FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Engineering » Mechanics
watt meter
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 27 of 28 [416 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 25, 26, 27, 28 Next
Author Message
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:19 pm    Post subject: Re: I need more Brain Juice here Reply with quote

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article <1139707828.129690.207500@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"guskz@hotmail.com" <guskz@hotmail.com> wrote:


A brick laying on a sloped book?? the only thing preventing it from
sliding down the book would be friction?
Therefore if the sloped book was more vertical than sloped then the
brick would slide down unto the table?


As for the brick pushing down on my finger, no if the friction is
enough to keep the brick in place on the sloped book???


Yes, the only thing keeping the brick in place is friction, but that's
not relevant to the analogy. And yes, the brick on the slope doesn't
push down on your finger.

Do you see the correlation with the water in the cone? Think of your
finger as the water in the section of tubing below the cone, and the
sloping book as a part of the sloped section of cone wall. The water on
the sloping cone wall doesn't push down on the water in the tubing
anymore than the brick pushes down on your finger, which is not at all.

You just said that friction is holding the brick in place?? Add more
than one brick (same as the water in the cone) and the brick will push
down on the finger.

They already gave me the answer which is the horizontal force of the
adjacent water particles (linked to the opposite cone wall) cancels the
downward force.


Same as:

On the opposite side of the brick on the slope there is more books
stacked on top of each other.

Mistake: not books stacked on top of each other but bricks instead
(since the brick represent the water particles and the book represents
the cone's wall).


Quote:
These books

These bricks (water particles)

Quote:
would be pushed horizontally by the brick as it slides
down, but they do not since they are laying this force on the opposite
wall of the cone (another sloped book at their opposite end) and
therefore the brick does not slide down or put pressure on the finger
below it anymore.





If that still doesn't make sense, then you may need more brain juice
after all. Or perhaps someone who's a better teacher than I.
Back to top
Billy H
science forum beginner


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 42

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Elementary CHARGE (+ OR -), {e}. Reply with quote

Could someon please tell me where this entire thread can be found?



--
Billy H

With a blob of grease here and a bit of weld under there.
If you don't do it right it'll fall apart next year.
When your foot goes through the floor, and the skin falls of the door,
When your Weals fall off, it'll make you Mohr than cough.
It's dead fright'ning.
Back to top
Stuart A. Bronstein
science forum beginner


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:56 am    Post subject: Re: Bad shimmy upon heavy braking Toyota 4Runner (why?) Reply with quote

"Dick Boyd" <dickboyd@aol.com> wrote in
news:1141345941.965323.222720@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Quote:
AFAIK, there is a standard for almost everything EXCEPT brake
friction materials and rotors.

Hi Dick,

Thank you for the wonderful explanation of the purpose and intent of
these federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your explanation gives
reason to why there isn't a standard for brake materials.

Basically, we can conclude two astounding things from this wonderful
discussion.

1. The lack of standards for friction materials should not harm OEM
braking performance because there are standards for OEM braking systems!

2. Because of that, we should be VERY CAREFUL about putting non OEM
parts on our automobiles & trucks as there are no standards for non OEM
applications!

This is truly an enlightening and non-obvious discussion!
Thanks for helping out!

Stu












"Dick Boyd" <dickboyd@aol.com> wrote in
news:1141345941.965323.222720@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Quote:

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
"Beloved Leader" <Kim_Jong_Il@volcanomail.com> wrote in
news:1141225411.516053.262350@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

Brake fluid has a FMVSS number stated on every container. I
find it unlikely that brake pad material does not have to conform
to a FMVSS too.

AFAIK, there is a standard for almost everything EXCEPT brake
friction materials and rotors.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/standards/FMVSS-
Regs/pages/Part571SD101to139.htm

From my research, it seems there are braking (not brake, but braking)
standards which are sometimes not met. For example, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Vehicle Research Test
Center (VRTC) has reported evidence of rotors losing their ABS tone
ring tooth profile due to corrosion causing the ABS to fail.

REF: http://www.doe.state.in.us/safety/pdf/ODINotice-prn.pdf

That article refers to a FMVSS 105 which is apparently a braking
standard, not a brake pad or rotor standard. Digging more, I see
mention of an FMVSS 135 brake performance standard but again, it
seems these standards are for the braking operation of a new vehicle,
and not for replacement pads and rotors.

