Over GVWR? Slow Down

[jponder]

Dont start rusty! After reading this old thread it dawned on me that you still owe me . 50 cents. With interest that comes to $5439. 23 so dont start!

 

[bmoeller]

:-laf



I better go get a pair of hipwaders.

 

[CFAR]

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .....

There you guys go again starting with the technical stuff.

 

[Wiredawg]

Must be slow and cold in Atlanta!

JSponder:



Must be slow and cold (I saw the weather report today) in Atlanta to fish this old thread up off the bottom. Any new updates or variables to throw into the fire?



How about this: Drive 50 MPH w/ 21K GCVW in the left lane of 285 East at 10:00 AM? Safe or hazzardous?



Wiredawg

 

[jponder]

I vote SAFE! Just thought it might be interesting. I actually searched it out as a link for a guy asking about weight. I then read it and well... ..... you know. It had some good info in it. Course it was heavily sided to the HOGS! Couldnt resist. Just think of it as a reunion thread for those of us that were burning up calculators at that time on ? COMPANY time maybe

 

[JRG]

Thanks for digging this up. Good read!



"HOG" JRG

 

[zari]

Actually...

... "exponential increase" is not completely wrong. A polynomial function like v^2 (as in the kinetic energy) can, as you might remember, be rewritten as e^[2*ln(v)], so, technically speaking, it is 'exponential'



Forgot all about this thread, until re-reading it. Back to my Sam Adams!

 

[Crowhurst]

Oh no, I've just been dragged out of reclusion to respond to Zari. (As intended, no doubt!) On his argument, ALL variables can be written as exponentials. Variable x becomes e^ln(x). This sleight of hand can be useful in advanced calculus, but it can't be allowed to justify terminological inexactitude. If this type of argument is allowed, we have to accept, for example, the trivial statement that all variables can be expressed as squares, ie x can be expressed as its square root, squared. That way lies madness! While on the subject of the despoliation of my Queen's English, I note the proliferation in the USA of the expression "I could care less", when the speaker/writer clearly means " I could NOT care less". I am undecided as to whether my life's work should be the eradication of this solecism, or the eradication of Japaneese Knotweed in the Tamar Valley. Nick

 

[zari]

Ha!

Speaking of inexactitude. Maybe 'terminologically exact, but ... (hihi)



Both the expression x=e^ln(x) and the expression x=SQRT(x)^2 is maybe not terminologically, but certainly mathematically inexact :{. Only works for for x > 0 resp. x>=0 (positive real number).



In fact, the above are in no way 'trivial'. Like the <em>old man</em> said... "To thine own self be true; and it must follow, as the night the day, thou can'st not then be false to any man"

(Hamlet, Act i, Sc. 3)



Alain.