Talk:g-force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the G-force article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 28 days

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Measurement (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2013, when it received 17,177,762 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 7 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Roller coasters[edit]

I wondered about the paragraph on amusement rides, where it is said that they usually don't pull over 3 g with some listed exceptions. However, according to "rcdb.com" and other coaster-related sources, almost every looping coaster on the world pulls about 4-5 g on entering the loop (e.g. the Vekoma Boomerang which is found in many parks around the world is said to pull 5.2 g on its first inversion).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.203.254.65 (talk • contribs)

Requested move 7 January 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Procedural close. Editor BarrelProof is correct in that a page move is not needed for this proposed change. Suggest this be discussed in a new section where editors can decide whether or not to remove {{Lowercase|G-Force}} from the 7th line. Thanks and kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Editing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 03:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

g-force → G-force – COMMONNAME; the capitalised form is by far the normal form in English, by leaps and bounds. And only in rare and exceptional cases do we have our article titles be in lower case; making such an exception for something that is almost never, unless it's in French, written with in lower care in the real world is bassackwards, is jarring to readers, and is confusing. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:10BA:9558:7F4:32F (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this is about the {{Lowercase|G-Force}} at the beginning of the article, which displays the letter 'G' in lowercase. At first I thought it was about capitalizing the "f" in "force". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is the force due to gravitational acceleration. In all of my studies, gravitational accelleration has been represented as "g". This n-gram would indicate about equal usage of the capped/uncapped versions of "g". The guidance at WP:AT (throught ultimately at MOS:CAPS is that we would rely only cap if this is done in a significant majority (nearly always) of sources. The evidence is that it should be "g-force" in running text. The article consistently uses lowercase. To how it should be in the title is a different matter. WP:TITLEFORMAT states: Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default .... MOS:LCITEMS gives guidance on names of units of physical quantities or their symbols - that they should always retain their specific case. In that respect, the article title is correct - ie "g-force". Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Definition?[edit]

The article currently defines g-force as:

The g-force experienced by an object is due to the vector sum of all non-gravitational and non-electromagnetic forces acting on an object's freedom to move.

So what are these forces? Strong nuclear force? Weak nuclear force? Is there some fifth force that I don't know about?

"Mechanical" forces where one thing touches another (and both are ordinary matter) are due to electric field repulsion between the electrons in the outer shell of their atoms. So this definition doesn't make any sense. Perhaps if it came from a cited source I could check to see what the actual source says. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the non-electromagnetic portion of the definition. Makes more sense now. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem[edit]

The title of the article "g-force" starts with small letter. JelloMello24 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motorsports in the "typical examples" section.[edit]

We don't need formula 1 referenced 4 times, the only motorsports refs should be breaking G-force, and Kenny Braeck's crash. The Verstappen/Hamilton incident is clearly inflammatory if you're a fan of the sport, and the Grosjean example is superfluous. Perhaps the V8 example is 'good enough', but I stand by removing the two formula one crash references. Ruby.Boulton (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]