REF http://www.741limo.com/show_press.cfm?press_id=3

Now that I know the braking performance standard, I found a
description at for FMVSS 105 at
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/standards/FMVSS-Regs/index.htm

Given that there are no standards to protect the consumer, and given
that that means (by definition) that there is nothing to protect the
consumer from shoddy materials, does anyone have a recommended
trustworthy honest Internet supplier of Toyota friction materials and
rotors?

I'm going to replace the pads and rotors and the wheel bearings just
to ensure I get rid of this horrible 4Runner rattle & wobble when I
brake.

Stu

Stu, sorry I can't recommend parts or troubleshooting. But how about a
short discussion of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

FMVSS, for the most part, are "performance standards". Performance
standards means that there is a standard test or procedure that the
device or process must pass. The Federal Government does not want to
get into the business of designing automobiles. Automobile
manufactureres spent great amounts of money on lobbyists to make sure
the feds keep their noses out of the auto makers business.

In one aspect, the FMVSS are more about fixing the blame than fixing
the problem. To protect the innocent, the government adopts a
commercial spec, standard or testing procedure. Adopting an existing
peer reviewed document provides a certain legal protection from the
ambulance chasers.

When it comes to aftermarket parts, it is pretty much buyer beware.
Dealers charge a hefty mark up for "manufacturer's parts". Parts which
may come off the same production line as the "aftermarket parts". The
major difference may be a "testing extra" acceptance check. Another
difference is an implied warranty. There is no way for a buyer to know
if an aftermarket part is "as good as" a manufacturer's part or if
there is an "implied" warranty.

Check out this link for what the Brake Manufacturer's Council says
about aftermarket friciton products..

http://www.brakecouncil.org/52102AFPECG.PDF

Brake Manufacturer's Council has as paper on Aftermarket Friction
Product Effectiveness at this site. It quotes SAE J2430 "Dynamometer
...Test...Brake Friction Products...

Could the FMVSS process be used to produce safer cars? You bet. Will
FMVSS be improved? This is more of a political question than a
technical question, in my opinion. Right now, the politicians hold the
high ground.

Consumers don't have a clue. Or consurmers are gullible enough to
believe what the hear and read in advertisements. About the best
Consumers have are independent test groups like Consumer's Union, SAE,
BMC, etc.

There is an Executve Order and a law that requires reviews of
"regulations" for cost effectiveness and sunsetting. FMVSS are
"regulations" for this discussion. But are the FMVSS reviewed for cost
effectiveness or sunsetting? Probably not in the existing political
situation.
Back to top
Gregory L. Hansen
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 771

PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Couple moments = free vectors? Reply with quote

In article <iLudnaLM9erOSpTZRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
David Corliss <dcorliss@ieee.org> wrote:
Quote:
......... So how does a vehicular wheel work? You need to generate a net
translational force at the axle. You have a frictional force,say f, at the
road surface contact point. Assume that at a given instant, a single spoke
is a massless rod, say of length r, connecting the axle and the frictional
road force. There would be a torque moment, T, at the wheel axle, being
supplied via the drive train.

Would the net translational force be (T-rf)/r? ... just summing
moments on the spoke and dividing by r.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.

Torque is r cross f. Or, for a wheel on the road, we can dispense with
the cross products and say T=rf. The drive train gives us some T, the
wheel has an r, so the force on the road is f=T/r.

If you mean a case where the car (and the wheel) is accelerating, the
moments of inertia of the wheels won't mean much compared with the mass of
the car. But torques add (mind the signs).

T = I a

where T is the net torque, I the moment of inertia, and a the angular
acceleration instead of using the customary Greek letter alpha. Or, for
an accelerating wheel,

T_d + T_r = I a

where T_d is the torque from the drivetrain, T_r is the torque from the
road, T_r=rf for a wheel radius r.

T_d - rf = I a

And solve for f or a or whatever you had in mind.

Quote:




"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ducahd$73j$3@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <1141436806.217276.154090@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
kenneth.bull@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,

I am learning (engineering) mechanics. It took me a while to somewhat
understand the idea of moments (torques). If a force is applied to a
point on a body, then the moment about different points are based on
the moment arm distance from those points to the force. Thus, the
moment about different points on the body are, in general, not equal.

Then now I've enountered COUPLE MOMENTS. Moments caused by couples (2
forces equal in magnitude, opposite in sense, and parallel to each
other). These moments are "free vectors" that can be moved around on
the body, and affect each point on the body equally (is this right?).

So I'm wondering if "EACH MOLECULE" in the body feels the same moment
(tendency to rotate) caused by a resultant couple moments. Is this what
is meant by "free vector"?

After encountering couple moments, it has destroyed my confidence in
normal moments too. Can someone cofirm that what I've explained about
is right? DO I have it wrong?

