For those standing on the sidelines who want to participate but feel
inhibited, use this link: http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html
No need to thank me, I matrix and maximize vertical extensible users all the
time.
Jay Fishbein
Walllingford, CT
--- On Mon, 10/5/09, Jim Johnson <bmwwxman@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Jim Johnson <bmwwxman@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Spridgets] brake physics part 72
To: "Ron Soave" <soavero@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Spridgets" <spridgets@autox.team.net>
Date: Monday, October 5, 2009, 7:03 PM
Yup. I remember all that from the dark dusty days of engineering physics.
However, the body undergoing centripetal acceleration is not undergoing an
even acceleration.... You have to get into partials to really describe the
scale of motion I'm talking about. You know... frame of reference is now
"inside" the car, not viewing it from the outside of the system?
Surely those moments would be non-linear, eh? Partials would describe the
very very small accelerations. This is probably an eulerian vs lagrangian
argument...
Cheers!!
Jim
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Ron Soave <soavero@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 10/5/09, Jim Johnson <bmwwxman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ron - instantaneous or "Shock" forces should fall
> > into the realm of turbulence, yes?
>
> Actually, I was talking about mechanical shock, which is an extremely rapid
> acceleration or deceleration. In another definition, it is also a variant
of
> impact (force delivered over time as time goes to zero). Also you can
think
> of it as the first derivative of acceleration (change in acceleration with
> time) or third derivative of position (d^3X/dT^2), which is truly defined
> (and GOD it pains me to type this) as a "jerk".
>
> Let the pigeons loose,
> Ron
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
http://www.team.net/archive
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/spridgets
|