(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.

On 15 Dec 2003 11:15:07 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(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.

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.

The fact that you keep making posts about this "little boy game" (it is,
after all, something a 15 year old would see in 10th grade physics) is
proof that you are not refusing to play little boy games. The fact that
you've put your foot in your mouth twice already in regards to this
little boy game (first time when you said that to balance out the
trailer the extension would have to weigh as much per foot as the boat
and trailer and second time when you said that the problem is flawed
because I ignored the CG offset from the fulcrum in the Z direction when
it is a given that the trailer is level) is a pretty good reason why
you're afraid to post an answer to this little boy game ... registered
engineer or not. BTW, does "registered engineer" mean you are a PE?
lol

So the fact that you've already made a fool of yourself twice in this
thread is the substance as to why you're afraid to make a fool of
yourself yet again by posting an answer that you don't know. The reason
you're not posting an answer is obviously NOT because you refuse to play
little boy games ... because you continue to do so.

Steve

Just because I refuse to
play little boy games with you.

The fact that you keep making posts about this "little boy game"

Hey.... Here's an idea. Why don't you two kids make an agreement to meet
someplace where the pair of you can tounge each other into oblivion. Get a
life!

On 16 Dec 2003 14:50:44 GMT, (ReevesJ32) wrote:

Hey.... Here's an idea. Why don't you two kids make an agreement to meet
someplace where the pair of you can tounge each other into oblivion. Get a
life!

What's amazing to me is that with all the off topic political posts here
everyday (hundreds) you pick this one to complain about. And it's not
even off topic!

Have a nice day,

Steve

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 15 Dec 2003 11:15:07 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(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.

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.

The fact that you keep making posts about this "little boy game" (it is,
after all, something a 15 year old would see in 10th grade physics) is
proof that you are not refusing to play little boy games. The fact that
you've put your foot in your mouth twice already in regards to this
little boy game (first time when you said that to balance out the
trailer the extension would have to weigh as much per foot as the boat
and trailer and second time when you said that the problem is flawed
because I ignored the CG offset from the fulcrum in the Z direction when
it is a given that the trailer is level) is a pretty good reason why
you're afraid to post an answer to this little boy game ... registered
engineer or not. BTW, does "registered engineer" mean you are a PE?
lol

Yes, it does. And I am. Again, I'm not playing your little game. I
know you are wrong, but you'd never see it, you are too blind. But,
alas, just a tad. About the z axis. Are you saying that, seeing how in
the x direction, the fulcrum point isn't at the CG, that if we move
the cg up, or down, in the z direction, that the resultant resistance
on the hitch doesn't change? Really? So, you are saying that there
won't be a moment induced in the z direction? And are you thus saying
that the moment won't change as the distance from the fulcrum to the
CG changes????? Hint, moment is given thusly: pound/inches,
kip/inches, pound/feet, kip/feet, etc., etc. So, yes or no, does this
torsional load change when the distance from the fulcrum to the CG
changes?

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

About the z axis. Are you saying that, seeing how in
the x direction, the fulcrum point isn't at the CG,

This was clearly stated by the reference that there was tongue weight.

that if we move
the cg up, or down, in the z direction, that the resultant resistance
on the hitch doesn't change?

It was clearly stated that the trailer was level. Hence, the center of
gravity and the center of mass lie on the same spot with reference to the X
axis.

Really?

Really.

So, you are saying that there
won't be a moment induced in the z direction?

You keep making statements that I can't believe a professional engineer
would make.
A moment induced in the z direction? That makes no sense at all.
You can have a moment about an axis, not in the direction of an axis. If
you meant to say a moment about the Z axis, then this would have to come
from an acceleration force in either the translational (forward/backward)
direction or lateral direction. As I said before, adding acceleration to
the problem changes it into a dynamcis problem.

If you meant to say a moment about the Y axis (which is the axis parallel to
the axel, and what provides tongue weight) then for any given condition
("level" in this case) you don't need to know where the center of mass lies
in the Z direction. On the other hand, if you wanted to know how the tongue
weight would change when the rig went up or down hills then you would need
to know where the center of mass is.


And are you thus saying
that the moment won't change as the distance from the fulcrum to the
CG changes?????

It is only required to know the tangential distance from the fulcrum.
Again, it was stated that the trailer was level.

Hint, moment is given thusly: pound/inches,
kip/inches, pound/feet, kip/feet, etc., etc.

You are wrong. Look it up again.

Moment it the product of the tangential force and the lever arm. You
multiply, not divide. By convention the units are stated in the order of
"legth" and "force" such as foot-pounds (that's a hyphen, not a subtraction
symbol).

So, yes or no, does this
torsional load change when the distance from the fulcrum to the CG
changes?

Only if it changes the tangential distance. If the trailer is level, you
can raise the load as high as you want and it won't change the moment about
the axel.

You keep saying that you are an engineer and know this stuff. Yet you refuse
to back up anything you say with equations, calculations or examples. It
should be simple: take the original example, make what ever assumption you
want for the location of the center of mass in the Y and Z direction and run
the calculations. Then create another example, with everything the same
except a different Y and/or Z distance for center of mass (leave the X
direction alone) and run the calculations again.

