Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #695455 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-05-10 13:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-25 04:01 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 81 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 13:31 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-05-10 23:04 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> - 2023-05-10 23:07 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> - 2023-05-11 01:19 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Tim W <nospam@example.com> - 2023-05-11 09:31 +0000
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-05-11 14:19 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2023-05-11 06:48 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-05-22 13:46 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-22 12:58 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-05-22 23:16 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2023-05-23 02:49 +0000
Re: lowbrowwoman, the Endlessly Driveling Senile Gossip Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2023-05-23 11:10 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 08:56 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-05-22 23:21 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2023-05-22 17:58 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-05-23 13:13 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2023-05-22 14:10 -0400
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-05-22 23:35 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2023-05-10 19:09 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2023-05-12 13:49 +0000
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2023-05-12 20:40 -0400
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2023-05-13 01:34 +0000
Re: lowbrowwoman, the Endlessly Driveling Senile Gossip Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2023-05-13 09:26 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> - 2023-05-13 07:25 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2023-05-13 19:08 +0000
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> - 2023-05-13 12:39 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2023-05-14 02:49 +0000
Re: lowbrowwoman, the Endlessly Driveling Senile Gossip Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2023-05-14 09:47 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> - 2023-05-14 06:48 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2023-05-14 18:12 +0000
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> - 2023-05-14 11:45 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2023-05-14 21:38 +0000
Re: lowbrowwoman, the Endlessly Driveling Senile Gossip Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2023-05-14 23:45 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> - 2023-05-14 14:54 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2023-05-15 11:50 +1000
Re: Lonely Obnoxious Cantankerous Auto-contradicting Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2023-05-15 10:10 +0200
Re: lowbrowwoman, the Endlessly Driveling Senile Gossip Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2023-05-14 21:03 +0200
Re: lowbrowwoman, the Endlessly Driveling Senile Gossip Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2023-05-13 23:39 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-05-13 03:53 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2023-05-13 03:31 -0400
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2023-05-13 21:14 +0000
Re: lowbrowwoman, the Endlessly Driveling Senile Gossip Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2023-05-13 23:41 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> - 2023-06-23 06:16 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2023-05-17 12:16 +0000
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2023-05-13 20:25 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> - 2023-06-21 04:00 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> - 2023-06-21 03:59 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> - 2023-06-21 03:59 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2023-06-21 06:57 +0000
Re: Troll-feeding Senile HUGE ASSHOLE Alert! Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2023-06-21 09:53 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? jon <jon@nospam.cn> - 2023-06-21 09:14 +0000
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-21 17:05 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2023-06-21 19:45 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-22 08:11 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? jon <jon@nospam.cn> - 2023-06-22 10:22 +0000
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Bing AI <bing_ai@example.com> - 2023-06-22 13:27 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> - 2023-07-25 04:02 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2023-06-24 00:27 +0000
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> - 2023-07-25 04:03 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> - 2023-06-21 17:16 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? jon <jon@nospam.cn> - 2023-06-21 17:44 +0000
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> - 2023-06-21 20:02 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2023-06-21 18:14 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-22 08:11 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-06-22 07:22 +0000
