Split Thread The validity of classical physics (split from: DWFTTW)

[humber]

Delusions of grandeur idiocy.

No, it's real. They are in use as we speak.
You won that bet over the Presidency, because Obama has a lot of self-control. He used that to break down barriers, an undermine his opponents ( Something long lost upon Jesse Jackson). You simply followed in Obama's wake. The one ahead of him, of course.

Yes, it's curious that every single person on this thread except you is confused on the simple issue of gear mesh.

The only confusion, is that you can't see the difference. Like you can't see the blinding errors in your treadmill.

 

[Gaspode]

Everyone, please keep it civil. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[spork]

Everyone, please keep it civil. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

I'm being very careful to do so. I'm pointing out that his arguments are pure idiocy - NOT that he's an idiot. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions in that regard.

 

[humber]

I'm being very careful to do so. I'm pointing out that his arguments are pure idiocy - NOT that he's an idiot. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions in that regard.

Hardly a distinction, in either interpretation.

 

[mender]

Folly. If you cross the road, do the cars change direction, or just your perception of them? They remain relatively the same.
How absurd to insist that the torques are not in opposition. That is why the front end of a dragster lifts when accelerated.

No, humber, I said nothing about crossing the road or changing the perspective.

 

[humber]

No, humber, I said nothing about crossing the road or changing the perspective.

Moving from one side to the other, does that. You need to take an 'x-ray' view from one perspective, in order to reach the correct conclusion, Mender.

 

[mender]

Too bad you can't do that isn't it? Then the prop would turn in the same direction.
To solve the conundrum, while maintaining the capacity for different ratios, you need an third 'idler' gear, Captain.

No idler gear needed, all you have to do is flip the gear case over. Fortunately (actually not by fortune but by plan), the gear case is already in the correct orientation to provide the correct prop rotation.

 

[mender]

Moving from one side to the other, does that. You need to take an 'x-ray' view from one perspective, in order to reach the correct conclusion, Mender.

What part of "I said nothing about crossing the road" didn't you understand?

 

[humber]

No, humber, I said nothing about crossing the road or changing the perspective.

Moving from one side to the other, does that. You need to take an 'x-ray' view from one perspective, in order to reach the correct conclusion, Mender.

Dan_O. I am still waiting for you to justify this;

"Then you shouldn't be quoting Arkaein's work without proper attribution."

 

[mender]

Get some sleep, humber, you're double posting.

You mean the plagiarized passage that you quoted, humber? Other people can google too.

http://regedit.gamedev.pl/Mirror/Car Physics for Games/Car Physics for Games.html

 

[humber]

Get some sleep, humber, you're double posting.

You mean the plagiarized passage that you quoted, humber? Other people can google too.

http://regedit.gamedev.pl/Mirror/Car Physics for Games/Car Physics for Games.html

(1) Show me that post, and where it is plagiarism or misrepresentation.
(2) You can also find a lot of support in Dan_O's reference, were he curiously omitted to make the link active. Simple wheels have their own rules, but there are similarities.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3GnIfH6K5GEC

 

[spork]

Hardly a distinction, in either interpretation.

To be fair you can't distinguish between two wheels going in the same or opposite directions. You're not my target audience.

 

[mender]

ETA:
"In a typical situation where the car is cruising at constant speed, the rear wheels will be rotating slighty faster than the front wheels .
(My edit: smaller effective diameter)
The front wheels are rolling and therefore have zero slip. You can calculate their angular velocity by just dividing the car speed by 2 pi times the wheel radius. The rear wheels however are rotating faster and that means the surface of the tyre is slipping with regard to the road surface. This slip causes a friction force in the direction opposing the slip. The friction force will therefore be pointing to the front of the car. In fact, this friction force, this reaction to the wheel slipping, is what pushes the car forwards. This friction force is known as traction or as the longtitudinal force. The traction depends on the amount of slip. The standardised way of expressing the amount of slip is as the so-called slip ratio:".......

A powered wheel will no move without slip. When it does, it slides.

Right here. Now you're forgetting too.

 

[humber]

To be fair you can't distinguish between two wheels going in the same or opposite directions. You're not my target audience.

They are going in opposite directions. The material of gear or shaft rotates opposite directions.
Put two wheels on a single shaft and view then from one perspective, say along the shaft. Do the same, but break the shaft in the middle, connecting them with a simple set of meshing teeth on each shaft. They will now rotate in the opposite directions when viewed from that former perspective.
Goodnight.

 

[humber]

Right here. Now you're forgetting too.

And how is that plagiarism or misrepresentation? It also contradicts your claim that wheels rotate at speeds implied by simple assumptions based upon static diameter, or that front wheels spin at the same rate as driven wheels.

ETA:
I am still waiting for Dan_O's justification. I could ask that he withdraw his more serious libelous remark.

 

[mender]

Then you shouldn't be quoting Arkaein's work without attribution. It appears that a (former) accountant has more of an understanding of physics than you do. Next time you try to use someone else's work without giving proper credit you will be reported. That sort of behavior is frowned upon in the science communities and is a violation of the membership agreement here.

Forgot this already too.

 

[Dan O.]

I still want you to justify this. "Then you shouldn't be quoting Arkaein's work without proper attribution."
You are maintainer of the list. So where is it?

Your post #3842 contains two quoted passages from the text of "Car Physics for Games"

When asked if you were the author of the original piece you denied it so therefore your are a plagiarist.

The accelerometer is my invention.

"Claimed" to be. The facts need to be reviewed given your history of ethics violations.

 

[humber]

Forgot this already too.

I do not accept Dan_O's opinion concerning scientific impropriety.
I made one edit, which I made clear was mine. There was no suggestion of my authorship of the remainder.

 

[humber]

Your post #3842 contains two quoted passages from the text of "Car Physics for Games"

When asked if you were the author of the original piece you denied it so therefore your are a plagiarist.

No, I would first have had to claim authorship. My edit is evidence that I was not doing so.
I don't put my own words within quotation marks.
Even so, you found the source, and it supports my claims, while denying many of yours. It is about games, a simplifying example, to show the general idea, not a full text-book description. You may find things are more complicated than that.

"Claimed" to be. The facts need to be reviewed given your history of ethics violations.

And yours. You made a personal and definitive claim, not of misrepresentation, but theft. That is libelous. I own the IP on that device.

 

[mender]

It also contradicts your claim that wheels rotate at speeds implied by simple assumptions based upon static diameter, or that front wheels spin at the same rate as driven wheels.

The tires do rotate without slip at low driven rates. It's only when the mechanical intermeshing of the rubber tread with the road surface is inadequate to prevent slippage that slip actually occurs. In my line of work that is essentially all the time but certainly not that case of the average car driving down the highway.

By the way, the more common term is percentage of slip when discussing longitudinal tire to surface speed differences and slip angle for lateral differences. Note: for higher level discussions, shear angle should be used instead of slip angle to more clearly distinguish between steering angle (direction of the rim), slip angle (direction of the tread), and shear angle (direction of the tread vs the actual direction of travel).