Pure maths, physics, logic (braingames.ru): non-trade-related brain games - page 87

[Alexey Subbotin]

MetaDriver:

Downloaded for myself.

// Unfortunately I can understand bourgeois at this pace through a sentence, even in the text version. (No way to listen to it.)

// I'll pause and rewatch at my leisure. Interesting.

Interesting to see the code he shows there)))

[Alexey Subbotin]

MetaDriver:

This is all logical, but it is also logical that the stored kinetic energy will depend on the time elapsed from the start of the first body's movement until the second body moves (because the force is constant). Therefore: the softer the spring, the less force is needed.

Sooner or later the spring will stretch to the same tensioning force anyway, so its stiffness does not matter. And the energy will, of course, be different.

[Vladimir Gomonov]

Come on. It won't happen again. Not ever again.

[Vladimir Gomonov]

alsu:

Sooner or later, the spring will stretch to the same tension force anyway,

1. So its stiffness is irrelevant.

2. And the energy will of course be different.

There's something about the first and the second that doesn't add up. I'm dumb with the formulas, but there's something wrong here.

[Anatoli Kazharski]

alsu:
It's interesting to see the code it shows there)))

Here it is. ))

[Sceptic Philozoff]

Analyse. I want to solve it without ZSEG at all.

Let the small body come to equilibrium with the spring and stop. And the big one has not yet started moving.

u*x = MKg

The frictional force on the small body... but it's in equilibrium. The big body starts to accelerate. What's missing in this picture? The frictional force on the small body?

If the small body is in equilibrium, it is (m+M/2)Kg + F_tr = u*x. It is directed to the left.

So F_tr = (M/2-m)Kg. That's a load of nonsense.

[Vladimir Gomonov]

tol64:
Here it is. ))

Holy shit. Where'd you get it?

// Did a cursory visual comparison. Very likely true. Although the version of the code probably does not match (discrepancies were found).

[Vladimir Gomonov]

The end killed me, the one with the two and three balls. I don't understand the physics of the process (in this particular place), although intuitively I believe it.

[Anatoli Kazharski]

MetaDriver:

Wow. Where'd you get that?

// Although the version of the code probably does not match (discrepancies were found).

It's definitely him, if we believe that right in the video it's suggested to download it via a link on You Tube page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Need to expand the comment to the video(READ THIS) and there are download links. :)

[Sceptic Philozoff]

MetaDriver: The end killed me, with two and three balls. I don't understand the physics of the process (in this particular place), although intuitively I believe

Beautiful. It's probably a bit difficult without the Lagrange function. Why, with three, the central ball always ends up in the larger group is not obvious. For the two outermost ones there is a possibility to deviate a little further than the three striking at the beginning - but no, everything is symmetrical.