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-22 08:35 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2023-06-22 09:05 +0000
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> - 2023-07-23 04:53 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2023-07-23 11:18 +0100
Re: Troll-feeding Senile HUGE ASSHOLE Alert! Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2023-07-23 16:56 +0200
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> - 2023-07-23 23:30 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2023-06-22 04:34 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> - 2023-06-22 07:09 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2023-06-22 07:33 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-22 16:18 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2023-06-22 08:33 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2023-06-22 00:33 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> - 2023-06-22 07:08 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-22 16:17 +0100
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2023-06-22 08:22 -0700
Re: Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off? "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> - 2023-07-25 04:01 +0100
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-13 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kcact9FadknU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #695638 |
On Sat, 13 May 2023 03:31:20 -0400, Paul wrote: > The tracks that are used for passenger rail, are likely better than some > of these little spur lines. One would think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Montana_train_derailment As often happens the cause was 'under investigation' until the news cycle moved on to the next squirrel sighting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-13 23:41 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: lowbrowwoman, the Endlessly Driveling Senile Gossip |
| Message-ID | <2uT7M.4372062$nwq3.1278111@usenetxs.com> |
| In reply to | #695677 |
On 13 May 2023 21:14:17 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling, troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again: > One would think. You wouldn't, you only TALK ...big! VERY big! You are all mouth! <BG> -- More of the pathological senile gossip's sick shit squeezed out of his sick head: "Skunk probably tastes like chicken. I've never gotten that comparison, most famously with Chicken of the Sea. Tuna is a fish and tastes like a fish. I will admit I've had chicken that tasted like fish. I don't think I want to know what they were feeding it." MID: <k44t5lFl1k3U4@mid.individual.net>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-23 06:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.16y7mfgemvhs6z@ryzen> |
| In reply to | #695638 |
On Sat, 13 May 2023 08:31:20 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: > On 5/12/2023 9:53 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2023-05-13 02:40, Paul wrote: > >>> Having one derailment per day, is a testament to the >>> technical sophistication of rail. >> >> Only in the USA. > > There is more than one rail company, and set of rail lines. > > A company that is not capitalized properly, can't really > afford to fix anything. > > The tracks that are used for passenger rail, are likely > better than some of these little spur lines. > > ******* > > When the Hudsons Bay line flooded out, and there was > a lot of track damage, the owners didn't want to fix it, > so a group bought the line, and that group paid to fix it up. A railway flooded here - the pipes under it to take a stream's water got blocked. For weeks on end, no train driver was observant enough to spot the forming lake to the side. Then the water decided to cause 2 million of damage by shoving the railway to one side. And 200K damage to a private property (a charity), which the railway company refused to pay out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-17 12:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u42gjk$3id$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> |
| In reply to | #695618 |
On 2023-05-13, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: > On 5/12/2023 9:49 AM, Jasen Betts wrote: >> On 2023-05-10, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote: >>> On 10/05/2023 22:04, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> >>> Well you could have a train having steel wheels, but with rubber tyred >>> wheels that could be dropped onto the track during heavy acceleration, >>> heavy braking and for steep hills. But generally, steel wheels work well >>> enough. >> >> If they need extra traction they drop sand on the tracks. > > Having one derailment per day, is a testament to the > technical sophistication of rail. It's a victory for capitalism, better maintenance has a cost that exceeds the cost of shrugging off responsibility. Lobbyists cost a lot less than doing it right. > I think sand (and not the best sand), was more popular > in steam days. Diesel-electric have smoother application > of power. I'm faily sure it has a maintenance cost on the tyres and rails, so avoiding slipping will usually be preferred over mitigation by sand. The electric trams in Melbourne Australia have sand hoppers, and I have seen them laying down sand occasionally. -- Jasen. 🇺🇦 Слава Україні
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-13 20:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <zuR7M.1846814$MVg8.1071993@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #695579 |
