| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Downsides to a long trailer tongue?
On 12 Dec 2003 10:54:59 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 12 Dec 2003 04:22:35 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message But for Karen and Basskisser, when you work the problem out, you can assume that the axle assembly is balanced. bwaaahaaaa!!!!! You idiot!!!! I must have missed something... is this more proof that English is your second language and you don't know what the meaning of "idiot" is? I have to ask, how does the fact that you can't solve the problem and you don't have an understanding of simple high school physics and every attempt you've made to actually state something about the problem has been wrong... make me an idiot? Or are you calling me an idiot because you didn't pick up on the fact that in the bonus question, the balance of the axle assembly would affect how for you have to move it and that to solve the bonus question you have to assume that the axle assembly is balanced fore and aft? Don't worry, I didn't expect anyone to pick up on that. You haven't even shown the ability to solve the very simple basic question. You should really do that before you attempt to understand the bonus question. Would you call yourself an idiot because, in trying to find a flaw with the original problem, you said that I ignored the affect of the Z offset between the CG and the fulcrum when in fact, I didn't ignore it at all? Everything you need to solve the problem is there, and you just can't do it. Every attempt you've made to show how smart you are has backfired. This is getting to be very commonplace with you. You were wrong when you said that the problem is flawed because I "completely left out the fact that the fulcrum is NOT at the CG in the Z direction." You were wrong when you said that to keep the hitch weight the same when adding an extension to the tongue "a foot of tongue would have to weigh the same as a foot of the boat and trailer." Care to say something else and make a fool of yourself? again, I KNOW what the outcome is, I know damned well how to solve it, I do vector mechanics on a daily basis. Please show where you've factored in vectors for the fulcrum at the CG in the zed axis. Precisely where I said "assume that the trailer is level because if it isn't, it will affect the answer." Do you not understand that if we assume that the trailer is level, the zed axis offset is irrelevant for the stated problem? By continuing to keep asking me to factor in "vectors for the fulcrum at the CG in the zed axis" when I've already done that, all you're doing is making yourself look like you really don't KNOW what the outcome is and have no idea how to solve the problem. Steve |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Downsides to a long trailer tongue?
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 12 Dec 2003 10:54:59 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 12 Dec 2003 04:22:35 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message But for Karen and Basskisser, when you work the problem out, you can assume that the axle assembly is balanced. bwaaahaaaa!!!!! You idiot!!!! I must have missed something... is this more proof that English is your second language and you don't know what the meaning of "idiot" is? I have to ask, how does the fact that you can't solve the problem and you don't have an understanding of simple high school physics and every attempt you've made to actually state something about the problem has been wrong... make me an idiot? Or are you calling me an idiot because you didn't pick up on the fact that in the bonus question, the balance of the axle assembly would affect how for you have to move it and that to solve the bonus question you have to assume that the axle assembly is balanced fore and aft? Don't worry, I didn't expect anyone to pick up on that. You haven't even shown the ability to solve the very simple basic question. You should really do that before you attempt to understand the bonus question. Would you call yourself an idiot because, in trying to find a flaw with the original problem, you said that I ignored the affect of the Z offset between the CG and the fulcrum when in fact, I didn't ignore it at all? Everything you need to solve the problem is there, and you just can't do it. Every attempt you've made to show how smart you are has backfired. This is getting to be very commonplace with you. You were wrong when you said that the problem is flawed because I "completely left out the fact that the fulcrum is NOT at the CG in the Z direction." You were wrong when you said that to keep the hitch weight the same when adding an extension to the tongue "a foot of tongue would have to weigh the same as a foot of the boat and trailer." Care to say something else and make a fool of yourself? again, I KNOW what the outcome is, I know damned well how to solve it, I do vector mechanics on a daily basis. Please show where you've factored in vectors for the fulcrum at the CG in the zed axis. Precisely where I said "assume that the trailer is level because if it isn't, it will affect the answer." Do you not understand that if we assume that the trailer is level, the zed axis offset is irrelevant for the stated problem? WRONG!!!! So, you are trying to say that, if the trailer is level, and the CG is, say, three feet above the fulcrum point, that if you lengthen the hitch, thus making the distance in x direction, from fulcrum, to the point of resistance, that the outcome would be the same if the fulcrum point was AT the CG? You are sadly mistaken. By continuing to keep asking me to factor in "vectors for the fulcrum at the CG in the zed axis" when I've already done that, all you're doing is making yourself look like you really don't KNOW what the outcome is and have no idea how to solve the problem. Oh, but I do, but I told you, I'm not playing your childish game. Did I not say that from the beginning? |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Downsides to a long trailer tongue?
