Miller Electric

Welding Discussion Forums

Home » Resources » Communities » Welding Discussion Forums

  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brass Chandioler meets a 25' drop!

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Brass Chandioler meets a 25' drop!

    A nice little project that came in today. A giant 100 lb 4' tall brass chandioler that cost 5 grand in 1984 fell 25' and smashed. It should be a pretty easy fix it just looks bad all mangled. I need to make a new rod that goes up thru the middle for a frame and weld brass tabs on the arms and redrill the holes to mount. The pcs on the left with the blue tape are fine. Hopefully i don't have to mess with the wiring too much...Bob
    Attached Files

  • #2
    ouch! good thing it didnt hit anyone... did it "just fall" or was there something to entice it to come loose?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by SignWave View Post
      ouch! good thing it didnt hit anyone... did it "just fall" or was there something to entice it to come loose?
      I was first told it just fell. But when i picked it up i was told they use a hook to pull it over to the 2nd floor to change the bulbs so it may have been pulled...Bob

      Comment


      • #4
        hehehe... sniker sniker. Well enjoy the rebuild.. if you have any wiring trubs let me know, I'll do what i can to help you out.

        Comment


        • #5
          With the kind of work I've seen you do, it will look much better than new in no time. Dave

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by aametalmaster View Post
            A giant 100 lb 4' tall brass chandioler that cost 5 grand in 1984 fell 25' and smashed.
            Kind of reminds of on those high school physics problems:

            "A giant 100 lb 4' tall brass chandioler that cost 5 grand in 1984 fell 25' and smashed. What was the speed of the chandelier at impact?"

            Ouch! My head hurts...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jonnymag View Post
              Kind of reminds of on those high school physics problems:

              "A giant 100 lb 4' tall brass chandioler that cost 5 grand in 1984 fell 25' and smashed. What was the speed of the chandelier at impact?"

              Ouch! My head hurts...
              Simple to solve for time.

              s= Vo2 (v naught squared) + 1/2 at2 (at squared)

              Where s= distance
              Vo2 = initial velocity squared
              a= acceleration, 9.8 feet per second
              t2= time squared

              25 feet = 0 + 1/2 x (9.8 x 9.8) t2
              25 = 1/2 x 96.04 t2
              25= 48.02t2
              .52061641=t2
              .721537532=t

              It takes .7 second for the chandelier to fall 25 feet. I don't know how to figure out what the velocity was at impact.

              Comment


              • #8
                E=mc2

                25 ft/sec. should have been the velocity @ impact. In the first second, that chandelier would have accelerated to =32 ft / second, so 25ft in one second should = 17mph...? I think this is right. It failed Physics... was too busy chasing the girls getting 'A's in the subject...

                So with that all said and done, how much did it weigh at the time of impact? hehehehe..
                Last edited by SignWave; 10-25-2007, 02:13 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm not sure about everybody's math, but assuming crawler's calculations of time are correct -- if it fell 25ft in 0.7 secs, then wouldn't that mean it would have fallen 36ft in 1 sec? (25ft/0.7sec = x/1.0sec; 35.71ft/sec=x)

                  Now I'm gonna be having slide rule nightmares again

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by jonnymag View Post
                    I'm not sure about everybody's math, but assuming crawler's calculations of time are correct -- if it fell 25ft in 0.7 secs, then wouldn't that mean it would have fallen 36ft in 1 sec? (25ft/0.7sec = x/1.0sec; 35.71ft/sec=x)

                    Now I'm gonna be having slide rule nightmares again
                    Well, keep the slide rule handy cause Im wondering how much damage it can do on a human scalp at 25ft/.7sec vs 36ft in 1sec or whatever speed it was going

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I dont believe its possble for that to occur in the first second of freefall. it would have to be less than 32 ft/sec.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        For pete's sakes...

