Hauling, Rod-loading.

Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:29b4afb1-d366-4ff8-9f76-
:


Which being the case, you will doubtless have no trouble at all
refuting it scientifically eh?




No real need. I can't even follow your plain text equations because of
formatting issues, but I don't see any derivatives in time or space, so I
know whatever point approximations you're making are probably overly
simplistic.



It's not even wrong.

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

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Heh heh, what´s up Kenny boy, too dumb to understand a simple
equation, and the matching theory?
No, too smart to waste time wading through your silly gibberish.
Articles on the subject have been written by real physicists and
published in real journals as opposed to your amateurish silliness
which has been "published" only in the deluded depths of your
arrogant imagination.

Shoild be easy for you to disprove it then Kenny boy, or find somebody
who can eh?

Yeah, it should be but why bother even reading the silly
rantings of an uneducated simpleton who wouldn't know a
differential equation from a train schedule ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Nov 10, 5:19*pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:29b4afb1-d366-4ff8-9f76-
:

Which being the case, you will doubtless have no trouble at all
refuting it scientifically eh?

No real need. *I can't even follow your plain text equations because of
formatting issues, but I don't see any derivatives in time or space, so I
know whatever point approximations you're making are probably overly
simplistic.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

If you are unable to follow it, then how do you know it is wrong?

You are just bull****ting again. If you don´t know what kgm/s² means,
then you are too dumb to follow the equations anyway. The unit
contains the space time derivatives. In longhand;

kilogrammes per meter divided by seconds squared. ( Aka, "Newtons")

Obviously you are even too dumb to tie a line to a fencepost.

Makes no difference to me what you dumbos write, but for anybody
interested, and capable of understanding it, it may be useful.

Also, the more you dumb assholes react without actually knowing or
saying anything at all germane, purely for "personal" reasons,
independent of the facts at issue, the more sensible people assume
that it is worth looking at.

On Nov 10, 5:26*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Heh heh, what´s up Kenny boy, too dumb to understand a simple
equation, and the matching theory?
No, too smart to waste time wading through your silly gibberish.
Articles on the subject have been written by real physicists and
published in real journals as opposed to your amateurish silliness
which has been "published" only in the deluded depths of your
arrogant imagination.

Shoild be easy for you to disprove it then Kenny boy, or find somebody
who can eh?

Yeah, it should be but why bother even reading the silly
rantings of an uneducated simpleton who wouldn't know a
differential equation from a train schedule ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Well now Kenny boy, if you knew anything at all about it, you might be
able to actually see what it means and entails, but as you are merely
an ignorant gob****e, such information is indeed useless to you.

Also, if you didn´t or couldn´t read it, how could you possibly know
it is wrong? You are just a dumb bull****ter Kenny boy.

wrote in news:65cf33ec-6809-4ac5-b526-
:


Obviously you are even too dumb to tie a line to a fencepost.


You're right. I'll immediately stop teaching graduate engineering.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Nov 10, 5:33*pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:65cf33ec-6809-4ac5-b526-
:



Obviously you are even too dumb to tie a line to a fencepost.

You're right. *I'll immediately stop teaching graduate engineering.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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
´t 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.

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

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****.

On Nov 10, 6:22*am, wrote:
Some considerations on casting and rod loading.

A simple calculation for casting in air is;

Frt = Fi * Fa * Ff * Flt

Where Frt = the force on the rod tip in kg.m/s², Fi = inertia (mass)
in grams, Ff = the coefficient of fluid kinetic friction µk ( air
resistance), Fa = the acceleration of the line in ms², and Flt = line
tension in kg.m/s²


Now, I admittedly can't haul worth a ****, but I do know my physics
(maybe that's my problem.) I'm having a bit of difficulty reconciling
your theory above with that of Mr. Newton who opined a much simpler
equation, F=ma.

Force equals mass times acceleration. That's it.

The extra terms you included (Ff and Flt) are misplaced IMO. Under no
circumstances would they be multiplication terms in the equation. The
line tension is just another Force that would be part of the net force
on the tip of the rod, not a separate term.

The air resistance term (what units are you thinking for that one?)
also does not belong there. Any resisting forces due to fluid
friction would similarly be a part of the net value of the Force at
the rod tip. It does not belong in the equation as a multiplicative
term.

As I said, I can't haul; but I fear the inaccuracies of your
mathematical equation may be detracting from your practical
instruction.

In English;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton