What about Indurain?

On Saturday, June 18, 2011 2:32:35 AM UTC-7, FAT wrote:
This is what I'm thinking:

F (coriolis) = –2 * m * v (angular) * v (mass in a rotating system)

That's a formula, not a thought process. Also
it needs a cross product.

The original statement by Bill Fred to which you said
"No it doesn't" was about "the direction of the spin induced
by the Coriolis effect." Spin, not motion of a ballistic
particle - those don't spin (at least, not due to the
Coriolis effect). Atmospheric and oceanic circulations
do spin, and the direction is governed by the Coriolis
effect and the pressure differential - the circulation
spins so that the pressure differential is nearly
balanced by the Coriolis force.

The helpful links provided explain this.

I wouldn't have piped up if you'd just said something
about the effect on artillery shells. But saying
people are wrong, when they are not wrong, is
Lafferty's job, and I need to defend the only thing
he has to live for. Well, other than chess.

Fredmaster Ben


"Fredmaster of Brainerd" wrote in message
...

On Jun 17, 2:28 pm, Phil H
wrote:
On Jun 17, 2:11 pm, "FAT" wrote:

The direction of the spin induced by the Coriolis effect in either
hemisphere is dependent on whether the flow divergence is positive or
negative

No it doesn't.

It's due to differential rotational speed of the Earth (smaller
rotational radius) as an object moves away from the equator.
Noticeable when firing ballistics over a distance of a few miles.
Phil H

For a particle or discrete object you are correct,
and FAT is sort of correct if he would explain what
he is thinking (which is sort of like not being correct
at all).

For fluid flow, like the dynamics of a doping investigation
circling the drain, Bill Fred is correct.

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritt...icyclones.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticyclone

Thanks,
Fredmaster Ben

Again, you make my point.

When the statement: "The direction of the spin induced by the Coriolis
effect in either
hemisphere is dependent on whether the flow divergence is positive or
negative" Said another way, the Coriolis effect is dependent on flow
divergence. Its not.

To restate what you said: the direction of spin is dependent on the
Coriolis effect and pressure differential. You are correct!! You win the
prize.

The combined forces determine the direction of spin of atmospheric and
oceanic circulations. Only one of which is the Coriolis effect.

"Fredmaster of Brainerd" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, June 18, 2011 2:32:35 AM UTC-7, FAT wrote:
This is what I'm thinking:

F (coriolis) = –2 * m * v (angular) * v (mass in a rotating system)

That's a formula, not a thought process. Also
it needs a cross product.

The original statement by Bill Fred to which you said
"No it doesn't" was about "the direction of the spin induced
by the Coriolis effect." Spin, not motion of a ballistic
particle - those don't spin (at least, not due to the
Coriolis effect). Atmospheric and oceanic circulations
do spin, and the direction is governed by the Coriolis
effect and the pressure differential - the circulation
spins so that the pressure differential is nearly
balanced by the Coriolis force.

The helpful links provided explain this.

I wouldn't have piped up if you'd just said something
about the effect on artillery shells. But saying
people are wrong, when they are not wrong, is
Lafferty's job, and I need to defend the only thing
he has to live for. Well, other than chess.

Fredmaster Ben


"Fredmaster of Brainerd" wrote in message
...

On Jun 17, 2:28 pm, Phil H
wrote:
On Jun 17, 2:11 pm, "FAT" wrote:

The direction of the spin induced by the Coriolis effect in either
hemisphere is dependent on whether the flow divergence is positive or
negative

No it doesn't.

It's due to differential rotational speed of the Earth (smaller
rotational radius) as an object moves away from the equator.
Noticeable when firing ballistics over a distance of a few miles.
Phil H

For a particle or discrete object you are correct,
and FAT is sort of correct if he would explain what
he is thinking (which is sort of like not being correct
at all).

For fluid flow, like the dynamics of a doping investigation
circling the drain, Bill Fred is correct.

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritt...icyclones.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticyclone

Thanks,
Fredmaster Ben

On Jun 19, 5:00*am, "FAT" wrote:
Again, you make my point.

When the statement: *"The direction of the spin induced by the Coriolis
effect in either
hemisphere is dependent on whether the flow divergence is positive or
negative" *

I thought we were talking about political spin?