On 13 Dec 2003 13:49:59 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 12 Dec 2003 10:54:59 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 12 Dec 2003 04:22:35 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message But for Karen and Basskisser, when you work the problem out, you can assume that the axle assembly is balanced. bwaaahaaaa!!!!! You idiot!!!! I must have missed something... is this more proof that English is your second language and you don't know what the meaning of "idiot" is? I have to ask, how does the fact that you can't solve the problem and you don't have an understanding of simple high school physics and every attempt you've made to actually state something about the problem has been wrong... make me an idiot? Or are you calling me an idiot because you didn't pick up on the fact that in the bonus question, the balance of the axle assembly would affect how for you have to move it and that to solve the bonus question you have to assume that the axle assembly is balanced fore and aft? Don't worry, I didn't expect anyone to pick up on that. You haven't even shown the ability to solve the very simple basic question. You should really do that before you attempt to understand the bonus question. Would you call yourself an idiot because, in trying to find a flaw with the original problem, you said that I ignored the affect of the Z offset between the CG and the fulcrum when in fact, I didn't ignore it at all? Everything you need to solve the problem is there, and you just can't do it. Every attempt you've made to show how smart you are has backfired. This is getting to be very commonplace with you. You were wrong when you said that the problem is flawed because I "completely left out the fact that the fulcrum is NOT at the CG in the Z direction." You were wrong when you said that to keep the hitch weight the same when adding an extension to the tongue "a foot of tongue would have to weigh the same as a foot of the boat and trailer." Care to say something else and make a fool of yourself? again, I KNOW what the outcome is, I know damned well how to solve it, I do vector mechanics on a daily basis. Please show where you've factored in vectors for the fulcrum at the CG in the zed axis. Precisely where I said "assume that the trailer is level because if it isn't, it will affect the answer." Do you not understand that if we assume that the trailer is level, the zed axis offset is irrelevant for the stated problem? WRONG!!!! So, you are trying to say that, if the trailer is level, and the CG is, say, three feet above the fulcrum point, that if you lengthen the hitch, thus making the distance in x direction, from fulcrum, to the point of resistance, that the outcome would be the same if the fulcrum point was AT the CG? You are sadly mistaken. If the CG is three feet *directly* above the fulcrum point, then the trailer is balanced and there is no weight on the hitch. If the CG is *directly* at the fulcrum point, then the trailer is balanced and there is no weight on the hitch. If the CG is one mile above the fulcrum point then the trailer is in balance and there is no weight on the hitch. In all of those cases, it doesn't even matter if the trailer is level or not. Assuming that the trailer stays level, it's my contention that the effect of the distance from the CG to the fulcrum in the Z direction doesn't matter to this problem. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong. If you think I'm wrong, why don't you solve the stated problem twice, assuming that the Z component of the distance between CG and the fulcrum in one case is 0' and in the other case is 10'. In both cases the trailer has to be level at all times. If you can show a difference in the outcome between those cases I'll admit I'm wrong. If you can't then you're wrong. If you already KNOW the answer you should be able to just give it for both cases. Don't even worry about the bonus question. That's obviously way beyond your capabilities. By continuing to keep asking me to factor in "vectors for the fulcrum at the CG in the zed axis" when I've already done that, all you're doing is making yourself look like you really don't KNOW what the outcome is and have no idea how to solve the problem. Oh, but I do, but I told you, I'm not playing your childish game. Did I not say that from the beginning? Sure you are. And in continuing to doing so, you keep saying things that show not only that you don't KNOW the answer but also that you have no understanding of simple high school physics. Steve |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Downsides to a long trailer tongue?