On 12-May-23 14:49, Jasen Betts wrote: > On 2023-05-10, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote: >> On 10/05/2023 22:04, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2023-05-10 22:31, Bob F wrote: >>>> On 3/12/2023 7:43 PM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote: >>>>> rbowman wrote on 3/12/2023 10:05 PM: >>>>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 00:30:39 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Mar 2023 03:09:14 -0000, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Mar 2023 15:05:31 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why were they never made of something more grippy than highly >>>>>>>>> polished >>>>>>>>> steel? >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Washington_Cog_Railway >>>>>>> Should be used on all tracks, then perhaps trains could stop in the >>>>>>> distance my car is required to by law. >>>>>> Do the math. A fully laden coal car weighs about 140 tons. I've >>>>>> never been >>>>>> bored enough to count cars when I stopped at a crossing but there are a >>>>>> lot of them. Let's say 30 for the sake of argument, 4200 tons plus the >>>>>> weight of the engines. Let's say 4 at 200 tons each. So, roughly >>>>>> 5000 tons >>>>>> traveling at 50 mph. That's quite a bit of kinetic energy to dump in >>>>>> 300'. >>>>>> I can hear snapping axles and see flying wheels. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The wheels and the rails are steel. A train can never have enough >>>>> friction to stop at a short distance. The brakes can lock all the >>>>> wheels but the train will still move forward due to inertia. >>>> >>>> All that need is train wheels made of rubber as hard as steel. >>> >>> If you do that, then those wheels will be very low friction and braking >>> will be as bad as with steel wheels. >>> >>> You need something that is soft to increase the contact surface and >>> grip. You have to choose, one thing or the other. Can't have both. >> >> Well you could have a train having steel wheels, but with rubber tyred >> wheels that could be dropped onto the track during heavy acceleration, >> heavy braking and for steep hills. But generally, steel wheels work well >> enough. > > If they need extra traction they drop sand on the tracks. > They stole that idea from Wilson, Keppel and Betty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn83cCEpZV0 -- Sam Plusnet
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-21 04:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.16vbzac6mvhs6z@ryzen> |
| In reply to | #695579 |
On Fri, 12 May 2023 14:49:57 +0100, Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote: > On 2023-05-10, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote: >> On 10/05/2023 22:04, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2023-05-10 22:31, Bob F wrote: >>>> On 3/12/2023 7:43 PM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote: >>>>> The wheels and the rails are steel. A train can never have enough >>>>> friction to stop at a short distance. The brakes can lock all the >>>>> wheels but the train will still move forward due to inertia. >>>> >>>> All that need is train wheels made of rubber as hard as steel. >>> >>> If you do that, then those wheels will be very low friction and braking >>> will be as bad as with steel wheels. >>> >>> You need something that is soft to increase the contact surface and >>> grip. You have to choose, one thing or the other. Can't have both. >> >> Well you could have a train having steel wheels, but with rubber tyred >> wheels that could be dropped onto the track during heavy acceleration, >> heavy braking and for steep hills. But generally, steel wheels work well >> enough. > > If they need extra traction they drop sand on the tracks. Maybe they should do that when they want to do an emergency stop. Have some sand dispensers in front of every wheel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-21 03:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.16vbwxgvmvhs6z@ryzen> |
| In reply to | #695461 |
On Wed, 10 May 2023 23:07:24 +0100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote: > On 10/05/2023 22:04, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2023-05-10 22:31, Bob F wrote: >>> On 3/12/2023 7:43 PM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote: >>>> rbowman wrote on 3/12/2023 10:05 PM: >>>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 00:30:39 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 02 Mar 2023 03:09:14 -0000, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Mar 2023 15:05:31 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why were they never made of something more grippy than highly >>>>>>>> polished >>>>>>>> steel? >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Washington_Cog_Railway >>>>>> Should be used on all tracks, then perhaps trains could stop in the >>>>>> distance my car is required to by law. >>>>> Do the math. A fully laden coal car weighs about 140 tons. I've >>>>> never been >>>>> bored enough to count cars when I stopped at a crossing but there are a >>>>> lot of them. Let's say 30 for the sake of argument, 4200 tons plus the >>>>> weight of the engines. Let's say 4 at 200 tons each. So, roughly >>>>> 5000 tons >>>>> traveling at 50 mph. That's quite a bit of kinetic energy to dump in >>>>> 300'. >>>>> I can hear snapping axles and see flying wheels. >>>> >>>> >>>> The wheels and the rails are steel. A train can never have enough >>>> friction to stop at a short distance. The brakes can lock all the >>>> wheels but the train will still move forward due to inertia. >>> >>> All that need is train wheels made of rubber as hard as steel. >> >> If you do that, then those wheels will be very low friction and braking >> will be as bad as with steel wheels. >> >> You need something that is soft to increase the contact surface and >> grip. You have to choose, one thing or the other. Can't have both. > > Well you could have a train having steel wheels, but with rubber tyred > wheels that could be dropped onto the track during heavy acceleration, > heavy braking and for steep hills. But generally, steel wheels work well > enough. Clearly not. https://youtu.be/p5d3NGraRqA Talking of big trains.... https://youtu.be/fqOLoFkV5js
