Air Hockey Paddles

i dont know if anyone's ever seen this, its an air hockey table, by sega, the pucks come out by themselves and sometimes there'll be 2, and u can use 2 um..paddles
last time i saw one was at playdium in vancouver

Sega Amusements actually made a number air hockey games, including several themed and gimmick air hockey machines. They vary in price and availability, but many can be had in good condition for under $2k.

Here are links of a few different vendors. If you call around, they can usually locate the exact mahine you're looking for.

2007-01-12 20:15:44 by zitro_divad

See how easy it is to amuse yourself with air hockey paddles? The challenge is to get the puck to spin on top of the paddles.

Now, I'm sure people have heard a lot about the BBT and some arguments about why the galaxies spin in opposite directions (they got bumped into, and that reversed the spin). Well, I was just messing around, came across something neat, thought about it for a sec. and tried an experiment. Here it is, very repeatable, potentially free. I used a simple air-hockey paddle, turned it upside-down so it looked like a top, and spun it around. I hit it so that I added to the direction it was spinning, even if it was clumsy, it would keep spinning, usually speeding up for a while. However, no matter how many times I tried, I could not hit the paddle in such a way as to not only get it to start going in the opposite direction (not too hard) but to maintain some sort of control with it. It would always lose control and veer off like crazy, crashing all around chaotically. I tried pool balls too, same issue (you can spin them for a sec. but can't speed them up). Does this mean anything?
Now before people start saying that I'm not using enough energy to do this, try it yourself. Considering the scale of me and the amount of power I have in relation to the spinning ball or top, I should have more than enough power to get it spinning inversely, considering I could throw it hard against a wall for ex. Obviously energy is not the leading factor. If you have any issues with my experiment or logic, please explain them instead of saying I'm stupid. (An important point: it is possible to spin the pool ball in the opposite direction at slow speeds for a while, but speeding up to the point it was going before, with the same control is VERY HARD if at all possible). My point is, that if galaxies could be made to spin in opposite directions like they are, it would require something pretty special/specific to do this. This is an issue, because the swirling dot of all matter and physics say that everything in the universe should spin the same direction, yet it doesn't.
Also, if you wish to make any claims about doing this without any issues, or that it is possible if you do it just right (kind of a no duh statement) then please supply a link to a video of you doing it. It would just give a little evidence (something scientists like) that it can be done. However, if you struggle with it like I did, then I think it at least brings up the point of skepticism of how many galaxies rotate in different directions, and that it would happen that often when it is so hard to do. Just more points to consider when thinking about this or trying the neat, cheap experiment. I guess you could try spinning other objects, not sure if it matters or not. Those were just the easiest things I came across. Plus, if you are going to inverse the spin, you have to get the object spinning at some speed, if it is a small model of a galaxy I'm guessing it is spinning fast for its size. If someone would want to do the math, feel free, it could help.

Try hitting your spinning pool ball with another pool ball instead of your hand. Not a full on direct hit, but roll it very fast and whiz it by so it just glances your spinning pool ball. See if you can get your pool ball to spin the other way by doing this.

I don't know if it will work. I'm just curious and don't have access to a pool table or pool balls at the moment.

Two of the planets in our own solar system spin the "wrong" way (i.e. clockwise) and one spins on its side, and the popular theory is that they were hit by something early on to cause them to spin this way.

Please post and lemme know how it turns out.

Thanks! :-)

2007-11-20 12:35:41 by sir_richard_the_third333333333

For use on all air powdered Turbo Hockey tables
Felt bottom for table surface protection

Now, I'm sure people have heard a lot about the BBT and some arguments about why the galaxies spin in opposite directions (they got bumped into, and that reversed the spin). Well, I was just messing around, came across something neat, thought about it for a sec. and tried an experiment. Here it is, very repeatable, potentially free. I used a simple air-hockey paddle, turned it upside-down so it looked like a top, and spun it around. I hit it so that I added to the direction it was spinning, even if it was clumsy, it would keep spinning, usually speeding up for a while. However, no matter how many times I tried, I could not hit the paddle in such a way as to not only get it to start going in the opposite direction (not too hard) but to maintain some sort of control with it. It would always lose control and veer off like crazy, crashing all around chaotically. I tried pool balls too, same issue (you can spin them for a sec. but can't speed them up). IE Using another ball doesn't work.
Now before people start saying that I'm not using enough energy to do this, try it yourself. Considering the scale of me and the amount of power I have in relation to the spinning ball or top, I should have more than enough power to get it spinning inversely, considering I could throw it hard against a wall for ex. Obviously energy is not the leading factor. If you have any issues with my experiment or logic, please explain them instead of saying I'm stupid. (An important point: it is possible to spin the pool ball in the opposite direction at slow speeds for a while, but speeding up to the point it was going before, with the same control is VERY HARD if at all possible). My point is, that if galaxies could be made to spin in opposite directions like they are, it would require something pretty special/specific to do this. This is an issue, because the swirling dot of all matter and physics say that everything in the universe should spin the same direction, yet it doesn't.
Also, if you wish to make any claims about doing this without any issues, or that it is possible if you do it just right (kind of a no duh statement) then please supply a link to a video of you doing it. It would just give a little evidence (something scientists like) that it can be done. However, if you struggle with it like I did, then I think it at least brings up the point of skepticism of how many galaxies rotate in different directions, and that it would happen that often when it is so hard to do. Just more points to consider when thinking about this or trying the neat, cheap experiment. I guess you could try spinning other objects, not sure if it matters or not. Those were just the easiest things I came across. Plus, if you are going to inverse the spin, you have to get the object spinning at some speed, if it is a small model of a galaxy I'm guessing it is spinning fast for its size. If someone would want to do the math, feel free, it could help.
For the record I already asked this question in science, but it didn't get that much attention from who I was trying to direct this statement/question/experiment to so I rewrote it here. One person already gave a decent answer for it, and I think it sums it up well: A galaxy is not an individual, solid object, and would require that most of the material that makes it up would have to collide with another one in order to inverse the direction. I disagree with his idea that they were already doing this while in the tiny dot stage, I would think that this would cause a lot of issues. All that material crashing into each other within such a small area and coming out the way it did? A bit too unlikely to me, I think of a gigantic blender with tiny motors compactly jammed next to each other, spinning and crashing into each other. You'd get a mess.

