Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Work Bench > Building Techniques
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-26-2021, 10:46 AM
TigerHawk TigerHawk is offline
Craftsman
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 101
Default ....

....

Last edited by TigerHawk : 09-01-2023 at 01:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-26-2021, 10:59 AM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,610
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerHawk

Nice money making scheme to sell to schools! As long as there has been model rocketry, the main companies have shown how do do swing tests without spending a nickel. lol

This item hasn't been in regular catalogs in the past that I know of, but they've always sold things through companies that provide items for schools like AC Supply, Nasco, etc. that weren't in regular catalogs. It may have been available before now through those sellers.
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-26-2021, 11:46 AM
olDave olDave is offline
Craftsman
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 174
Default got a chuckle

from their product description, with separate mentions about "center of gravity" and "center of mass".....as though they are two different things in two different places

clearly, Estes does not use a technical editor to proof their advertising. kinda embarrassing?
__________________
NAR 20602
used to be "powderburner" in another life
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-26-2021, 12:03 PM
BEC's Avatar
BEC BEC is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auburn, Washington
Posts: 3,643
Default

That bit bugged me as well....and then I did a little research and found that that they are, in fact, two distinct things. If an object is in a uniform gravity field, they work out to be the same.

But if it's not, as when something is in orbit around a non-uniform body (say, the Earth or the Moon) then they are distinctly different things.

That said, to many of us, including you and me, it looks redundant.
__________________
Bernard Cawley
NAR 89040 L1 - Life Member
SAM 0061
AMA 42160
KG7AIE
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-26-2021, 12:39 PM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,610
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BEC
That bit bugged me as well....and then I did a little research and found that that they are, in fact, two distinct things. If an object is in a uniform gravity field, they work out to be the same.

But if it's not, as when something is in orbit around a non-uniform body (say, the Earth or the Moon) then they are distinctly different things.

That said, to many of us, including you and me, it looks redundant.

That's no different than saying something "weighs" 40 kilograms. Kilograms is mass, not weight. Weight is in Newtons in the metric system. I see scientists and college professors using weight and mass interchangeably all the time when referring to an object's mass.

We know that your mass doesn't change unless your name is Grendel and I rip your arm off, but your weight varies based on your proximity and the mass of the object you are attracted to. (Assuming we can magically change locations quicker than we can change our mass by eating, dieting, etc.)

If we are hanging out on earth and deal with local things, it's all good. We can interchange CG and CM. We can substitute mass for weight and it's not that big of a deal except for adolescent science students who have trouble understanding anything beyond smart phone apps and lust for the opposite sex.
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-26-2021, 01:25 PM
BEC's Avatar
BEC BEC is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auburn, Washington
Posts: 3,643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbzep
That's no different than saying something "weighs" 40 kilograms. Kilograms is mass, not weight. Weight is in Newtons in the metric system. I see scientists and college professors using weight and mass interchangeably all the time when referring to an object's mass.

We know that your mass doesn't change unless your name is Grendel and I rip your arm off, but your weight varies based on your proximity and the mass of the object you are attracted to. (Assuming we can magically change locations quicker than we can change our mass by eating, dieting, etc.)

If we are hanging out on earth and deal with local things, it's all good. We can interchange CG and CM. We can substitute mass for weight and it's not that big of a deal except for adolescent science students who have trouble understanding anything beyond smart phone apps and lust for the opposite sex.


This is all true...

But I wonder if this casual use of these terms interchangeably is a good thing. It's not quite as bad as one of my favorite pet peeves—confusing accuracy and precision—but still...I think if it were up to me I'd be presenting the info and using "center of mass" and "mass" rather than "center of gravity" and "weight" except as a sidebar to make clear what the distinction between mass and weight is. But of course, generally it's not up to me. I haven't been in front of a classroom in quite awhile and don't expect to be again any time soon.

I did ping a contact I have at Estes who is involved in the website content a couple of days ago when I first saw this "Rocket Stability Kit" on their site and got a "thanks for the feedback" note earlier this morning.
__________________
Bernard Cawley
NAR 89040 L1 - Life Member
SAM 0061
AMA 42160
KG7AIE
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-30-2021, 10:35 PM
olDave olDave is offline
Craftsman
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 174
Default You're right

Quote:
Originally Posted by BEC
That bit bugged me as well....and then I did a little research and found that that they are, in fact, two distinct things......


After working a full career at three major aerospace companies, in the mass properties groups, I kinda knew that already. But we are not modelling the mass distribution of something the size of the ISS that is in orbit. Here on Earth, the mathematical difference between c.m. and c.g. on a model rocket is immeasurably small. Practical engineers ignore the splitting of such hairs. Yes, we used the terms interchangeably.

Build that same model rocket again, duplicating every stroke of balsa fin on sandpaper, every drop of glue, every spurt of paint, as best you can, and the c.m. location will still be miles different from the c.m. of your original rocket in comparison to the difference in c.m. and c.g.

My beef is not with you but with technically-oriented companies that have qualified resources available but do not use them, that confuse and misdirect young audiences who are already misled by internet "knowledge," and that seem to think any-old-idiot can write marketing copy. It's no wonder to me that we have such a crying need for STEM education.

But hey, I'm just an old crank....
__________________
NAR 20602
used to be "powderburner" in another life
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-30-2021, 11:36 PM
BEC's Avatar
BEC BEC is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auburn, Washington
Posts: 3,643
Default

Agreed on the “distinction without a difference” in the model rocketry context….

And it looks like the folks at Estes agree. The verbiage about “center of mass” is gone from the description of the Rocket Stability Kit.
__________________
Bernard Cawley
NAR 89040 L1 - Life Member
SAM 0061
AMA 42160
KG7AIE
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-02-2021, 05:29 PM
Ez2cDave's Avatar
Ez2cDave Ez2cDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC Area
Posts: 1,743
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by olDave
from their product description, with separate mentions about "center of gravity" and "center of mass".....as though they are two different things in two different places

clearly, Estes does not use a technical editor to proof their advertising. kinda embarrassing?


Considering what the Public "schools" are teaching, nowadays, and the fact that Students are "saddled" with Common Core math, it will make no difference in the "big picture".

Dave F.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-01-2021, 02:40 PM
BobP_in_Nevada's Avatar
BobP_in_Nevada BobP_in_Nevada is offline
Skill Level 2.8 (Nearly Advanced)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sparks, Nevada
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbzep
Nice money making scheme to sell to schools! As long as there has been model rocketry, the main companies have shown how do do swing tests without spending a nickel. lol


Administrators don't know anything has worth unless you can put a $ value on it.

... I've ordered one. I'm a sucker for widgets, and the string test widget is sweet. Dummy motor weights are fun, too. And, hey, more spare parts.
__________________
Bob Portnell, Sparks, Nevada
NAR #87762, NARTREK Silver, Not an actual Silver Snoopy awardee

"Flying Like It's 1980"
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2024