Browse Simulations

Details
Favorited 0 times
Boing boing bawong. Any change to the mass of Mass 1 produces some unpredicted action.
DetailsFavorited 0 times
Boing boing bawong. Any change to the mass of Mass 1 produces some unpredicted action.

Details
Favorited 0 times
Entropy in a Superposition Vary xVelocity of nonstationary mass of +0.005 and 0.005, and less. See binary system example.
DetailsFavorited 0 times
Entropy in a Superposition Vary xVelocity of nonstationary mass of +0.005 and 0.005, and less. See binary system example.

Details
Favorited 0 times
David and Goliath Try k values of 0.075 and 0.066
DetailsFavorited 0 times
David and Goliath Try k values of 0.075 and 0.066

Details
Favorited 0 times
Spring Latch NOTE: Behavior differs after mass is changed then set back to 250. Doubling the mass increases angular momentum.
DetailsFavorited 0 times
Spring Latch NOTE: Behavior differs after mass is changed then set back to 250. Doubling the mass increases angular momentum.

Details
Favorited 0 times
Trajectories on laterally forced spheres with varying gravitational properties. NOTE: Drag on any empty spot to reposition for best viewing. Lower is better. Vary thrust of leftmost sphere by orders between 0.25 and 222.5 to produce some other interesting action.
DetailsFavorited 0 times
Trajectories on laterally forced spheres with varying gravitational properties. NOTE: Drag on any empty spot to reposition for best viewing. Lower is better. Vary thrust of leftmost sphere by orders between 0.25 and 222.5 to produce some other interesting action.

Details
Favorited 0 times
Solves for when two boats would intercept each other based on the provided prompt.
DetailsFavorited 0 times
Solves for when two boats would intercept each other based on the provided prompt.

Details
Favorited 3 times
In this example, we observe how friction interacts with two different bodies. The ramps are frictionless, but the flat horizontal surfaces have friction. This is seen by the way that the round body starts rolling and the square surface slows down.
DetailsFavorited 3 times
In this example, we observe how friction interacts with two different bodies. The ramps are frictionless, but the flat horizontal surfaces have friction. This is seen by the way that the round body starts rolling and the square surface slows down.

Details
Favorited 1 times
Demonstrates use of a spring and ramp component.

Details
Favorited 3 times
and the Joker got away!
DetailsFavorited 3 times
and the Joker got away!

Details
Favorited 0 times
Notice how on the PVA graph the velocities all converge. When the first ball hits, it transfers kinetic energy to the next one, and then to the next one, ad nauseam. I'll divide the total system into two subsystems: the moving mass and the stationary mass. The moving mass has a velocity of ( 5m/s, 0m/s ), and the stationary mass has a velocity of ( 0m/s, 0m/s ). So, what causes the resulting system, the moving mass plus the stationary mass, to have a lower velocity than the moving mass? The answer lies in momentum. Momentum is defined as "P = mv", with "m" and "v" representing mass and velocity, respectively. In any closed system, momentum must be conserved, since no energy is being added or subtracted. The moving mass has a mass of 1 (I assume this is in kilograms) and is moving, in the "x" direction, 5m/s. The momentum for this system is therefore 5 kg/m/s . The stationary system has a momentum of 0 kg/m/s, since it isn't going anywhere. When the moving mass hits the stationary mass, the velocity drops to 0.556 m/s, or around 0.6 m/s. Going back to P=mv, you can see that, in order for P to remain the same, one of the variables has to change if the other one changes. The relationship between "m" and "v" is known as "Inversely Proportional"; when one goes up, the other goes down. Putting in the data, we get: 5 kg/m/s = 10kg * .5m/s. Wait... 0.5m/s? That isn't equal to 0.556m/s. It is close, but not exact. This error is due to the simulation itself, I think. If any of this is wrong ( I am very prone to mistakes), please say so; I do not wish to misconstrue anyone reading this.
DetailsFavorited 0 times
Notice how on the PVA graph the velocities all converge. When the first ball hits, it transfers kinetic energy to the next one, and then to the next one, ad nauseam. I'll divide the total system into two subsystems: the moving mass and the stationary mass. The moving mass has a velocity of ( 5m/s, 0m/s ), and the stationary mass has a velocity of ( 0m/s, 0m/s ). So, what causes the resulting system, the moving mass plus the stationary mass, to have a lower velocity than the moving mass? The answer lies in momentum. Momentum is defined as "P = mv", with "m" and "v" representing mass and velocity, respectively. In any closed system, momentum must be conserved, since no energy is being added or subtracted. The moving mass has a mass of 1 (I assume this is in kilograms) and is moving, in the "x" direction, 5m/s. The momentum for this system is therefore 5 kg/m/s . The stationary system has a momentum of 0 kg/m/s, since it isn't going anywhere. When the moving mass hits the stationary mass, the velocity drops to 0.556 m/s, or around 0.6 m/s. Going back to P=mv, you can see that, in order for P to remain the same, one of the variables has to change if the other one changes. The relationship between "m" and "v" is known as "Inversely Proportional"; when one goes up, the other goes down. Putting in the data, we get: 5 kg/m/s = 10kg * .5m/s. Wait... 0.5m/s? That isn't equal to 0.556m/s. It is close, but not exact. This error is due to the simulation itself, I think. If any of this is wrong ( I am very prone to mistakes), please say so; I do not wish to misconstrue anyone reading this.

Details
Favorited 2 times
SpaceX is attempting another rocket launch. The Falcon 9 blasts off with a constant upward acceleration of 2km/s^2. Unfortunately, the engines malfunction once it has reached a velocity of 30km/s resulting in no more upward acceleration. The rocket continues to travel upward until it has a velocity of 0km/s. How long since take off has the Falcon 9 been in the air before it crashes back to Earth, and what is the velocity of the Falcon 9 when it hits the ground?
DetailsFavorited 2 times
SpaceX is attempting another rocket launch. The Falcon 9 blasts off with a constant upward acceleration of 2km/s^2. Unfortunately, the engines malfunction once it has reached a velocity of 30km/s resulting in no more upward acceleration. The rocket continues to travel upward until it has a velocity of 0km/s. How long since take off has the Falcon 9 been in the air before it crashes back to Earth, and what is the velocity of the Falcon 9 when it hits the ground?