Recent content by Magnus

Excellent point. I do believe you guys. The way I see .999... is basically.. a number that extends forever, it starts in the tens, goes to hundereds, thousands, etc. etc.. each time becoming closer and closer to 1. I see it becoming infinitely close to 1 as itself extends infinitely. Its...

I can't believe that there is no largest # less than 1. There has to be, in theory. If you can say that .999... = 1 then how can you not in mathamatics represent the largest # that is less than 1? the .999... = 1 rule only works because you NEVER reach the end of infinity. I like sound...

How can there be no largest # less than 1? that doesn't make any sense.

The line over it means infinity. So couldn't you also say .999... ?

Can you represent that in decimal form?

How can you represent the largest # that is less than 1?

Ok, I was right in line with russ_watters ideas, however then I was swayed the other way. Now I'm just completely confused.

Let me as you this then... ingore wind resistance. If the force on the axle wasn't applied by the engine/tranny, but perhaps by a strap that was directly even with it on a horizontal level.. If the car accelerates fast enough to the point where the front end DOES lift due to its higher...

See, I just thought though that the front end jerked up because the forward acceleration was so great, and the forward vector was lower than the COG thus making the front lift.

I think I got it now... When you initially long the drag car, the roation of the pinion on the ring gear is what lifts the car (that and the torque arm pushing up on the body)... NOT the rapid acceleration of the tires. It's easier for the car to go up than it is forward under the instant...

I understand that. I separate the force that gravity applies though. Say you throw a baseball... you have an X and Y vector. The X vector is depandant on your arm and air resistance. The y factor is dependant on gravity. You throw the ball hard enough and it will never hit the Earth...

I can understand that. If your forward vector is so great though that the front end cannot come down due to the fact that the down force applied by gravity isn't enough to overcome the acceleration, what are you supposed to do to conserve energy? In that scenario, isn't there no enrgy lost?

I understand the effects of weight transfer on traction... did you guys read my last reply? That's where I'm getting confused.

In the train example though, if the trans where able to accelerate as fast as the cars did at the track, and only the rear wheels where tied down.. wouldn't there be leveraging action due to momentum? The center of gravity of the car is higher than the point of forward force thus it goes upward...

The car will accelerate forward, that's a given. If the suspension is soft enough to allow weight transfer though, where and how is drive energy being lost? That's what I don't understand. Another example is this. You have trains of equal power on parallel tracks. Each carries a flat bed...