Re: Gs needed to walk
- From: bobg@xxxxxxxxx (Robert Grumbine)
- Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:46:23 -0000
In article <1176550331.191524.62360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<chornedsnorkack@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How many gs do people need to walk on a horizontal surface in
ordinary, 1-atmosphere, mostly nitrogen air?
People can walk in water as deep as their shoulders. But it is not the
fastest or most effective way of moving. Water offers large resistance
to people walking upright, and as buoyancy decreases the load on feet,
feet lose traction. In deep water, although standing on bottom is
practical and walking is possible, swimming is faster and spends less
energy.
In air, the air resistance is much lower than water resistance on the
same speeds. But obviously, in case of low gs, feet would lose
traction. In exactly 0 g, there would be no traction under feet, and
no way of moving except by swimming in the air.
How many gs are necessary before feet can be used to move on the
surface (rather than using hands, feet and torso to swim in free air)?
0,01g? 0,001g? Any estimates?
There was some work published in Nature (iirc, elsewise it was
Science) within the last 10 years on the walk-run transition speed
at different gravities, from 1 g to ca. 0.1. Hard to set up the
equipment to go much below 0.1. The systematic result is that one
could walk more rapidly under higher gravity. As the gravity dropped,
running became more efficient than walking at lower and lower speeds.
There was no particular limit to the gravity required for running.
But as the gravity drops, it moves to a more and more bounding
motion. For sufficiently low gravity, it would probably look more
like a long jumper -- multiple striding motions between footfalls.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Gs needed to walk
- From: alanmc95210
- Re: Gs needed to walk
- From: Mike Williams
- Re: Gs needed to walk
- References:
- Gs needed to walk
- From: chornedsnorkack
- Gs needed to walk
- Prev by Date: Re: Time Travel Disproven?
- Next by Date: We need Doc Smith's Accumulators
- Previous by thread: Gs needed to walk
- Next by thread: Re: Gs needed to walk
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
