OK, I have a quizish thingy for you guys .

A Cessna 150 loses it's engine at 2,000ft AGL. Assuming there are no winds that would adversely effect flight, and the pilot holds a straight line, how many feet will the aircraft travel before it hits the ground?

Show work and answer in a spoiler.

100KP to the first person to get it right.

I shall need it's weight, the speed at which it is moving, whether or not we are considering wind resistance, and what level of presicion you are using for accelleration due to gravity.

If I have figured it correctly, all that should be unnecessary... You will need to look up some of the Cessna 150 specs though... Or maybe I'm wrong .

Assume it's a perfect universe.

screw that. I have my own physics homework to do, I'm not looking anything up.

LOL, fine, i'll tell you. The Cessna 150 has a glide ratio of 7:1.

Now, knowing what to do with that is the key .

EDIT: PS, this isn't my Physics homework .

well then, that's easy (if the glide ratio is what I think it is)

Wouldn't that change depending on the speed it's moving at in the beginning? A plane traveling at flight speed, for example, wouldn't lose any altitude.

But it loses speed when the engines are no longer propelling it, and it goes into a glide, although if it were in a "perfect universe" as spacey put it, and we werent considering wind resistance, it wouldnt lose said speed.

The problem should probobly be reworded in a way to address problems such as these.

Anyway, HL thought right, and wins. I will send you the 100KP in a little while.

A glide ratio is the feet traveled per foot of altitude lost. In this example, a Cessna 150 has a glide ratio of 7:1, making it glide 14,000 feet, or just under three miles, before it will hit the ground.

keep the points and put them into another contest. God knows I dont need them.

LOL, OK . Not a two word post...

You really should be warned for that.

Anyways, shouldn't the Cessna keep going forever?

EDIT: Wait, nvm, appparently mage already asked that.

I was just going to say myscrnnm would be coming to me ranting about that post, how spaceman should be warned, but someone already did that for me

I really need to look up how a glide ratio works, since it seems that if the cesenna is moving at 0 mph horizontally, then it won't glide 7:1

No, it wont, but this is at cruise speed. The plane is flying along when it loses the use of it's engines and goes into a glide.

Actually, if it were moving at 0mph, it would be accellerating straight towards the earth. lol

Glide ratios are usually only important in gliders, but in the case of an engine failure, it helps to know the glide ratio of your aircraft .

Oh, just thought he might have been joking, BTW nice plane. [/sarcasm]

And, yeah, this thing has a MASSIVE margin of error, the question doesn't provide clear details, but I guess with the given information HL would be right.

There is very little margin of error. If there are no cross, tail, or head winds, up or down drafts to alter the plane's flight path, it will glide to the ground at the approxamate ratio given. spacey DID say to consider it a perfect environment.

NVM, didn't notice that, I wish I lived in Spacemans perfect world... Wait? What would the air be made out of? Pure Oxegen? Nothing? Perfection?

Well, that would depend on what we would consider perfect. Perfect entrophy? Perfect order? If it were perfect entrophy, it'd probably be pure hydrogen, pure quark matter, or something else, and there'd be no net gravity. If it were perfect order... I have no idea. If it were perfect nothing, there'd be nothing.


Anyways, let's have another math thingy:

1. Write an equation that gives the following chart:

x	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	etc
y	7	77	777	7777	77777	777777	7777777	etc

2. Prove that none of the polynomials in the following series can be factored:
x + 1
x² + x + 1
x³ + x² + x + 1
x⁴ + x³ + x² + x + 1
etc.


Prize of 500kp per problem! Plus a Fun-in-a-Bun item!

ok, here's my attempt at showing it in summation notation, although I havnt a clue how to properly do it in text here, so bear with me.

(ignore the *'s above and below "y = ...", using them as spacers so it displays correctly.
**** x
y = sigma(7*10^(i-1))
**** i=1

in words, incase that didnt make any sense:
y equals the sum of (7*10^(1-1)), (7*10^(2-1)), ... , (7*10^(x-1))

Um, I meant without using summations. Basic algebra stuff.


-----Edit-----

Okay, here's an easy way to put it:
You should not have to use any characters that aren't on your keyboard.

dang... well I'd love to see someone do it with just algebra.

I did it... took me 2 or 3 hours, but I did it. Also see edit.

wow... screw that!

LOL, I'll ask my Algebra teacher, he'll know .

As for the second one, well, you cannot factor it because to factor it, you would have to factor 1, which isn't possible.

actually, because 1 squared is one, 1 cubed is 1, etc. you can.

Heh, I just almost tried to say that you could factor x+1 as (rootx + 1)(rootx - 1), but then I realized that it would come out to x-1. lol, I'm done showing my stupidity now.

Meh, I'm sure that there's some big mathematical definition of why you can't.

What I meant was that 1 can be factored. Just a nitpick, I didnt mean to start a lengthy argument about it.

There might be, but I'm just too lazy to look stupid stuff like that up. As far as I know, there isnt any theorem that states when an expression can no longer be factored. There is just a point at which it cant, and there isnt anything else to it.

No, not that, I mean as to why you can't factor that particular polynomial .

Its (rootx+i)(rootx-i)

no **** sherlock.

Just, saying.
BTW myscrnnm says "no **** sherlock" way to much, so you sound like him,

Well dont.

I dont recall him ever saying that. If he was doing it in my absence he kifed it from me, so I sound like him sounding like me.

You can just say that x+1 can't be factored. The hard part is proving that not a single polynomial in the whole series can be factored.

All of them have 1 for the coefficients, therefore they can't be factored any further.

That's not exactly a proof.

So I got it right to an extent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

I want this as a two-column proof. Steps to the proof in one column, and justifications in the other column.

This topic is dead....

Now Tell Me.

What are the sexy prime quintuplets? (if any)

http://www.ltkz.demon.co.uk/kt05.txt

I Said SEXY Prime Quintuplets.

Clue: The Name comes frome the Latin word Sex....

Fine. Here are your "sexy numbers."

2^256 + 270403961815 + 0, 2, 6, 8, 12

Assuming that you meant "sexy" as a cardinal.

I have sent Mynck the answer in a message, The rest of you, get to work!