Rod

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:50:28 -0800, "Rod McInnis"
wrote:

[reply to basskisser's ineptness cut]

You keep saying that you are an engineer and know this stuff. Yet you refuse
to back up anything you say with equations, calculations or examples. It

There's no way this guy is a professional engineer. He claims to be a
structural professional engineer and yet doesn't know the first thing
about moments. Yeah, right!

should be simple: take the original example, make what ever assumption you
want for the location of the center of mass in the Y and Z direction and run
the calculations. Then create another example, with everything the same
except a different Y and/or Z distance for center of mass (leave the X
direction alone) and run the calculations again.

This is exactly what I proposed when I said:
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.

But he refuses to provide the first be of evidence that he knows what
he's talking about. Everything he's written so far just shows that he's
an incompetent engineer, if he is one at all.

I'll let you take it from here.

Steve

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:50:28 -0800, "Rod McInnis"
wrote:

[reply to basskisser's ineptness cut]

You keep saying that you are an engineer and know this stuff. Yet you refuse
to back up anything you say with equations, calculations or examples. It

There's no way this guy is a professional engineer. He claims to be a
structural professional engineer and yet doesn't know the first thing
about moments. Yeah, right!

should be simple: take the original example, make what ever assumption you
want for the location of the center of mass in the Y and Z direction and run
the calculations. Then create another example, with everything the same
except a different Y and/or Z distance for center of mass (leave the X
direction alone) and run the calculations again.

This is exactly what I proposed when I said:
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.

But he refuses to provide the first be of evidence that he knows what
he's talking about. Everything he's written so far just shows that he's
an incompetent engineer, if he is one at all.

I'll let you take it from here.

Steve

Yeah, sure. It's really quite simple. Can be explained and shown where
you are making a critical error in your thinking with one sheet of
paper.

On 18 Dec 2003 04:06:28 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:50:28 -0800, "Rod McInnis"
wrote:

[reply to basskisser's ineptness cut]

You keep saying that you are an engineer and know this stuff. Yet you refuse
to back up anything you say with equations, calculations or examples. It

There's no way this guy is a professional engineer. He claims to be a
structural professional engineer and yet doesn't know the first thing
about moments. Yeah, right!

should be simple: take the original example, make what ever assumption you
want for the location of the center of mass in the Y and Z direction and run
the calculations. Then create another example, with everything the same
except a different Y and/or Z distance for center of mass (leave the X
direction alone) and run the calculations again.

This is exactly what I proposed when I said:
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.

But he refuses to provide the first be of evidence that he knows what
he's talking about. Everything he's written so far just shows that he's
an incompetent engineer, if he is one at all.

I'll let you take it from here.

Yeah, sure. It's really quite simple. Can be explained and shown where
you are making a critical error in your thinking with one sheet of
paper.

You keep saying it's really simple to explain and you haven't been able
to do it yet. So if you need one sheet of paper to do it, draw it and
scan it and post it in alt.binaries.pictures.misc. Surely a
professional engineer such as yourself could do that easily in a manner
of minutes, far less time than it takes you to post all your off-topic
messages..

Steve

"Rod McInnis" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

About the z axis. Are you saying that, seeing how in
the x direction, the fulcrum point isn't at the CG,

This was clearly stated by the reference that there was tongue weight.

that if we move
the cg up, or down, in the z direction, that the resultant resistance
on the hitch doesn't change?

It was clearly stated that the trailer was level. Hence, the center of
gravity and the center of mass lie on the same spot with reference to the X
axis.

Really?

Really.

So, you are saying that there
won't be a moment induced in the z direction?

You keep making statements that I can't believe a professional engineer
would make.
A moment induced in the z direction? That makes no sense at all.
You can have a moment about an axis, not in the direction of an axis. If
you meant to say a moment about the Z axis, then this would have to come
from an acceleration force in either the translational (forward/backward)
direction or lateral direction. As I said before, adding acceleration to
the problem changes it into a dynamcis problem.

If you meant to say a moment about the Y axis (which is the axis parallel to
the axel, and what provides tongue weight) then for any given condition
("level" in this case) you don't need to know where the center of mass lies
in the Z direction. On the other hand, if you wanted to know how the tongue
weight would change when the rig went up or down hills then you would need
to know where the center of mass is.
The moment is induced in the Z axis. The moment is about the Y axis.

And are you thus saying
that the moment won't change as the distance from the fulcrum to the
CG changes?????

It is only required to know the tangential distance from the fulcrum.
Again, it was stated that the trailer was level.

Hint, moment is given thusly: pound/inches,
kip/inches, pound/feet, kip/feet, etc., etc.

You are wrong. Look it up again.

Moment it the product of the tangential force and the lever arm. You
multiply, not divide. By convention the units are stated in the order of
"legth" and "force" such as foot-pounds (that's a hyphen, not a subtraction
symbol).

I didn't mean the / as divide.

So, yes or no, does this
torsional load change when the distance from the fulcrum to the CG
changes?

Only if it changes the tangential distance. If the trailer is level, you
can raise the load as high as you want and it won't change the moment about
the axel.

Oh, but it certainly will, because the CG (or more correctly the
center of mass) is not on an axis in line with the fulcrum point. So,
level or not, there is a moment induced.

You keep saying that you are an engineer and know this stuff. Yet you refuse
to back up anything you say with equations, calculations or examples. It
should be simple: take the original example, make what ever assumption you
want for the location of the center of mass in the Y and Z direction and run
the calculations. Then create another example, with everything the same
except a different Y and/or Z distance for center of mass (leave the X
direction alone) and run the calculations again.

Yes, that is true. Not playing Steve's game. He is utterly wrong,
having made too simple of a critical error, and doesn't even realize
it.