"Carey Akin" <cmakin (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote in
newsKaQg.76646$QM6.50634 (AT) bgtnsc05-news (DOT) ops.worldnet.att.net:

I don't know that it was ever more than a rough estimate (the old
time formula was (length - 3/5 breadth) x breadth x depth of
hold (*)). It's purpose was to judge how much cargo a vessel carried,
in order to assess taxes, dockage fees, canal tolls, etc.

No, just an immense store of totally useless knowledge :-)

Say, speaking of maritime things, you ever run into an engineer
named Al Phillips?

John

("depth of hold from the deck to the ceiling", a use of the word
ceiling which will confuse most folk)

"SimRacer" <nOspaM@simracer68 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in
news:8wYPg.31536$Md4.28888 (AT) tornado (DOT) southeast.rr.com:

That's exactly it. Nitrogen acts very much like an "ideal gas",
and the ideal gas law PV=nrT applies, where n & r are constant.
(PV & T being pressure, volume, and temperature - with volume
essentially constant in a tire, that says P increases with T).

Air is not an ideal gas, so n & r don't stay constant, and thus
the change in pressure isn't readily predictable.

John

"John McCoy" <igopogo (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote

Admeasurers also use Simpson's rule for the volume. And, yes, that was and
is the purpose to this day. Both the Suez and Panama Canals have their own
tonnage rules and vessels must have and display their appropriate
admeasurements, from which the toll for passage is taken. And the Canal
tonnage rules are not the same as the new International Standard that went
into effect around 12 years ago.
Unfortunately I have both.
used to.
Ceiling? Not this fellow. Now tell them about what a "floor" is on a ship.
.. . . . .

Carey in Manvel

"Carey Akin" <cmakin (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote

"It's aerodynamically impossible for a bumblebee to fly'' said the first
aeronautical engineer. "Its wings are much too short and his body way too
bulky for it to even lift off the ground. How do you suppose it does it?''
"Maybe'', answered the second engineer, "nobody ever told it that it
couldn't fly''.

Why do engineers have so much trouble "thinking out of the box" ? ;-)

"SimDriver" <NR2003.is.the (AT) best (DOT) sim.net> wrote

I have heard that story almost my entire life, but I have never been
presented with any verification. I just figure it is an old wives' tale.
impossible to control or be reliable or practical.

Carey in Manvel

"Carey Akin" <cmakin (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote

That's right Carey, I'm the one that said it was impossible, and have the
leeway of not being an engineer to fall back on. lol

As to it being "impossible to control, or be reliable or practical", I can
only point to Kevin's own comments on Eli's show (also briefly covered at
Jayskis today) that they get their wheels when they arrive at the track each
week, and until they do, they don't even know which corner of the car
they're going to be destined for. Since the specific offending wheels were
apparently the RFs - and on left-turn-only ovals, this would make at least
some sense - I think the whole cheater rim theory stinks worse now than it
did Monday morning.

But then again, what would I know? I'm just an uneducated USENET Monday
morning NASCAR quarterback.

"SimRacer" <nOspaM@simracer68 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

CRUsnip to this:
for tire mounting? How does Evernham always get red wheels &
Penske always get blue, sometimes yellow wheels? CTS-Hamilton's chrome wheels?
CRU-who agrees with Harvick that drivers ain't too smart.

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:01:12 -0400, "Crusader" <cru357 (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net> wrote:

from Jayski:

More on the Speed Channel/RCR Wheels Report: per NASCAR Live with Eli
Gold, Kevin Harvick comments, "We have an inspection process that
happens every week. The ironic part about it is that our wheels are
taken to the racetrack by a wheel company every week. Really, the only
thing you can touch is the valve stem. And the report was, that, you
know, I don't even know, laser cut holes in the wheels. So, there's
really no possible way that you could even wind up knowing what corner
that the wheels are going to be mounted on, because the tires are
already mounted when you get to the race track. If somebody would have
just done their homework for thirty seconds or a couple of minutes and
just figured out exactly what they were doing, they would have
realized they would have realized that it's virtually impossible to do
what they reported. So, it's just unfortunate that we've spent the
whole week talking about Bob Dillner instead of talking about our win,
and that's unfortunate for the Speed Channel that they are where they
are in their journalism state of reporters."(MRN Radio)(9-21-2006)

"Carey Akin" <cmakin (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote in
news:8ykQg.79996$QM6.45552 (AT) bgtnsc05-news (DOT) ops.worldnet.att.net:

Well, that's one of the things you fasten the ceiling to, of course.

John

"Carey Akin" <cmakin (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote in
news:SSuQg.83313$QM6.43053 (AT) bgtnsc05-news (DOT) ops.worldnet.att.net:

I don't know about the bumblebee one, but I do know that the story
about the guy who proved a top fuel dragster couldn't run a quarter
faster than 6 seconds is true. Said guy worked out the mathematics
based on the coefficient of friction between rubber and asphalt,
and showed it just wouldn't work.

Later it was discovered that the rubber deforms around the edges
of the aggregate in the pavement, and effectively cogs together
like a set of gears, thus making the coefficient of friction
irrelevant (it works even better with concrete, which is why ETs
dropped a bunch when concrete launch pads came in).

Not all do, altho it's pretty common with engineers. When you
get one of the few that can come up with a bunch of different
ways to do something, you hang on to him. Especially you hang
onto the guy who can tell you three ways to do something, and
then tell you the pros & cons of each.

John