First Fly Rod, Reel and line Questions??

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:39:47 GMT, rw
wrote:

rb608 wrote:

You have a rope pulled snugly around the earth at the equator (diameter =
7,926 miles +/-). How much length would you need to add to the rope to
raise it 6 inches off the earth at all points?

pi feet

hairy palms

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:26:46 GMT, "rb608"
wrote:

wrote in message
Assuming competent, rational reel design rather than reels "designed to
sell," it's not only typical, but mathematically highly probable.

For whatever reason, this reminded me of a mathematical problem whose answer
is mathematically correct, but (to me anyway) seemed counterintuitive at
first. Here ya go:

You have a rope pulled snugly around the earth at the equator (diameter =
7,926 miles +/-). How much length would you need to add to the rope to
raise it 6 inches off the earth at all points?

Joe F

OK. You have a piece of fly line wrapped around a pencil (diameter =
approx. 1/4"). How much length would you need to add to it to raise it
6 inches off the pencil at all points? You have a chain wrapped around
the rear wheel and tire of a tractor (diameter = 5 feet). How much
length would you need to add to the chain to raise it 6 inches off the
tire at all points?

This might provide insight as to why the rope around the equator of the
earth seems counterintuitive. Think about the result you want versus to
what you're comparing it - using the figure of 7,926 miles is what makes
it counterintuitive, because it's the wrong thing to compare with
desired result - the 6 inch (radius)/12 inch (diameter) increase.

HTH,
R

In article aBDPf.28667$W42.17593@trnddc02, junkmail608
@verizNOSPAMon.net says...
wrote in message
Assuming competent, rational reel design rather than reels "designed to
sell," it's not only typical, but mathematically highly probable.

For whatever reason, this reminded me of a mathematical problem whose answer
is mathematically correct, but (to me anyway) seemed counterintuitive at
first. Here ya go:

You have a rope pulled snugly around the earth at the equator (diameter =
7,926 miles +/-). How much length would you need to add to the rope to
raise it 6 inches off the earth at all points?

Joe F.

pi*12" or ~38"?
- Ken

rb608 wrote:
wrote in message

Assuming competent, rational reel design rather than reels "designed to
sell," it's not only typical, but mathematically highly probable.


For whatever reason, this reminded me of a mathematical problem whose answer
is mathematically correct, but (to me anyway) seemed counterintuitive at
first. Here ya go:

You have a rope pulled snugly around the earth at the equator (diameter =
7,926 miles +/-). How much length would you need to add to the rope to
raise it 6 inches off the earth at all points?

I didn't find this problem counterintuitive, although it's a little
tricky. The essential relationship is that circumference is proportional
to diameter, and the constant of proportionality is pi.

The only reason it might be counterintuitive is that the problem
statement includes a large number (7926 miles), which is irrelevant -- a
red herring. That's a tipoff in a mathematic puzzle. It doesn't matter
(to the problem) what the diameter of the earth is.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...
rb608 wrote:
wrote in message

Assuming competent, rational reel design rather than reels "designed to
sell," it's not only typical, but mathematically highly probable.


For whatever reason, this reminded me of a mathematical problem whose
answer is mathematically correct, but (to me anyway) seemed
counterintuitive at first. Here ya go:

You have a rope pulled snugly around the earth at the equator (diameter =
7,926 miles +/-). How much length would you need to add to the rope to
raise it 6 inches off the earth at all points?

I didn't find this problem counterintuitive,

Presumably because you have no idea of what the word means.

although it's a little tricky.

Tricky? Good lord. There is nothing the least bit tricky about it. It's a
simple problem in arithmetic. Even you (whose skills are such that you can
pose a similar problem.....and then provide an answer that's off by more
than three orders of magnitude) got it right.

The essential relationship is that circumference is proportional to
diameter, and the constant of proportionality is pi.

No kidding? Is that the tricky part?

The only reason it might be counterintuitive is that the problem statement
includes a large number (7926 miles), which is irrelevant -- a red
herring.