Anyone know a good explanation of couple moments they can give me?

Thank you very much



Coupled moments are just two torques.

Suppose you have two masses, m, connected by a massless rod of length L.
(I don't know about you engineers, but we physicists always keep a drawer
full of frictionless pulleys, massless rods, and other apparatus of the
sort.) Apply a force F at a distance r from mass 1, and the torque about
mass 1 will be T=F*r*sin(angle). The torque about mass 2 will be
T=-F*(L-r)*sin(angle). If r=L/2 the system will not rotate because there
will be equal and opposite torques. It will simply translate.

Throw in two forces separated by a distance 2a with their center of
separation at a distance r from mass 1. Then the torque about mass 1
would be

T = F*(r-a)*sin(angle) - F*(r+a)*sin(angle)

= -2 F a sin(angle)

r disappeared. You can maybe understand that better as a->0, because then
you'll have two forces that exactly cancel each other out. Or you could
think of it as one force acting as the fulcrum for another force.

The angular acceleration is not independent of r. But then the angular
acceleration is proportional to the moment of inertia, which goes as r^2.
If you change our dumbbell to a lollipop with a massless handle, the
moment of inertia is simply I=mr^2. Angular acceleration goes as T=Ia, so
we'd have

a = T/mr^2

The longer the handle is, the slower the acceleration, as you'd expect,
while the torque is constant.

--
"He who only sees business in business is a fool."




--
"The polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the
invariable plane." -- Goldstein, Classical Mechanics 2nd. ed., p207.
Back to top
Billy H
science forum beginner


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 42

PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Hi Fi tools Reply with quote

"Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o61du1tbll4g0sf8t5o0b9lqv1ado3kc97@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 22:49:53 -0000, "Billy H"
nospam.nanteshoward@nanteshoward.f9.co.uk.nospam> wrote:

I think it is the Stilsons, closely followed by the Spanner.


Anyone?



What about the brain. Is that a high fidelity tool?

Only when it has been carefully adjusted by the skilled application of
a Stilson... ;-)



It just struck me that'd hurt.


Quote:
Regards,
Tony
Back to top
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:06 am    Post subject: Re: Solution to Einstein's Field Equations where T^uv not= 0?. Reply with quote

Jay R. Yablon wrote: >
Quote:
Many of the widely-studied solutions to Einstein's field
equations are taken in vacuo, that is, at events where the
energy momentum tensor T^uv=0. This includes Schwarzchild
and Kerr geometries, for example.

Have there been many exact solutions found where T^uv not= 0?
$$ No.
I am speaking of analytical solutions where the differential
equations are solved exactly, *not* numerical approximations.
$$ YABsolutely no.


Quote:
Maxwell's energy tensor of electrodynamics
T^u_v = (1/4pi) [F^ut F_vt - (1/4) lambda^u_v F^st F_st].

-=- ..interested in solutions where F^uv_u=0 (free space)
-=- ..and where F^uv_u=J^v (space with current sources).
Conditions of interest include static spherical symmetry in
the nature of Schwarzchild, and rotation with spherical
symmetry about the z-axis in the nature of Kerr.
--Jay R Yablon.
To be clear, I am *not* looking for solutions where the metric
is assumed to be a Minkowski metric. Lots of analyses assume
a flat-space background for electrodynamics.

Rather, I am looking for *exact* solutions, to the extent that
such solutions are known, which derive a curved spacetime
metric from the electromagnetic field strength tensor, that is,
which derive g_uv = g_uv(F^uv) via the Maxwell tensor T^u_v,
whereby T^u_v(g_uv, F_uv) simply becomes T^u_v(F_uv) once the
g_uv(F^uv) are found.

$$ Maxwell used REAL "flat" plates in air to derive his equations.
$$ This is why GR is only "approximately" flat, at-great-distance.
$$ Even a dot has extreme "curvature", so you can imagine a point.
$$ GR is a "point-SURFACE manifold" at the end of it's WORLD-line.
$$ This is why GR is NOT a "local" theory (where it's all Newton).
$$ This is why GR is a "far-field" theory (where it's all Newton).
$$ [ The "SURFACE" of a GR-"POiNT" is "FLAT-at-a-GREAT-distance ].
$$
$$ Tom R ought derive a set from lab work ..using "CURVED" plates.
$$ [Just let the PLATEs be M1 and m1 and the air as the "AEther"].
$$
$$ Hope this helps, ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity).
GR CUT OFF it's own WORLD-line, having DECLARED no PRiOR geometry.
p.s. A GR-"geodesic" is *NOT* Uncle Al's "OTHER LONGER way round".

