Recent content by haruspex

To calculate expected winnings (without ensuring the same payoff in all eventualities) you would need some basis for the actual probabilities of who wins.

I agree, the positive and negative charges depicted do not match the stated charge distribution. The diagram is tricky to interpret. It might have been clearer to show two 2D diagrams, one of the ring and one of the parallel plane containing the reference point.

It confirms that the position you measured the 134° from is purely illustrative. It is not relevant to the actual question. Just use the B'C' and B"C" positions. I can’t find any description of pressure angle as it applies to a linkage. For cams and gears it is defined as the angle between...

What original position? Are you basing that on a diagram provided with the question? If so, I would think it is purely illustrative of a general position, not indicating any specific angles of interest. What angle, or difference of two angles, do you consider to be the 'throw', and what value...

You must have written it for a reason. Where does it come from? What do you mean by a "pressure angle"?

I don’t fully understand your diagram. It looks like you have superimposed three states in one picture: 1. Joint B is down to the left from A, with AB and BC at 180° to each other. 2. Joint B has been rotated so that angle CAB is 180°-134°=46°. 3. Joint B is further rotated so that ABC form a...

Bizarre. But you understand now that one should use - pounds mass for mass and pounds force for weight , - or kg for mass and Newtons for weight, - or g for mass and dynes for weight… right?

I find your diagram illegible. If I expand it at all it becomes very fuzzy.

Please post your answer - maybe it is right. In case it isn't, it will save time if you also post your working.

As I showed in post #23, changing to mass actually made it more complicated because when formulated as a mass equivalence Archimedes principle can be violated in a non-uniform gravitational field, whereas formulated in terms of weights it always works. What mistake? I don’t see anywhere in the...

Weight is mass times gravity. I still worry that your post #8, where you imply that going metric involves switching from weight to mass, indicates a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere, but I cannot get you to elaborate on that, so I cannot see how to help further. If I have helped.

I definitely did not complain about your referring to mass instead of to weight. I merely pointed out that it is usually quoted in terms of weight. That was relevant to your question because if you state it in terms of mass then you are obviously correct, buoyancy is unaffected because the mass...

No, I am saying that mass and weight are different entities, but in the context of a fixed acceleration that applies to all the masses involved (gravity, in this case) it won’t matter whether you compare masses or compare weights. Going metric has no relevance to this discussion. I still do...

I don’t understand the connection between weight versus mass and the use of metric units. The two are independent. A weight is a force, specifically, a force that results from gravity acting on a mass. Forces and masses can both be expressed in any system of units: cgs, MKS, Avoirdupois...

Archimedes' principle is usually expressed in terms of force and weight, not mass, but since the weight of the vessel and weight of the fluid displaced are both proportional gravity…