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-21 03:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.16vbxrgtmvhs6z@ryzen> |
| In reply to | #695458 |
On Wed, 10 May 2023 22:04:54 +0100, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 2023-05-10 22:31, Bob F wrote: >> On 3/12/2023 7:43 PM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote: >>> rbowman wrote on 3/12/2023 10:05 PM: >>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 00:30:39 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 02 Mar 2023 03:09:14 -0000, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 01 Mar 2023 15:05:31 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Why were they never made of something more grippy than highly >>>>>>> polished >>>>>>> steel? >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Washington_Cog_Railway >>>>> Should be used on all tracks, then perhaps trains could stop in the >>>>> distance my car is required to by law. >>>> Do the math. A fully laden coal car weighs about 140 tons. I've never >>>> been >>>> bored enough to count cars when I stopped at a crossing but there are a >>>> lot of them. Let's say 30 for the sake of argument, 4200 tons plus the >>>> weight of the engines. Let's say 4 at 200 tons each. So, roughly 5000 >>>> tons >>>> traveling at 50 mph. That's quite a bit of kinetic energy to dump in >>>> 300'. >>>> I can hear snapping axles and see flying wheels. >>> >>> >>> The wheels and the rails are steel. A train can never have enough >>> friction to stop at a short distance. The brakes can lock all the >>> wheels but the train will still move forward due to inertia. >> >> All that need is train wheels made of rubber as hard as steel. > > If you do that, then those wheels will be very low friction and braking > will be as bad as with steel wheels. > > You need something that is soft to increase the contact surface and > grip. You have to choose, one thing or the other. Can't have both. Friction isn't just related to surface area, but also material.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-21 06:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u6u709$76q$3@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> |
| In reply to | #698953 |
On 2023-06-21, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote: > On Wed, 10 May 2023 22:04:54 +0100, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2023-05-10 22:31, Bob F wrote: >>> On 3/12/2023 7:43 PM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote: >>>> rbowman wrote on 3/12/2023 10:05 PM: >>>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 00:30:39 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 02 Mar 2023 03:09:14 -0000, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Mar 2023 15:05:31 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why were they never made of something more grippy than highly >>>>>>>> polished >>>>>>>> steel? >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Washington_Cog_Railway >>>>>> Should be used on all tracks, then perhaps trains could stop in the >>>>>> distance my car is required to by law. >>>>> Do the math. A fully laden coal car weighs about 140 tons. I've never >>>>> been >>>>> bored enough to count cars when I stopped at a crossing but there are a >>>>> lot of them. Let's say 30 for the sake of argument, 4200 tons plus the >>>>> weight of the engines. Let's say 4 at 200 tons each. So, roughly 5000 >>>>> tons >>>>> traveling at 50 mph. That's quite a bit of kinetic energy to dump in >>>>> 300'. >>>>> I can hear snapping axles and see flying wheels. >>>> >>>> >>>> The wheels and the rails are steel. A train can never have enough >>>> friction to stop at a short distance. The brakes can lock all the >>>> wheels but the train will still move forward due to inertia. >>> >>> All that need is train wheels made of rubber as hard as steel. >> >> If you do that, then those wheels will be very low friction and braking >> will be as bad as with steel wheels. >> >> You need something that is soft to increase the contact surface and >> grip. You have to choose, one thing or the other. Can't have both. > > Friction isn't just related to surface area, but also material. Friction just isn't related to surface area, but instead material. -- Jasen. 🇺🇦 Слава Україні
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-21 09:53 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Troll-feeding Senile HUGE ASSHOLE Alert! |
| Message-ID | <C0ykM.391337$xw24.83608@usenetxs.com> |
| In reply to | #698962 |