Not a red herring. It's a fact (or a close enough approximation, anyway)
and it is ESSENTIAL to what makes the answer IN FACT counterintuitive.

That's a tipoff in a mathematic puzzle.

We'll try to keep that in mind should we encounter a mathematical puzzle.
Meanwhile, it might (it probably won't......but it might) interest you to
know thats it's also a tipoff to what makes the answer to this little
arithmetical exercise COUNTERINTUITIVE!

It doesn't matter (to the problem) what the diameter of the earth is.

Well, lookee here......the thread is not yet a day old and you've already
found a clue! What a lucky boy you are!

Wolfgang

"rb608" wrote in message
How much length would you need to add to the rope to raise it 6 inches off
the earth at all points?

The corrct answer is: The hotel has $25, the bellhop has $2, and each guest
has $1 for a total of $30. There is no missing dollar.

Joe F.


p.s. What I always loved about math (and yes, I'm a geek), is that nobody
needs to tell you if your answer is the right answer. When you understand
it, you already *know* if you have the right answer. But for the record,
the correct answer to the question I thought I posed is Pi (3.1415...) feet.

"rb608" wrote in message
news:9tKPf.13381$eP4.11080@trnddc05...
"rb608" wrote in message
How much length would you need to add to the rope to raise it 6 inches off
the earth at all points?

The corrct answer is: The hotel has $25, the bellhop has $2, and each
guest has $1 for a total of $30. There is no missing dollar.

Joe F.


p.s. What I always loved about math (and yes, I'm a geek), is that nobody
needs to tell you if your answer is the right answer. When you understand
it, you already *know* if you have the right answer. But for the record,
the correct answer to the question I thought I posed is Pi (3.1415...)
feet.

I like the answer.....well, both of them, actually.

The trouble is that the question is wrong. You never wrote that. Trust
me.......I have it from unimpeachable sources.

Wolfgang

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:16:05 GMT, "rb608"
wrote:

"rb608" wrote in message
How much length would you need to add to the rope to raise it 6 inches off
the earth at all points?

The corrct answer is: The hotel has $25, the bellhop has $2, and each guest
has $1 for a total of $30. There is no missing dollar.

Joe F.


p.s. What I always loved about math (and yes, I'm a geek), is that nobody
needs to tell you if your answer is the right answer. When you understand
it, you already *know* if you have the right answer. But for the record,
the correct answer to the question I thought I posed is Pi (3.1415...) feet.


I'm still lost in visions of a rope fitting snugly around the earth. I
try seeing the supporting structure needed to keep the rope from
dipping into the oceans it must cross and my mind keeps coming up with
the highway to Hawaii or the Bridge to Nowhere.

It's as bad for me as the one about the conveyor belt with an airplane
on it and the belt increasing speed as the plane does, so it,
supposedly, can't take off. I kept imagining the belt going all
kablooey and me standing there with one of my favorite quotes: It
blowed up real good, dinnit it? (from someone named Ernest in some
movie I never saw.). The parts flying though the air, the plane being
whipped into the stratosphere by the flexing belt. Ah, things of
beauty.

Sorry, guys, back to your math.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.
Really.

wrote in news:jevt02d2gihh8ac0296943tq2o3fo6toos@
4ax.com:

IMO, large-arbor reels acquired with the large arbor being the primary
characteristic sought are for those who know exactly why they _want_
them. There's nothing wrong with getting a reel that one likes that
happens to be a large-arbor, but that doesn't mean that one can "defend"
having it from a practical standpoint on the basis of it being a
large-arbor reel. For most FFers, and a great deal of FFing, the arbor
size is simply not material.

TC,
R

Actually, I've always thought of large arbor reels as a means of getting
people who already have perfectly functionable reels to buy more reels in a
saturated market.

This feeling was reinforced when I started seeing mid arbor reels.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 8 Mar 2006 17:05:57 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

This feeling was reinforced when I started seeing mid arbor reels.

Brilliant! And, as a NCer would say, hilarious.

d;o)