That was with a aero-glitch tho. All the things that was in fron og his cockpit had hitboxes that negated the aero, thus rendering the cockpit aero-less when detatched.
Mass does help fight air drag and thus does mean faster falling when drag is significant, which it is when you are going all the way to terminal velocity.
adding more weight in real life won't make it fall faster (given same drag coefficient), however, it will increase terminal velocity. I didn't matter much in your case since the terminal velocity was already above the speed of sound, but if it hadn't been above the speed of sound, then it would have allowed it to be.
@@alkestos except it does matter in this case. Gravity accelerates all things at the same rate, that is true. And aerodynamic drag force vs speed is essentially the same in the 2 weighted builds Kan tried. However Acceleration = Force/mass (f=ma rearranged) so the force of drag has a lesser acceleration (decelleration) affect in the heavier vehicle for the same given velocity. Terminal velocity is reached when the drag decelleration = gravity = 9.81m/s2 (on earth), which for a heavier object requires a larger aerodynamic force which the vehicle must be travelling faster to occur.
You can see what @@Dakakeisalie's talking about in the video as Kan's accelerating noticably faster on attempt 3 at 1300kph than attempt 2 at 1100kph.
@@alkestos yes, if drag is 0 aka vacuum, it does not matter and there is no terminal velocity in a vacuum either, but A=(W-D)/m, W=g*m, so you can rewrite it as a=g-D/m. As you increase mass, you'll increase the acceleration as long as you don't also increase drag.
You should do an eggdrop style competition, where the winner is the first person to the ground from the ceiling without breaking any blocks, and no power cores.
7:41 the only way to make it more aerodynamic is to add more 4x1's to the back like a mirrored tip. it'll let the air flow smoother and thus help you speed up faster.
@@error404fnf As a fellow countryman of Felix, I'm glad, someone mentioned is name, and I'm kinda bummed, that kAN didn't know. Yeah, has been a while, hasn't it? And what an event that was! Felt like the moon landing! xD It was amazing! :) And I'm still super proud lol
@@loerichson But to be fair, it's kinda hard to follow all the craziness going on, on earth. For example: If a coworker of mine didn't mention the SpaceX program, I would have totally missed the lauch of the first roket. And boy, what a show this was.
@@error404fnf sure, absolutely, especially these days, eh? ^^ Oh, yeah, didn't know about it either until after the fact. It's funny though, how on the one hand they said it was a 'failure' because it blew up, and then on the other side they said, it was a 'success' because it managed to take off. And You as a pleb sit in the middle and think, 'So what is it now? Yay, fireworks!' lol
Increasing the weight, and thusly terminal velocity, would cause the loss of acceleration from approaching terminal velocity to happen later, allowing more speed to accumulate before hitting the ground.
The 3rd craft with the horizontal balloons was rising at 120kmph at first. That's like freeway speeds. I'm guessing that's a pretty scary experience in real life to be going up at 65-70 mph. Imagine the windspeed of sticking your head out a car window on the freeway
an objects fall rate in a vacuum is its ideal rate of fall and its air resistance to weight is zero. air resistance reduces its rate of fall relative to the surface area. as an object gets heavier without changing air resistance, the ratio of air resistance to weight will get smaller approaching but never reaching zero allowing the object to accelerate closer to how it would in a vacuum. so in an atmosphere a lead feather will fall much faster than a real feather and its fall will be more similar to its fall in a vacuum. adding weight helps your fall vehicle fall faster.
Adding more mass does not make an object accelerate faster (assuming identical coefficient of drag). but adding more mass will increase the force air resistance needs to exert in order to match the gravitational force. Therefore the craft will eventually reach a higher top speed even though it accelerates at the same rate.
Assuming the same coefficient of drag and area, more mass does make an object accelerate faster. If it didn't, they would have the same terminal velocity. If the object is moving in air, and the force from drag is identical, but the force due to gravity is larger for one, that means the net force is larger for it so it will accelerate faster. The easiest way to consider it is by considering the 2 options are the terminal velocity of the lighter craft. The lighter craft has the forces balanced so it is at terminal velocity, i.e. its acceleration is 0. The heavier object has a greater force due to gravity so it is accelerating at a different rate.
