advances that have occurred over the last 100 years have been from people who didn't have either degree. Personally, my knee-jerk answer is: "Scientists work for grants, Engineers work for patents." As for art and engineering, certainly some highly engineered things are works of art. No argument. However, the point I was trying to make was that colloquially "Scientists" are those who pursue knowledge for knowledge's sake while Engineers focus on things that have actual real-world applications. To go back to the "Artist vs Craftsman" comparison, an "artist" will fill a mayonnaise jar with urine and drop a crucifix into it and claim it is "A treatise on the corrupting influence of church bureaucracy on religion." A craftsman will create a beautifully carved table for Buckingham Palace. By the way, thanks to the US's National Endowment for the Arts, the US government actually paid the artist over $100,000 for that mayonnaise jar of urine... one of the reasons I am not really all that opposed to ending the US's National Endowment for the Arts.
  9. What's the difference between a "Scientist" and an "Engineer"? That's actually the wrong question. A "Scientist" is simply someone who works in the field of Science, thus all Engineers ARE Scientists. The problem is that many people misunderstand the term "Scientist" assuming it only refers to those working in theoretical fields. This misunderstanding tends to be perpetuated because people like Theoretical Physicists happily accept the label "Scientists" because of the connotations associated with the word. In simpler language, calling a Theoretical Physicist a "Scientist" makes him or her feel more important, so they let you do it. Where it gets really interesting is when you actually LOOK at how people view certain groups and draw incorrect conclusions based on misapplication of the term "Scientist". For instance most of the sites, such as ASK.com define "Scientist" as those working in the theoretical sciences such as Theoretical Physicists. Okay, have you ever heard the phrase "NASA Scientist"? There are no Theoretical Physicists working at NASA, all the Physicists are Applied Physicists who would be referred to as "Engineers" if they worked for General Dynamics doing the exact same work. Still, the fact that word definitions alter over time based on common usage is a valid argument, so I guess there is some value in trying to differentiate between "Scientists" and "Engineers". The problem is that it is almost impossible to separate a "Scientist" from an "Engineer" in most people's minds. Was Thomas Edison a "Scientist" or an "Engineer"? What about Leonardo DiVinci? What's the difference between the two? Most people would classify Edison as an "Engineer' and DiVinci as a "Scientist" simply because the connotation of the word "Scientist" has developed to the point where a "Scientist" is akin to an artist while a "Engineer" is akin to a craftsman. So basically... What's the difference between a "Scientist" and an "Engineer"? There really isn't one.
  10. Think Tank As par Lumely and other authors " turbulent flow can not be defined fully but some its characteristics can be listed like randomness(irregularity) , diffusivity, large Reynold's no., 3-d vorticity fluctuation. etc etc.

  11. Why does the drag coefficient for infinite wings(which is subjected to a low speed subsonic flow over it) increase with increase with the absolute value of geometrical angle of attack?
×
×
  • Create New...