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 06:57:13 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts, the absolutely brain dead, troll-feeding senile asshole, blathered again: >> Friction isn't just related to surface area, but also material. > > Friction just isn't related to surface area, but instead material. Trolling isn't just related to the troll, but also to the idiotic troll-feeding senile ASSHOLES that keep playing the troll's game, you troll-feeding senile shithead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jon <jon@nospam.cn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-21 09:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u6uf2d$2qel6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #698962 |
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 06:57:13 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote: > On 2023-06-21, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 10 May 2023 22:04:54 +0100, Carlos E.R. >> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 2023-05-10 22:31, Bob F wrote: >>>> On 3/12/2023 7:43 PM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote: >>>>> rbowman wrote on 3/12/2023 10:05 PM: >>>>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 00:30:39 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Mar 2023 03:09:14 -0000, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Mar 2023 15:05:31 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why were they never made of something more grippy than highly >>>>>>>>> polished steel? >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Washington_Cog_Railway >>>>>>> Should be used on all tracks, then perhaps trains could stop in >>>>>>> the distance my car is required to by law. >>>>>> Do the math. A fully laden coal car weighs about 140 tons. I've >>>>>> never been bored enough to count cars when I stopped at a crossing >>>>>> but there are a lot of them. Let's say 30 for the sake of argument, >>>>>> 4200 tons plus the weight of the engines. Let's say 4 at 200 tons >>>>>> each. So, roughly 5000 tons traveling at 50 mph. That's quite a bit >>>>>> of kinetic energy to dump in 300'. >>>>>> I can hear snapping axles and see flying wheels. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The wheels and the rails are steel. A train can never have enough >>>>> friction to stop at a short distance. The brakes can lock all the >>>>> wheels but the train will still move forward due to inertia. Momentum not Inertia. >>>> >>>> All that need is train wheels made of rubber as hard as steel. >>> >>> If you do that, then those wheels will be very low friction and >>> braking will be as bad as with steel wheels. >>> >>> You need something that is soft to increase the contact surface and >>> grip. You have to choose, one thing or the other. Can't have both. >> >> Friction isn't just related to surface area, but also material. > > Friction just isn't related to surface area, but instead material.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-21 17:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <u6v74n$2unl8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #698971 |
On 21/06/2023 10:14, jon wrote: > Momentum not Inertia. > Same thing -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. -- Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-21 19:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <u6vgg1$2vrtn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #698989 |
On 21/06/2023 17:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 21/06/2023 10:14, jon wrote: > >> Momentum not Inertia. >> > Same thing A massy object has inertia whether it's moving or not. It only has momentum if it's moving. -- Max Demian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-22 08:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <u70s6p$37pg0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #699002 |
On 21/06/2023 19:45, Max Demian wrote: > On 21/06/2023 17:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 21/06/2023 10:14, jon wrote: >> >>> Momentum not Inertia. >>> >> Same thing > > A massy object has inertia whether it's moving or not. It only has > momentum if it's moving. > Moving relative to what? -- Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get. Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jon <jon@nospam.cn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-22 10:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u717ch$391dj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #699047 |
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 08:11:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 21/06/2023 19:45, Max Demian wrote: >> On 21/06/2023 17:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 21/06/2023 10:14, jon wrote: >>> >>>> Momentum not Inertia. >>>> >>> Same thing >> >> A massy object has inertia whether it's moving or not. It only has >> momentum if it's moving. >> > Moving relative to what? Time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bing AI <bing_ai@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-22 13:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <u71ene$39tl7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #699047 |
On 22/06/2023 08:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Moving relative to what? You are correct that all motion has to be relative to something. In this case, the object's motion is relative to the observer. The momentum of an object is its mass times its velocity. Inertia is the property of matter that resists changes in motion. It is proportional to mass and independent of velocity. So, a massy object has inertia whether it's moving or not. It only has momentum if it's moving relative to an observer ¹². I hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions. Source: Conversation with Bing, 22/06/2023 (1) Difference Between Momentum and Inertia - Collegedunia. https://collegedunia.com/exams/difference-between-momentum-and-inertia-physics-articleid-3934. (2) Difference Between Momentum and Inertia - Momentum vs Inertia - BYJU'S. https://byjus.com/physics/difference-between-momentum-and-inertia/. (3) Difference Between Momentum and Inertia - Vedantu. https://www.vedantu.com/physics/difference-between-momentum-and-inertia. -- Bing AI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-25 04:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.18maqulqmvhs6z@ryzen> |