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 13 Dec 2003 13:49:59 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 12 Dec 2003 10:54:59 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 12 Dec 2003 04:22:35 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message But for Karen and Basskisser, when you work the problem out, you can assume that the axle assembly is balanced. bwaaahaaaa!!!!! You idiot!!!! I must have missed something... is this more proof that English is your second language and you don't know what the meaning of "idiot" is? I have to ask, how does the fact that you can't solve the problem and you don't have an understanding of simple high school physics and every attempt you've made to actually state something about the problem has been wrong... make me an idiot? Or are you calling me an idiot because you didn't pick up on the fact that in the bonus question, the balance of the axle assembly would affect how for you have to move it and that to solve the bonus question you have to assume that the axle assembly is balanced fore and aft? Don't worry, I didn't expect anyone to pick up on that. You haven't even shown the ability to solve the very simple basic question. You should really do that before you attempt to understand the bonus question. Would you call yourself an idiot because, in trying to find a flaw with the original problem, you said that I ignored the affect of the Z offset between the CG and the fulcrum when in fact, I didn't ignore it at all? Everything you need to solve the problem is there, and you just can't do it. Every attempt you've made to show how smart you are has backfired. This is getting to be very commonplace with you. You were wrong when you said that the problem is flawed because I "completely left out the fact that the fulcrum is NOT at the CG in the Z direction." You were wrong when you said that to keep the hitch weight the same when adding an extension to the tongue "a foot of tongue would have to weigh the same as a foot of the boat and trailer." Care to say something else and make a fool of yourself? again, I KNOW what the outcome is, I know damned well how to solve it, I do vector mechanics on a daily basis. Please show where you've factored in vectors for the fulcrum at the CG in the zed axis. Precisely where I said "assume that the trailer is level because if it isn't, it will affect the answer." Do you not understand that if we assume that the trailer is level, the zed axis offset is irrelevant for the stated problem? WRONG!!!! So, you are trying to say that, if the trailer is level, and the CG is, say, three feet above the fulcrum point, that if you lengthen the hitch, thus making the distance in x direction, from fulcrum, to the point of resistance, that the outcome would be the same if the fulcrum point was AT the CG? You are sadly mistaken. If the CG is three feet *directly* above the fulcrum point, then the trailer is balanced and there is no weight on the hitch. If the CG is *directly* at the fulcrum point, then the trailer is balanced and there is no weight on the hitch. If the CG is one mile above the fulcrum point then the trailer is in balance and there is no weight on the hitch. In all of those cases, it doesn't even matter if the trailer is level or not. Assuming that the trailer stays level, it's my contention that the effect of the distance from the CG to the fulcrum in the Z direction doesn't matter to this problem. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong. If you think I'm wrong, why don't you solve the stated problem twice, assuming that the Z component of the distance between CG and the fulcrum in one case is 0' and in the other case is 10'. In both cases the trailer has to be level at all times. If you can show a difference in the outcome between those cases I'll admit I'm wrong. If you can't then you're wrong. If you already KNOW the answer you should be able to just give it for both cases. Don't even worry about the bonus question. That's obviously way beyond your capabilities. By continuing to keep asking me to factor in "vectors for the fulcrum at the CG in the zed axis" when I've already done that, all you're doing is making yourself look like you really don't KNOW what the outcome is and have no idea how to solve the problem. Oh, but I do, but I told you, I'm not playing your childish game. Did I not say that from the beginning? Sure you are. And in continuing to doing so, you keep saying things that show not only that you don't KNOW the answer but also that you have no understanding of simple high school physics. Steve No, sorry. Again, I know the answer, do this sort of thing on an almost hourly basis, every day. But, you are too stupid to learn anything about vector mechanics, or are just too blind to want to learn. See ya. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Downsides to a long trailer tongue?