believe not every spirit , but test the spirits whether they are of God , because many false prophets are gone out into the world

2007-11-25 14:38:19 by sir_richard_the_third333333333

All of these questions have something to do with… something about me recently and barely hockey.


1) I played air hockey this weekend. It was fun. Say you are going to play a nice game of air hockey with your friend. There are two defender paddles. One is blue and the other is red. Which one do you pick? Why?

2)I am interviewing people today. I really hate smiling so much and pretending that I am going to be a super nice boss. Any-who…since the job market blows chunks right now, I have interviewed two people that are unbelievably overqualified. If Bettman became unemployed, would he be overqualified to be NASCAR’s commissioner?

3) I have bit my lip like 7 times today. I blame it all on Juicy Fruit for making such weak gum that I have to throw in a new piece every 20 minutes. Can you chew gum with a mouth guard around your chompers? What is your favorite flavor of gum? I am guessing Lity likes Beemans, Clove, or Black Jack…..only teasing.

4)Last Wednesday, I fell down in the grocery store going to buy some eggs. My purse went flying and landed in such a way that all of my personal belonging dumped on the ground. As I was shoving a yo-yo and flask back into my purse while being stared down, I was thinking, “What do the belonging of my purse say about me?” Here’s my question. Since we all know Sean Avery has a manpurse, what unusual item do you think would have fallen out of his bag?

1) Blue...out of habit.
2) If you're doing the interviewing...screw it with the fake smile. They're the ones who should be trying to impress you...make 'em sweat and possibly soil themselves. Why give 'em hope (unless you're going for the "lure them into the bear trap and then kill them" approach...well played if that's the case)? You'll just make them call their mommy or something (I've had to take that call- a college graduate had their mum call me to complain that I gave her little angel a bad review). Better to come off as being a complete 8-cylinder piece of work and scare people away, I say (my first newspaper job was with an editor who, during our interview, knocked down about half a dozen martinis over breakfast at 8am while telling me he doesn't drink).
I'm picturing Bettman in the heart of Dixie doing the "start your engines" thing (wearing his mom jeans, of course), and trying to figure out the over/under on how many beer cans would be thrown at him.
3) Not really much of a gum person...always afraid I'll swallow it and then it'll form into a tumour and kill me. I read this somewhere on the internet so it must be true.
4) A yo-yo and a flask? That's large. I think Avery has a Sudoko book in there that's a ruse for him to use his crayons to colour in the boxes. That or the current issue of Cosmopolitan with a tabbed article about how it's now okay for men to wear man-dals year round.

2010-07-13 10:59:23 by Homes Deux

Question:
1. A air hockey paddle hits a 48g stationary puck with a force of 12N. The puck travels 50cm on the frictionless surface while the force is applied to the puck. Calculate the final speed of the mass at the end of 50cm.


This is for physics, unit: Energy/Work/Power. I'm not really sure which equation(s) i should use. Hope you guys can help me. THANKS :D

First you'll want to convert the puck's mass to kilograms instead of grams.

Next, convert 50 cm to meters.

The amount of work done on the puck is equal to the dot product of the applied force and the distance traveled while the force was being applied. If the force is in the exact same direction as the displacement, then you can simply multiply the two. According to the work-energy theorem, the amount of kinetic energy gained by the puck would be the same as the amount of net work done on the puck. Therefore:

K = W = F•d

Now the kinetic energy of the puck is equal to one-half its mass (in kilogram) times the square of its velocity (remember, velocity is what you're looking for). So...

K = 1/2 mv²

Therefore:

1/2 mv² = F•d

Rearranging to isolate the velocity, v:

mv² = 2(F•d)

v² = 2(F•d)] / m

v = √(2(F•d) / m)

In other terms, the final velocity of the puck is equal to the square root of (2 times the dot product of force and distance divided by mass).

I hope that helps. Good luck!

2010-04-08 08:56:07 by MitchellDavis1393