| In reply to | #699059 |
On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 13:27:28 +0100, Bing AI <bing_ai@example.com> wrote: > On 22/06/2023 08:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> Moving relative to what? > > You are correct that all motion has to be relative to something. In this > case, the object's motion is relative to the observer. The momentum of > an object is its mass times its velocity. Inertia is the property of > matter that resists changes in motion. It is proportional to mass and > independent of velocity. So, a massy object has inertia whether it's > moving or not. It only has momentum if it's moving relative to an > observer ¹². > > I hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions. > > Source: Conversation with Bing, 22/06/2023 > (1) Difference Between Momentum and Inertia - Collegedunia. > https://collegedunia.com/exams/difference-between-momentum-and-inertia-physics-articleid-3934. > (2) Difference Between Momentum and Inertia - Momentum vs Inertia - > BYJU'S. https://byjus.com/physics/difference-between-momentum-and-inertia/. > (3) Difference Between Momentum and Inertia - Vedantu. > https://www.vedantu.com/physics/difference-between-momentum-and-inertia. Are you really an AI, or a human interfacing an AI to us?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-24 00:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u75d9a$oqh$2@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> |
| In reply to | #699047 |
On 2023-06-22, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 21/06/2023 19:45, Max Demian wrote: >> On 21/06/2023 17:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 21/06/2023 10:14, jon wrote: >>> >>>> Momentum not Inertia. >>>> >>> Same thing >> >> A massy object has inertia whether it's moving or not. It only has >> momentum if it's moving. >> > Moving relative to what? Moving relative to whatever. Frame of reference. -- Jasen. 🇺🇦 Слава Україні
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-25 04:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.18masustmvhs6z@ryzen> |
| In reply to | #699261 |
On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 01:27:22 +0100, Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote: > On 2023-06-22, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 21/06/2023 19:45, Max Demian wrote: >>> On 21/06/2023 17:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 21/06/2023 10:14, jon wrote: >>>> >>>>> Momentum not Inertia. >>>>> >>>> Same thing >>> >>> A massy object has inertia whether it's moving or not. It only has >>> momentum if it's moving. >>> >> Moving relative to what? > > Moving relative to whatever. > > Frame of reference. I read that extremely quickly and thought you said "France", I think I skipped "me of refer". France has never been the centre of the universe. Greenwich perhaps, and every single American state.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-21 17:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <u6v7o1$2urv5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #698971 |
On 21/06/2023 10:14, jon wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 06:57:13 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote: > >> On 2023-06-21, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 10 May 2023 22:04:54 +0100, Carlos E.R. >>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2023-05-10 22:31, Bob F wrote: >>>>> On 3/12/2023 7:43 PM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote: >>>>>> rbowman wrote on 3/12/2023 10:05 PM: >>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 00:30:39 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Mar 2023 03:09:14 -0000, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Mar 2023 15:05:31 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why were they never made of something more grippy than highly >>>>>>>>>> polished steel? >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Washington_Cog_Railway >>>>>>>> Should be used on all tracks, then perhaps trains could stop in >>>>>>>> the distance my car is required to by law. >>>>>>> Do the math. A fully laden coal car weighs about 140 tons. I've >>>>>>> never been bored enough to count cars when I stopped at a crossing >>>>>>> but there are a lot of them. Let's say 30 for the sake of argument, >>>>>>> 4200 tons plus the weight of the engines. Let's say 4 at 200 tons >>>>>>> each. So, roughly 5000 tons traveling at 50 mph. That's quite a bit >>>>>>> of kinetic energy to dump in 300'. >>>>>>> I can hear snapping axles and see flying wheels. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The wheels and the rails are steel. A train can never have enough >>>>>> friction to stop at a short distance. The brakes can lock all the >>>>>> wheels but the train will still move forward due to inertia. > > Momentum not Inertia. As TNP has said they are virtually the same, one is vector and one is a scalar, much like velocity and speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web