On 15 Dec 2003 04:38:33 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 13 Dec 2003 13:49:59 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 12 Dec 2003 10:54:59 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 12 Dec 2003 04:22:35 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message But for Karen and Basskisser, when you work the problem out, you can assume that the axle assembly is balanced. bwaaahaaaa!!!!! You idiot!!!! I must have missed something... is this more proof that English is your second language and you don't know what the meaning of "idiot" is? I have to ask, how does the fact that you can't solve the problem and you don't have an understanding of simple high school physics and every attempt you've made to actually state something about the problem has been wrong... make me an idiot? Or are you calling me an idiot because you didn't pick up on the fact that in the bonus question, the balance of the axle assembly would affect how for you have to move it and that to solve the bonus question you have to assume that the axle assembly is balanced fore and aft? Don't worry, I didn't expect anyone to pick up on that. You haven't even shown the ability to solve the very simple basic question. You should really do that before you attempt to understand the bonus question. Would you call yourself an idiot because, in trying to find a flaw with the original problem, you said that I ignored the affect of the Z offset between the CG and the fulcrum when in fact, I didn't ignore it at all? Everything you need to solve the problem is there, and you just can't do it. Every attempt you've made to show how smart you are has backfired. This is getting to be very commonplace with you. You were wrong when you said that the problem is flawed because I "completely left out the fact that the fulcrum is NOT at the CG in the Z direction." You were wrong when you said that to keep the hitch weight the same when adding an extension to the tongue "a foot of tongue would have to weigh the same as a foot of the boat and trailer." Care to say something else and make a fool of yourself? again, I KNOW what the outcome is, I know damned well how to solve it, I do vector mechanics on a daily basis. Please show where you've factored in vectors for the fulcrum at the CG in the zed axis. Precisely where I said "assume that the trailer is level because if it isn't, it will affect the answer." Do you not understand that if we assume that the trailer is level, the zed axis offset is irrelevant for the stated problem? WRONG!!!! So, you are trying to say that, if the trailer is level, and the CG is, say, three feet above the fulcrum point, that if you lengthen the hitch, thus making the distance in x direction, from fulcrum, to the point of resistance, that the outcome would be the same if the fulcrum point was AT the CG? You are sadly mistaken. If the CG is three feet *directly* above the fulcrum point, then the trailer is balanced and there is no weight on the hitch. If the CG is *directly* at the fulcrum point, then the trailer is balanced and there is no weight on the hitch. If the CG is one mile above the fulcrum point then the trailer is in balance and there is no weight on the hitch. In all of those cases, it doesn't even matter if the trailer is level or not. Assuming that the trailer stays level, it's my contention that the effect of the distance from the CG to the fulcrum in the Z direction doesn't matter to this problem. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong. If you think I'm wrong, why don't you solve the stated problem twice, assuming that the Z component of the distance between CG and the fulcrum in one case is 0' and in the other case is 10'. In both cases the trailer has to be level at all times. If you can show a difference in the outcome between those cases I'll admit I'm wrong. If you can't then you're wrong. If you already KNOW the answer you should be able to just give it for both cases. Don't even worry about the bonus question. That's obviously way beyond your capabilities. By continuing to keep asking me to factor in "vectors for the fulcrum at the CG in the zed axis" when I've already done that, all you're doing is making yourself look like you really don't KNOW what the outcome is and have no idea how to solve the problem. Oh, but I do, but I told you, I'm not playing your childish game. Did I not say that from the beginning? Sure you are. And in continuing to doing so, you keep saying things that show not only that you don't KNOW the answer but also that you have no understanding of simple high school physics. No, sorry. Again, I know the answer, do this sort of thing on an almost hourly basis, every day. But, you are too stupid to learn anything about vector mechanics, or are just too blind to want to learn. See ya. You really mean you get this sort of thing wrong on an hourly basis, every day. That's why you're afraid to post the answer that you KNOW here. Steve |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Downsides to a long trailer tongue?
