wrote:
On Nov 10, 5:50 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:af6faa37-7c18-480a-ba93-
:

Probably a good idea, teachers should have open minds, and actually
look at theories and equations before they simply trash them out of
hand.
You still have not said a single sensible word about the theory, or
the equations. The only possible conclusions are, that you either don
ït want to do so because you are stupid and biased, or you are just
too stupid to so so at all.
I feel sorry for your students.
I haven't looked through your equations, because I don't know why I
should. If a student handed me a manifesto like that, I'd hand it back
and ask him or her to do a better job.

Step one would be to tell your reader WHY you are doing this exercise.
What do you expect to show us? A model that you are asking a question is
a valuable tool, but a model in a vacuum is masturbation.

I gave up even trying to figure this out when I saw acceleration in units
of "ms^2" instead of ms^(-2)

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

That is the standard European unit notation for Newtons. That should
be quite obvious, and as you correctly translated the unit you
mentioned to the standard American notation ms^(-2), ( which is also
merely a variation of standard mathematical notation, you can´t be
completely stupid.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(Einheit) ( Doubtless you can find
it in English as well).

It makes no difference to me whether you look at it or not, or whether
you try to trash it without looking at it, doing so merely
demonstrates your stupidity, inertia, and bias. Those are not very
good traits for somebody who purportedly teaches graduate engineering.

The reason for the exercise is to discover the optimum casting stroke
and demonstrate it mathematically for any given parameters. There are
other reasons as well, testing various combinations of rod and line,
and building a graphic simulation of the process.

This is already in hand.

Nobody is forcing you to look at or believe anything at all. If you
merely wish to demonstrate how stupid you are, by trashing something
without either looking at it, or understanding it, that is just fine
with me.

You STILL have not written a single sensible word in regard to either
the theory, or the equations. Just more silly bull****.

I think Scott was refering your phrase: "Fa = the acceleration of the
line in ms²". Acceleration is usually expressed as change in disrance
per some unit of time, such as m/(s^2), or meters divided by seconds
squared. You have it as meters times seconds squared.

Tim Lysyk