Really ? Am afraid am going to have to remind you of that discussion, again. Don't like spamming the thread with this nonsense, but it's clear that there's a *woohoo we've got some attack the person ammo* giving some folk the excuse to ingore the thread subject. What a surprise.
Here is the question, and your responses...
etc. Pages and pages of it.
Now, I freely admit my error with the CoM calc, and have no problem with folk *riding* me for it, but it was all sorted after it was made clear that the virtual system definition is physically unreasonable if applied literally. The paradox of using perfectly rigid bodies.
Carlly, suggest you also reassess your previous dialogue. I certainly do not profess to be an expert in instantaneous load mechanics, and may even need to check the 1.76 value, but it should be clear that your ranting was rather, er, unwarranted shall we say ? *0.5 == /2. You asked for the minimum, which was in the range. Not sure in what scenario that minimum actually is *reasonable* though. Similar paradox as for perfectly rigid bodies ?
Bigger than no-planes, DEW and floor by floor explosives ? Impressive.
Now, may I suggest that either you folk get back on topic, or this recent spam is split out to it's own thread. Nearly a full page utterly off-topic. I do not wish to spam MTs thread further.
Now it makes sense..an "Ah -Ha" moment. I can tell that is a youtube or video hosting conversation.
Somehow This clown thinks I am someone named "BigC", or is making up the parts of/the entire dialog with "BigC" - despite a simple google search showing that I always use the screen name Carll68.
Lost Forum
East Side Boxing Forum
JREF
Hearing blogs
on and on and on
Note to Loon: I am not "BigC"
If you are to create dialog, or invent fictitious enemies, and then pin those delusions on an actual person...would it not be wise to either:
A) Make certain the dialog you create is between the same person you are arguing with?
B) At least make the screen name the same?
I have not been on YouTube for at least a year - let alone "1 day ago" as the posts suggest - and when I did it was on Loose Change and the Purdue Simulation, over a year ago, and always under carll68.
Therefor, when I engaged you it the physics question(s)...it was under my screen-name 'carll68'..which,again, I deleted a year ago, after I joined JREF. I may go back to the videos and uncover these conversations and present them here, or I may not...
Bottom line is you are a fraud....
It even appears to my limited knowledge that The answer is indeed that the thread will break if F=Fo/2, not before. So..
YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN! (NO SHOCK)
What I researched it shows the following:
Prior to the force being applied the 5lb weight of the object dangling on the thread is balanced by the tension force of the thread. Once the additional force F is applied downwards the TOTAL force becomes F, and the weight starts executing harmonic oscillation under the influence of the forces. It starts the oscillation at the top point of the period. After a quarter of the period it reaches the midpoint of the oscillation at which the total force vanishes. After half of the period it reaches the bottom point of the oscillation, at which, by symmetry, the total force is F UPWARDS. This total force is result of the applied external force F pointing downwards, and the increase in the thread tension, which must be 2F and point upwards. Thus, the maximal thread tension is TWICE larger than the applied force. Consequently, F=Fo/2 suffices to break the thread.
I asked you questions from a physics high school book and you failed MISERABLY. You
failed this question. You failed to understand C.O.M.
For goodness sake you invented a conversation that shows you failed!!!
Is anything left to be said about this delusional Charlatan?