Quote:
Thanks.> > Jay R. Yablon > > Email: jyablon@nycap.rr.com
Re: Solution to Einstein's Field Equations where T^uv not= 0?.
Back to top
Timo de Beer
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Sea Salt Produces Reflective Clouds Reply with quote

As a sideline, these salt crystals appear to form an important fraction of
the small dust particles that happen to be the environmental topic of the
day here in Holland (after a few building concessions being withheld for
fear of exceeding the allowable dust concentrations in residential areas).

Timo

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144155348.105931.213530@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
That's why vehicles rust out just being parked anywhere near salt
water.

Just walk down the beach wearing glasses during an offshore wind.

The sea salt idea might be adapted to bleed energy away from
hurricanes.


Bret Cahill
Back to top
Ian Taylor
science forum beginner


Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 10:53 am    Post subject: Re: TIRED OF HIGH GAS PRICES ? Reply with quote

Move to Europe.

Maybe you will then realise how cheap your gas really is !!!
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 1:05 pm    Post subject: Re: TIRED OF HIGH GAS PRICES ? Reply with quote

Dear Ian Taylor:

"Ian Taylor" <robert.ian.taylor@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146480813.399842.113550@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Move to Europe.

Maybe you will then realise how cheap your gas
really is !!!

Gas in Russia was really cheap...

David A. Smith
Back to top
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 7:47 am    Post subject: Re: What is the logic behind "negative binding" energy?? Reply with quote

$$ Tom [He between his error-bars] Roberts [..@GR.Buffy.com] wrote:
Quote:
In order for a system consisting of multiple constituents to be
bound as a single system, it must not fly apart on its own. That
is, in order to disassemble the system you must somehow reach
into it and _pull_ one or more constituents out of the system
(of course this requires you to somehow hold on to some of the
other constituents). In pulling it apart you of course do work,
which is putting energy into the constituents of the system. The
total amount of work you must do to completely disassemble the
system is minus the binding energy of the system. That _is_ the
way it was originally defined, and since you must do positive
work to disassemble it, binding energy is inherently negative.
Equivalently, when assembling the system an amount of energy
must be released, which is also minus the binding energy.

For example, in Newtonian gravitation, the gravitational
potential \phi for a point mass M is -kM/r (k is Newton's
gravitational constant). The minus sign is essential, because
the force _must_ be -grad phi. The minus sign in this last
equation is essential, because the force _must_ be directed
away from regions of higher potential energy. Remember that
gravitation is attractive and energy is conserved -- these two
properties completely determine those minus signs. So a system
that is gravitationally bound has negative potential energy,
and it is quite appropriate to equate this to the binding
energy of the system (disassembling it means separating the
masses to infinity, where the gravitational potential energy
is zero, as is the binding energy).

In relativity, applying E=mc^2 in the rest frame of the system,
and always disassembling it into components at rest far away in
that frame, the mass of the system is simply the sum of: a) the
masses of its constituents, b) their kinetic energies (while
part of the system), and c) the binding energy. Note if binding
energy were positive there would be a funny minus sign in there.

Tom [He between his error-bars] Roberts [..@GR.Buffy.com].

$$ You lack a distinction between "Total ENERGY" & "Total ENTHALPY".
$$ [LaGrangian L; intrinsic REST energy eM; Volt*Amp*sec energy eV].
$$
$$ GUESS iSS STANDARD TOTAL ENTHALPY E = m*c^2 + pL*c + pA*fA
$$ = eM + L + eV
$$ = eM + L + nA*hbar*fA
$$ = eM + Kinetic energy eK
$$ ..Note, *total-OTHERwise-ENERGY*... = eM + L - (m*v^2 / 2).
$$
$$ Where kinetic energy eK is the photoelectric "iONization energy".
$$ [This energy is NOT ONLY particular to the photoelectric effect].
$$
$$ STANDARD Total ENTHALPY ..NO "funny minus sign in there", Dimwit.
Back to top
Don Lancaster
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 3:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Properties of HHO (aka Aquygen, Brown's Gas, Klein's gas, etc) Reply with quote

PV wrote:
Quote:
Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> writes:

I haven't seen this last one - is it a single large LED, or a composite
like the ones they put in traffic lights? 1400 watts must be a freaking
huge LED. *