                        This is great and reminds me of a great hunting camp story! My math is good and I took both Cal and Phys in college and for some reason unknown to man accelerated very well and sucked miserably every where else with the exception of lunch. In any event and not related to the aforementioned, I a-long with long time hunting friends were debating ballistics in front of a cozy fire in the North Eastern woods of Oregon on our annual deer hunt. The discussion was very involved and even heated at times as we challenged each others wits. Dead front, mid and down range energy along with flat trajectory and muzzle velocity were all taking a serious beating along with the camp growler (the hole in the dirt behind the big tree) as we just finished a hardy helping of wilderness chili stew. While I argued that my 270 was the gun of choice for our location (being flat and often requiring a 150 to 250 yard shot) others argued that a 30-06 or even the age proven 30-30 was a better choice in the event a tree were to jump in the way. And of course you always have the Tim Allan guy there with the 300 Win Mag in case some grizz got of course and darted down from Canada or Alaska. Somewhere into the second hour or so of this wonderful debate, I noticed Randy (one of the guys son) wondering just outside of the campfire lightly tapping two sticks together. At the time Randy was about 11 years old and a gifted shot with his 30-30. I wasn't sure just exactly what he was doing but surmised he was snipe hunting or perhaps warding off any sasquaces that may be lurking around the area. I decided to put my end of the debate on hold as I figured these guys had a enough steam to keep the momentum going in my absence and pay a visit to Randy who at that time was attempting a double tri-fold smore. I was curious about the stick banging as he was very methodical in his delivery. Not to insult him I first asked him if he would share his newly formed smore with me. He agreed and as we both looked at his new creation he not I, realized that perhaps a new debate could be formed on the best way to consume this monster smore. Since we were in the neighborhood of the previous debate I posed the question. "Randy, I noticed that you were banging two sticks together back there by the fire. What was that all about"? "Oh he says" with an uplifting smile, "I was just wondering if the deer on the other end gave a hamster's As~ about your math"? In short we all tend to pass the obvious to strike a debate with our fellow man of the cause or maybe better understood in this case as the delivery. The deer really doesn't care about how he was killed, all he knows or knew was that he was or is in very deep doo doo and could care less about our debate as we enjoy him with our garden salad and baked potato's.

                        All the calculations, speculations and inquires regarding this lamp brought me back to that night and if I can just add on last thing. In the unfortunate event someone had been under that lamp when it fell, they could give a Hamster's as! about the math.

                        Just fun guy's

                        TacMig
                        Last edited by tacmig; 10-25-2007, 07:51 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I had to correct my errors. My original problem, I used 9.8 for acceleration. 9.8 meters/sec is correct, but since we're using feet, this needed to change to 32 ft/sec. Also, had to correct the formula. We don't use Vo^2 (v naught squared). I guess my memory is not so good from high school physics in 1982...

                          Here is a good reference I found on the internet.
                          http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56288.html

                          Originally posted by crawler View Post

                          **** Below is the correct version ****

                          <<<Use this formula to determine how long it will take an object to fall to the ground.>>

                          s= Vo (v naught) + 1/2 at^2 (at squared)

                          Where
                          s= distance
                          Vo = initial velocity
                          a= acceleration, 32 feet per second
                          t2= time squared

                          25 feet = 0 + 1/2(32) t2
                          25 = 1/2 x 32t2
                          25= 16t2
                          1.5625=t2
                          1.25=t

                          It takes 1.25 seconds for the chandelier to fall 25 feet.

                          ======================================

                          <<To calculate terminal speed when it hit the floor:>>

                          where
                          v= velocity
                          Vo= initial velocity
                          a= acceleration (32 ft/sec)
                          t=time

                          v=Vo + at
                          v=0 + 32(1.25)
                          v=40

                          Velocity of chandelier hitting the floor is 40 feet/second.
                          Last edited by crawler; 10-25-2007, 08:12 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by crawler View Post
                            I had to correct my errors. My original problem, I used 9.8 for acceleration. 9.8 meters/sec is correct, but since we're using feet, this needed to change to 32 ft/sec. Also, had to correct the formula. We don't use Vo^2 (v naught squared). I guess my memory is not so good from high school physics in 1982...

                            Here is a good reference I found on the internet.
                            http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56288.html
                            hehehehe, I kneew that! I was just seeing if you knew!!

                            something didnt seem right about the distance to the floor, but hey, that sure was some tasty deer!!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm just amazed that someone took the trouble to calculate it!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X
                              Special Offers: See the latest Miller deals and promotions.