First Fly Rod, Reel and line Questions??

"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.

"Cyli" wrote in message
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

See, everybody has a little bit of "engineer" in them. :-)

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.

Hey, wait a minute; that only works if the plane achieves its takeoff
velocity through traction on the belt. (The pilots here will no doubt
correct me if I'm wrong, but) ground speed has nothing to do with takeoff.

Hopelessly analytical,
Joe F.

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:41:46 GMT, "rb608" wrote:

Hey, wait a minute; that only works if the plane achieves its takeoff
velocity through traction on the belt. (The pilots here will no doubt
correct me if I'm wrong, but) ground speed has nothing to do with takeoff.

I'm not a pilot, but I do know a few. I always thought takeoff speed was a
function of ground speed and wind velocity/direction, and of course weight. How
is it ground speed has nothing to do with takeoff?
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

Charlie Choc wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:41:46 GMT, "rb608" wrote:

Hey, wait a minute; that only works if the plane achieves its takeoff
velocity through traction on the belt. (The pilots here will no doubt
correct me if I'm wrong, but) ground speed has nothing to do with takeoff.

I'm not a pilot, but I do know a few. I always thought takeoff speed was a
function of ground speed and wind velocity/direction, and of course weight. How
is it ground speed has nothing to do with takeoff?

I'm not a pilot, but I crashed a hang glider one time. ;-)

What matters is the wind speed seen by the leading edge
of the wing. A plane could become airborne while completely
at rest, relative to the ground, so long as the leading edge
of the wing saw enough wind speed. Think wind tunnel.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:39:02 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

What matters is the wind speed seen by the leading edge
of the wing. A plane could become airborne while completely
at rest, relative to the ground, so long as the leading edge
of the wing saw enough wind speed. Think wind tunnel.

That's obvious, that's why I said "takeoff speed was a function of ground speed
and wind velocity/direction" - which will determine the wind speed over the
wing. Taking off with the wind behind you will need more ground speed, and thus
runway, than if the wind is from the front. To say "ground speed has nothing to
do with takeoff" doesn't account for this.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com