Kan, I was going to say, maybe you can make an M shaped balloon apparatus the keep your wedge brick cockpit near the top and less drag. But rocketa did the trick
More mass would accelerate slightly faster, since the force of gravity scales with mass, while the force of drag has no relation to mass. At first, the difference would be negligible, but at the higher speeds, it's much more pronounced. There are people saying the only thing it affects is terminal velocity, but I think it also should impact acceleration too. can we stop the war how does F = g???????????????????????????????? How???????
Force of gravity does not scale with mass. However, air resistance works against momentum, which means mass affects acceleration due to gravity in an atmosphere.
It would, just based off of force balancing. Wouldn't affect initial (and also maximum) acceleration as that's limited by gravity and additional forces.
@@covenantslayergaming6362 Would at v=0, you mean. Ag will always = 9.8m/s^2 (within the parameters of our experiment), and drag will be based on velocity of object, coefficient of drag, and drag cross-section. However, the drag force's ability to work against the mass of the object being pulled by gravity will apply a different amount of Newtons (and thus reverse acceleration) with different masses. But yes- maximum acceleration is indeed dictated by gravity, and flow velocity. At v=0, A = G.
POV: everyone listening on how the balloons work, me realising how sus the first 2 balloons came on. And btw, this is comment 69 no cap(there is 68 comments right now and this is the 69)
No. Gravitational acceleration is about 9.8m/s^2. You will keep accelerate until drag and acceleration are in equilibrium and them you will just keep on falling at a constant speed but it will not be near the speed of sound.
Didn't scrap man already do this? Not to shoot down your video obviously, a bunch of people do the same things all the time but we already know it's possible.
adding weight may not make something fall faster but increasing density, which the weights DO accomplish in this case, will increase the terminal velocity in atmosphere
I wonder, if you put your nose-wedges in 90 degree rotations instead of 180 degrees, kinda like a swastika if you looked at it head on(just make sure you use the correct direction), if your block starts spinning around its axis.
Actually adding weight will make it fall faster (IRL). Because you are distributing more weight across the same aerodynamic "surface area", it will resist the drag more, thus fall faster. Of course this has diminishing returns because the ratio of force to drag trends to infinity (AKA the behavior of zero drag) Newton become fig
TLDR; The difference between a falling piece of paper and a falling scrunched up piece of paper. Try it at home if you doubt me. Man, I made that harder than necessary...
Heavier objects are less effected by resistance. So if there is any resistance in the air it should have more speed - if there is zero resistance in the air it would fall at the same rate
Id imagine more mass does help But only increasing your terminal velocity more cause drag would have less of an effect cause your harder to move It wouldnt change your acceleration at all though
If it doesn't change the acceleration, how can it change terminal velocity. Terminal velocity is when acceleration reaches 0. So if the acceleration is the same, terminal velocity has to be.
@@jeffreyblack666 It doesn't affect the acceleration from gravity, it affects the air resistance. The acceleration remains the same from gravity while the air resistance is less effective against a heavier object with the same air resistance. It depends on if you're looking at the acceleration from gravity or just 'acceleration' in general, both can be technically correct.
@@rallok2483 There is no reason to look at just gravity. It goes to a pointless technicality, which doesn't correspond to anything physical. There is an object which is being acted on by air and gravity. The acceleration of that object is being discussed, and should be considered with both air resistance and gravity. And that acceleration changes if you change the mass. There is also no need to put acceleration in quotes like that.
It´s logical, that it got a bit faster. The game simulates air resistance and when you put more weight behind the space you travel through with gravity, you get a higher terminal velocity.
It's really not that difficult. Inspired by Scrapman's video where he broke the soundbarrier with gimbal jets, I built a simple contraption that uses gimbal jets to go up, brakes the soundbarrier, detaches the gimbal jets and brakes the soundbarrier on the way down.
@@Core-1948 I believe that was one of his workshop videos. And yes, that inspired the falling part of my contraption, allthough mine was a much simpler design. I don't know if some update changed the physics or if the creator just wanted it to look cool, but it was way bigger than it needed to be.
