BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 12 Dec 2003 10:54:59 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 12 Dec 2003 04:22:35 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
But for Karen and Basskisser, when you work the problem out, you can
assume that the axle assembly is balanced.

bwaaahaaaa!!!!! You idiot!!!!

I must have missed something... is this more proof that English is your
second language and you don't know what the meaning of "idiot" is?

I have to ask, how does the fact that you can't solve the problem and
you don't have an understanding of simple high school physics and every
attempt you've made to actually state something about the problem has
been wrong... make me an idiot?

Or are you calling me an idiot because you didn't pick up on the fact
that in the bonus question, the balance of the axle assembly would
affect how for you have to move it and that to solve the bonus question
you have to assume that the axle assembly is balanced fore and aft?
Don't worry, I didn't expect anyone to pick up on that.

You haven't even shown the ability to solve the very simple basic
question. You should really do that before you attempt to understand
the bonus question.

Would you call yourself an idiot because, in trying to find a flaw with
the original problem, you said that I ignored the affect of the Z offset
between the CG and the fulcrum when in fact, I didn't ignore it at all?
Everything you need to solve the problem is there, and you just can't do
it. Every attempt you've made to show how smart you are has backfired.
This is getting to be very commonplace with you.

You were wrong when you said that the problem is flawed because I
"completely left out the fact that the fulcrum is NOT at the CG in the Z
direction."

You were wrong when you said that to keep the hitch weight the same when
adding an extension to the tongue "a foot of tongue would have to weigh
the same as a foot of the boat and trailer."

Care to say something else and make a fool of yourself?

again, I KNOW what the outcome is, I know damned well how to solve it,
I do vector mechanics on a daily basis. Please show where you've
factored in vectors for the fulcrum at the CG in the zed axis.

Precisely where I said "assume that the trailer is level because if it
isn't, it will affect the answer."

Do you not understand that if we assume that the trailer is level, the
zed axis offset is irrelevant for the stated problem?

WRONG!!!! So, you are trying to say that, if the trailer is level, and
the CG is, say, three feet above the fulcrum point, that if you
lengthen the hitch, thus making the distance in x direction, from
fulcrum, to the point of resistance, that the outcome would be the
same if the fulcrum point was AT the CG? You are sadly mistaken.

By continuing to
keep asking me to factor in "vectors for the fulcrum at the CG in the
zed axis" when I've already done that, all you're doing is making
yourself look like you really don't KNOW what the outcome is and have no
idea how to solve the problem.

Oh, but I do, but I told you, I'm not playing your childish game. Did
I not say that from the beginning?