Links on http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu06.asp


yeah, I found the manufacturer after a little googling. Apparently they
aren't actually making the 28,000 lumen light engine yet (it is a
composite). Still, the way thing are going incandescents are going to be
completely gone inside of 5 years. While searching, I found several places
selling bulb replacements. For 30 bucks you get a bulb that lasts for 10
years continuous use, and uses like 5 watts for the equivalent of a 75 watt
bulb. Great stuff. *

What is neat is the potential 2X or so efficiency improvement over
fluorescents. Present LED limits are engineering and learning curve, not
physics.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Back to top
Uncle Al
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1226

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 1:45 am    Post subject: Re: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad PhD (Eng.) President of Iran Reply with quote

Larry Hammick wrote:
Quote:

Uncle Al wrote:

Iranian academia, if one can call it that, is important to Ahmadinejad.
It's interesting to watch how he manipulates and uses the Iranian
student mob, of which he is a former member. In particular, he has
chosen to deliver some of his more bloodthirsty addresses to student
crowds.

landnotloans@hotmail.com wrote:

A short acedemic bio

Source?

No, Uncle Al did not write that. LIAR.

Uncle Al suggested that a fruitful target for Iranian terrorism would
be 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224. That is the
IRS building. Internal Revenue has been terrorizing Americans for 70
years. Turnabout is fair play. Let's redistribute some income back.

Tell Uncle Al if you would be personally put out by a small fission
device ablating the Internal Revenue Service. Think of it as a social
audit. Uncle Al would break out a sealed bottle of Lagavulin, polish
the Waterford, and invite neighbors in for a celebratory tipple.

An asymmetric warfare act of stateless terrorism with an improvised
nuclear device directed against Internal Revenue would justify a new
national holiday. BTW, Lady Godiva rode naked through the streets of
Coventry to protest her husband's heinous taxation policies in 1040
AD. Give it to the IRS good and hard and listen to America cheer.

Government cannot award people what it first has not stolen from
them. What one man receives without effort is confiscated from
another who labors. The money I make belongs to me and my family, not
to a government stooge who takes a cut and dumps the rest on slum
bunnies for squirting out babies.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
Back to top
larryhammick@telus.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 217

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 2:26 am    Post subject: Re: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad PhD (Eng.) President of Iran Reply with quote

On second thought, if you look at the carats > or whatever you're
seeing, you'll see that the notorious troll Uncle Al has not been
quoted at all. So you're reputation is safe, a*****le. And shove your
tax beefs up your arse, fool.
Back to top
Don Lancaster
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2006 1:17 am    Post subject: Re: Properties of HHO (aka Aquygen, Brown's Gas, Klein's gas, etc) Reply with quote

AZ Nomad wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:20:00 +0100, Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:





David Bostwick wrote:


In article <e4vtu5$sar$1@news.datemas.de>, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:


Shut up moron.

Oooh, he got you good, Nomad.


So totally ! ;-)



LEDs are becoming more and more common. True, you can't buy them as easily as
incandescent or fluorescent, and they're pricier. I'll bet kerosene lanterns
and candles were a lot more common than light bulbs for quite a while, too.


Hey ! My house originally had gas lighting.


Graham



that new flangled electric lighting will never catch on.

Actually, there is every reason to believe that incandescent lighting
will shortly be legislated out of existence.

Anything under 80 Lumens per watt will eventually be a no-no.

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf


--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Back to top
Bret Cahill
science forum Guru


Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 480

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:23 am    Post subject: Re: New German 4 seater gets 157 MPG Reply with quote

< The obstacles are safety-related.

Only in a demolition derby do you need a heavy vehicle to be safe.

In real life there are more intelligent ways to be much safer.
Supposedly Ford and Microsoft are working on collision avoidance
systems.

I like the idea of a gyro unicycle that would automatically pogo stick
over offending vehicles, execute a whimsical flip in mid air and then
land in the emergency lane.

Cops would never be able to give you a ticket because they would be
laughing too hard.


Bret Cahill
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 27 of 28 [416 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 25, 26, 27, 28 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:54 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Engineering » Mechanics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts 10 Cent/Watt Solar Steam Engine; 70% Carnot From World's ... Bret Cahill Mechanics 0 Mon May 01, 2006 10:53 pm
No new posts orion 4star meter waterpollutionlaboratory@ Analytical 0 Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:41 pm
No new posts So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly Spaceman Mechanics 41 Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:29 am
No new posts static-grounding of meter movements? dances_with_barkadas@yaho Control 23 Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:01 pm
No new posts pH meter site Borek Chem 4 Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:48 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.3786s ][ Queries: 16 (0.3347s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]