It would stabilise it but the added air resistance would make it a lot harder to reach the speed of sound. Rifling on rounds adds to the aerodynamic stability, making it fly straighter. This would not help to fall quicker and would actually be a hinderance. (No idea if this is how it would work in Trailmakers, but this is how it would work in real life) I think I understand what you were trying to think but the spin stabilisation would also cause slightly more drag due to an increased air velocity over the surface of the vehicle as the air would be traveling root( fall speed^2 + surface rotational velocity^2 ) and the surface drag would be greater than the drag going ‘straight’. It wouldn’t be a lot as the spin would have to be very fast to severely impact it, but it would have some adverse effects. In the real world, the effects of the increase in surface drag would mainly come from the heating of the outside of the vehicle, with the transfer of heat energy into the vehicle being energy that is not kinetic energy. Bullets do not suffer greatly from this as they are traveling very fast with very little surface rotational velocity as that is proportional to the radius (which is quite small compared to a vehicle)
Haven't seen any mathematical explanations, but yes adding extra mass does help. In classical physics, a force is defined as F = ma where 'a' is acceleration and 'm' is mass. Gravity causes a constant acceleration of 'g' (9.81 m/s^2) for every object regardless of mass. The acceleration will be the same, but the force (F = mg) will be greater. Unlike the force of gravity, air resistance only depends on surface area and velocity, not on mass. Therefore the equillibrium between the forces (your terminal velocity) will be at a greater velocity with greater mass, as the force of gravity will be stronger, but the force of air resistance does not change. Conclusion: Adding more mass does not increase acceleration, but it does increase your terminal velocity which in this case allows you to hit the speed of sound.
It also increases acceleration, in a manner of speaking. Decreases it slower would be more accurate, since obviously maximum acceleration of the object is at v=0. It's also correct that Fd will be dependent on velocity, and not mass, however, the action of Fd against an object is directly proportional to its mass.
This is incorrect. Since you want the math approach, there are multiple forces to consider. First we have the force due to gravity, as F=g*m. Then we have the force due to air resistance, which we can simplify down assuming the objects are identical in size and shape. Depending on how simple you want to go, you can have F=c*rho*A*v^2/2, or F=k*v^2. These are in different directions, so we have the net force as: F=g*m-k*v^2. And we know that F=m*a, so: F=g*m-k*v^2=m*a a=g-k*v^2/m Notice the dependence on m in the acceleration. For any non-zero velocity, the acceleration will be greater for the heavier object. This is because there is the same upwards force due to air resistance, but a greater downwards force due to gravity.
@@scottwalker6386 The "action" of drag against the object is not directly proportional to mass. If you take action to be force, it is not related to mass. If you take it to be acceleration, then it is inversely proportional to mass.
@@jeffreyblack666 Action of F *is* acceleration. And you're correct, the relationship is inversely proportional from the perspective of the acceleration due to gravity, or directly proportional from the perspective of the acceleration due to drag (in the opposite direction)
@@scottwalker6386 Wrong again. If you are talking about the action of a force, then for gravity the relationship is constant. That is because F=m*g=m*a, so a=g, with no dependence on mass. It is proportional to mass if you are talking about force instead of acceleration. For air resistance, it is inversely proportional, because a larger object requires a greater force to accelerate it (or decelerate it). Being in the opposite direction does not make it directly proportional. Directly proportional means that if you double the mass you double the result. So that would require a heavier object to be more affected by the air.
Adding weight to it probably would have made it fall faster even in real life like for example if you drop a feather on one side and a 50 pound weight on another side the weight will fall faster and hit the ground harder and faster than the feather because of weight now if you added 10 pounds to a feather then it would fall faster😂
That's not because of weight but because of aerodynamics. If you have a metal cube and a hollow metal cube of same dimension, both will fall the same speed
@@xelspeth it does make a difference when auerodynamics are significant. If you drop your metal cube and hollow metal cube from high up enough, the hollow one will hit the ground later. You are correct in a vacuum tho
@@xelspeth It is because of both. If you have a solid metal cube and a hollow metal cube of the same dimensions, and drop them in an atmosphere (or fluid) the hollow metal cube will fall slower as soon as air resistance becomes significant. You can try this with an alfoil cube, vs a solid block of aluminium
I didnt say a vacuum or a hallow cube and even if there was a hallow cube and a solid one, they both might be close to the same speed if you drop them but the heavier one will allways be slightly faster because thats just how gravity works
Mass doesn't increase acceleration even with air resistance. It increases terminal velocity, but you hit the ground before terminal velocity was even reached
Acceleration does decrease gradually though, when you're near terminal velocity. So even though he didn't quite reach terminal velocity, just adding a bit more mass would already have been enough to exceed the speed of sound.
