"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.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

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.

Yes, trying to rationalize with you is a critical error.

"Joe" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

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.

Yes, trying to rationalize with you is a critical error.

What JoeTechnician? Hey, by the way, I'm still looking for that proof
of reciprocity you have in the state of Georgia...BWAAAAHAAAA!!!! For
a contractor's license....BWAAAHAAA!!!!!

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Joe" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

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.

Yes, trying to rationalize with you is a critical error.

What JoeTechnician? Hey, by the way, I'm still looking for that proof
of reciprocity you have in the state of Georgia...BWAAAAHAAAA!!!! For
a contractor's license....BWAAAHAAA!!!!!

I gave you plenty-o proof.

Now, where's the proof that you're a PE?
I know your real name is Kevin Noble and a quick check at the Georgia
license verification site shows NO one with that name registered with the
state.

You're a fraud, and a stupid one at that.

"Joe" wrote in message news:GvHEb.1730
Now, where's the proof that you're a PE?
I know your real name is Kevin Noble and a quick check at the Georgia
license verification site shows NO one with that name registered with the
state.

You're a fraud, and a stupid one at that.

You KNOW my real name? Care to wager? Huh?
We all know the fraud here, JoeTechnician! You certainly don't have
reciprocity for ANYTHING in GA.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Joe" wrote in message news:GvHEb.1730
Now, where's the proof that you're a PE?
I know your real name is Kevin Noble and a quick check at the Georgia
license verification site shows NO one with that name registered with
the
state.

You're a fraud, and a stupid one at that.

You KNOW my real name? Care to wager? Huh?
We all know the fraud here, JoeTechnician! You certainly don't have
reciprocity for ANYTHING in GA.

Yes, I do know your real name.
I'll wager whatever you'd like, Kevin.

"Joe" wrote in message .. .
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Joe" wrote in message news:GvHEb.1730
Now, where's the proof that you're a PE?
I know your real name is Kevin Noble and a quick check at the Georgia
license verification site shows NO one with that name registered with
the
state.

You're a fraud, and a stupid one at that.

You KNOW my real name? Care to wager? Huh?
We all know the fraud here, JoeTechnician! You certainly don't have
reciprocity for ANYTHING in GA.

Yes, I do know your real name.
I'll wager whatever you'd like, Kevin.

Okay!!!! Oh, damn this will be fun!! How about this. The loser has to
first, admit on THIS forum, that he is an idiot, and was wrong, thus
should have never doubted the correct person. Then, I think the loser
should just go away, deal?

Let's start this way. You said my name was Kevin Noble. My LEGAL name,
as seen on my mortgage, drivers license, ANYTHING, and yes, my PE
license, for Georgia, or any other state I'm licensed to practice in.
You, my friend, are DEAD wrong!!!!

Now, to prove you are a bumbling idiot, I'll give my true identity,
when you show me how you got reciprocity for a damned contractor's
license in Georgia, okay? Hint, stupid, there IS NO RECIPROCITY GIVEN
for ANY TYPE of contractor's license.

Why not just send him in some way that "one" sheet of paper, I don't get it
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Joe" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

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.

Yes, trying to rationalize with you is a critical error.

What JoeTechnician? Hey, by the way, I'm still looking for that proof
of reciprocity you have in the state of Georgia...BWAAAAHAAAA!!!! For
a contractor's license....BWAAAHAAA!!!!!

"drn" wrote in message ...
Why not just send him in some way that "one" sheet of paper, I don't get it

Because I simply, and straightforwardly told Steve I'm not playing his
little game. He just doesn't understand that.

On 21 Dec 2003 15:31:40 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"drn" wrote in message ...
Why not just send him in some way that "one" sheet of paper, I don't get it

Because I simply, and straightforwardly told Steve I'm not playing his
little game. He just doesn't understand that.

BZZZT! Wrong answer. It's because you're a lying idiot who claimes to
be a professional structural engineer that has not the first clue on how
to solve a very simple high school physics problem. You've already
prooven that the couple of times you actually did try (and fail) to
solve the problem.

"Basically, a foot of tongue would have to weigh the same as a foot of
the boat and trailer."

"The c.g. of the boat/trailer has not changed in relation to the
fulcrum."

"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."

Above are three examples of where you *tried* to play the game and
failed miserably. No wonder you're afraid to play anymore. Three
strikes and you're out.

Steve