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 15 Dec 2003 04:38:33 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 13 Dec 2003 13:49:59 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 12 Dec 2003 10:54:59 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 12 Dec 2003 04:22:35 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message But for Karen and Basskisser, when you work the problem out, you can assume that the axle assembly is balanced. bwaaahaaaa!!!!! You idiot!!!! I must have missed something... is this more proof that English is your second language and you don't know what the meaning of "idiot" is? I have to ask, how does the fact that you can't solve the problem and you don't have an understanding of simple high school physics and every attempt you've made to actually state something about the problem has been wrong... make me an idiot? Or are you calling me an idiot because you didn't pick up on the fact that in the bonus question, the balance of the axle assembly would affect how for you have to move it and that to solve the bonus question you have to assume that the axle assembly is balanced fore and aft? Don't worry, I didn't expect anyone to pick up on that. You haven't even shown the ability to solve the very simple basic question. You should really do that before you attempt to understand the bonus question. Would you call yourself an idiot because, in trying to find a flaw with the original problem, you said that I ignored the affect of the Z offset between the CG and the fulcrum when in fact, I didn't ignore it at all? Everything you need to solve the problem is there, and you just can't do it. Every attempt you've made to show how smart you are has backfired. This is getting to be very commonplace with you. You were wrong when you said that the problem is flawed because I "completely left out the fact that the fulcrum is NOT at the CG in the Z direction." You were wrong when you said that to keep the hitch weight the same when adding an extension to the tongue "a foot of tongue would have to weigh the same as a foot of the boat and trailer." Care to say something else and make a fool of yourself? again, I KNOW what the outcome is, I know damned well how to solve it, I do vector mechanics on a daily basis. Please show where you've factored in vectors for the fulcrum at the CG in the zed axis. Precisely where I said "assume that the trailer is level because if it isn't, it will affect the answer." Do you not understand that if we assume that the trailer is level, the zed axis offset is irrelevant for the stated problem? WRONG!!!! So, you are trying to say that, if the trailer is level, and the CG is, say, three feet above the fulcrum point, that if you lengthen the hitch, thus making the distance in x direction, from fulcrum, to the point of resistance, that the outcome would be the same if the fulcrum point was AT the CG? You are sadly mistaken. If the CG is three feet *directly* above the fulcrum point, then the trailer is balanced and there is no weight on the hitch. If the CG is *directly* at the fulcrum point, then the trailer is balanced and there is no weight on the hitch. If the CG is one mile above the fulcrum point then the trailer is in balance and there is no weight on the hitch. In all of those cases, it doesn't even matter if the trailer is level or not. Assuming that the trailer stays level, it's my contention that the effect of the distance from the CG to the fulcrum in the Z direction doesn't matter to this problem. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong. If you think I'm wrong, why don't you solve the stated problem twice, assuming that the Z component of the distance between CG and the fulcrum in one case is 0' and in the other case is 10'. In both cases the trailer has to be level at all times. If you can show a difference in the outcome between those cases I'll admit I'm wrong. If you can't then you're wrong. If you already KNOW the answer you should be able to just give it for both cases. Don't even worry about the bonus question. That's obviously way beyond your capabilities. By continuing to keep asking me to factor in "vectors for the fulcrum at the CG in the zed axis" when I've already done that, all you're doing is making yourself look like you really don't KNOW what the outcome is and have no idea how to solve the problem. Oh, but I do, but I told you, I'm not playing your childish game. Did I not say that from the beginning? Sure you are. And in continuing to doing so, you keep saying things that show not only that you don't KNOW the answer but also that you have no understanding of simple high school physics. No, sorry. Again, I know the answer, do this sort of thing on an almost hourly basis, every day. But, you are too stupid to learn anything about vector mechanics, or are just too blind to want to learn. See ya. You really mean you get this sort of thing wrong on an hourly basis, every day. That's why you're afraid to post the answer that you KNOW here. Steve That's funny, I'm still a registered engineer. Still have a great track record. Still have more work come my way than I could possibly do. So, my question to you is, what in the world would make you think that I'm "afraid" of anything. There you go with those outrageous allegations again, without ANY substance. Just because I refuse to play little boy games with you. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Where to find ramp stories? | General | |||
| trailer bearings | General | |||
| Trailer Brakes: Electric vs Hydraulic-Surge | General | |||
| Where to buy trailer axels ?? | General | |||
| Correct Trailer set up for towing my speedboat. | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