@@Nomiswelt Do you mean it decreases over time or with mass difference? Because yeah the acceleration will decrease slower with higher mass but that difference would be negligible
@@laurensholthof What I was trying to say is during free fall all the way up to terminal velocity, the acceleration isn't constantly 9,81m/s² until you reach terminal velocity and then it suddenly jumps to 0m/s². The higher your speed, the more aerodynamics will play a role and decrease acceleration. This is especially noticeable near terminal velocity, as your speed gradually levels off
I think the acceleration of a falling object as a function of its velocity follows a quadratic function (as drag is proportional to velocity squared) which has its maximum at v=0m/s with a=9,81m/s². "a" (the coefficient of the quadratic term) is negative and directly proportional to the mass of the object. If you draw this function (y = a*x² + 9,81 with y being acceleration and x being velocity) in GeoGebra or something similar you can alter the "a" in the formula and see how exactly the acceleration changes (remember, "a" is directly proportional to mass). For a terminal velocity of somewhere around the speed of sound (343m/s) "a" should be about -1*10^(-4).
@@Nomiswelt Yeah ofc, FD =(1/2)ρ*CD*A and if v increases so does FD, but let's say his terminal velocity with m1 (mass on first aircraft) is v1 and his terminal velocity with m2 is v2. Gravitational force will be lower for his first machine, so the drag vector will have the same magnitude as the Fg vector sooner. In m2, at v1, the object isn't at terminal velocity yet but has the same amout of drag as m1 in that moment. Fg is greater with m2 so it will take longer for the resulting vector to become 0N and the acceleration to be 0m/s², but because the drag increase is exponential (v is squared), the closer you get to v1 the further the accelerations will drift apart. Because he hasn't reached terminal velocity, however, could the argument be made that the delta between accelerations is not big enough to cause a sizablr difference in speed at impact. Sorry for the long-winded and confusing text, this was written on my phone
kAN, as a fellow engineer, I am sure you know the FBD for terminal velocity. F_g=F_d so mass affects terminal velocity, but not the acceleration, assuming normal physics. As you said, who knows with a video game.
This is the best way to put it. Acceleration is highest at velocity = 0, but the more mass the object has, the slower it will decelerate. i.e., if you have 2 objects with the same coefficient of drag and drag cross-section (and thus same aerodynamic drag), but different masses (and hence different terminal velocities), which will reach the terminal velocity of the less massive object first? The more massive object. The more massive object will in fact decelerate slower. It'll only become appreciable at pretty high speeds, though.
No, they accelerated at a greater rate. If they accelerated at the same speed they would reach terminal velocity at the same speed. The only way to exceed the terminal velocity of the original is by having the acceleration be different (so it is not 0 at the terminal velocity of the lighter object).
Mass does help! You won't accelerate faster as gravity is constant in this scenario, but the added mass increases the FORCE of gravity (remember, F=ma, so add mass, increase force) which then means you need a higher force of aerodynamic drag to counter the force of gravity. So, you'll still accelerate at the same rate! You'll just accelerate for longer and reach a higher terminal velocity as a result. Fun video!
You'll actually accelerate faster too if you manage to not increase drag, which is hard to do in real life. A=(W-D)/m, W=g*m, so you can rewrite it as a=g-D/m.
@@devdog007 Depends on what you are doing. I mean if you just make the exact same shape out of solid tungsten, it's easy to increase the mass without increasing drag. Reminds me of Rods From God lol
Added mass will not increase the force of gravity. Refer to Galileo, and Armstrong's confirmation. You are on the right track though- F=ma. Thus the more massive the object being acted upon by gravity, the more drag force required to counteract gravity's constant pull.
@Jeffrey Black to make that happen, weight has to equal drag, and drag increases with velocity and surface area, if we keep surface area the same, then the velocity must increase for greater weights to hit terminal velocity