FAT wrote:
Again, you make my point.

Scott wrote:
I thought we were talking about political spin?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZsA7OqYvIY

On 6/19/2011 6:06 AM, Scott wrote:
On Jun 19, 5:00 am, wrote:
Again, you make my point.

When the statement: "The direction of the spin induced by the Coriolis
effect in either
hemisphere is dependent on whether the flow divergence is positive or
negative"

I thought we were talking about political spin?

I thought we were watching FAT spin. A little disgusting, when it's
phrased that way.

On Jun 19, 4:00*am, "FAT" wrote:
Again, you make my point.

When the statement: *"The direction of the spin induced by the Coriolis
effect in either
hemisphere is dependent on whether the flow divergence is positive or
negative" *Said another way, the Coriolis effect is dependent on flow
divergence. *Its not.

To restate what you said: *the direction of spin is dependent on the
Coriolis effect and pressure differential. *You are correct!! *You win the
prize.

The combined forces determine the direction of spin of atmospheric and
oceanic circulations. *Only one of which is the Coriolis effect.

Bill Fred said "the direction of the spin induced by the Coriolis
effect" and you jumped on him. He didn't say the direction of
the Coriolis force vector. If he had said the direction of the force
vector, he would have been wrong and you right. But, not so.
I think we have taken this discussion about as far
as it can go.

Fredmaster Ben


"Fredmaster of Brainerd" *wrote in ...

On Saturday, June 18, 2011 2:32:35 AM UTC-7, FAT wrote:
This is what I'm thinking:

F (coriolis) = –2 * m * v (angular) * v (mass in a rotating system)

That's a formula, not a thought process. *Also
it needs a cross product.

The original statement by Bill Fred to which you said
"No it doesn't" was about "the direction of the spin induced
by the Coriolis effect." *Spin, not motion of a ballistic
particle - those don't spin (at least, not due to the
Coriolis effect). *Atmospheric and oceanic circulations
do spin, and the direction is governed by the Coriolis
effect and the pressure differential - the circulation
spins so that the pressure differential is nearly
balanced by the Coriolis force.

The helpful links provided explain this.

I wouldn't have piped up if you'd just said something
about the effect on artillery shells. *But saying
people are wrong, when they are not wrong, is
Lafferty's job, and I need to defend the only thing
he has to live for. *Well, other than chess.

Fredmaster Ben

"Fredmaster of Brainerd" *wrote in message
...

On Jun 17, 2:28 pm, Phil H
*wrote:
On Jun 17, 2:11 pm, "FAT" wrote:

The direction of the spin induced by the Coriolis effect in either
hemisphere is dependent on whether the flow divergence is positive or
negative

No it doesn't.

It's due to differential rotational speed of the Earth (smaller
rotational radius) as an object moves away from the equator.
Noticeable when firing ballistics over a distance of a few miles.
Phil H

For a particle or discrete object you are correct,
and FAT is sort of correct if he would explain what
he is thinking (which is sort of like not being correct
at all).

For fluid flow, like the dynamics of a doping investigation
circling the drain, Bill Fred is correct.

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritt.../circulation/c...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticyclone

Thanks,
Fredmaster Ben

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
I think we have taken this discussion about as far
as it can go.

Try cross posting it to rbt to prove how wrong you can be.

On Jun 19, 1:28*pm, William Fred wrote:
Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote :

I think we have taken this discussion about as far
as it can go.

I figured that out after the second exchange. *

And that's why you command the respect of legions
of hot physical oceanographers, and I'm just an
academic cubical monkey.

Fredmaster Ben

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote in
:

And that's why you command the respect of legions
of hot physical oceanographers, and I'm just an
academic cubical monkey.

If by "legions" you mean "n=1" and we define "hot" to mean "angry at me
for being disrespectful and annoying" then I agree with you. I would
also like to point out that even though I have my own office and not a
cubicle, the chair they gave me is really sucky, my desk can only be
arranged so that my monitor can be see from the hallway, and my office
door has a huge glass panel in it so it feels like a giant fishbowl. So
it's not all skittles and ice cream, although I'm not sure what skittles
are exactly, or even if I would like them.

--
Bill Fred

William Fred wrote:
So it's not all skittles and ice cream, although I'm not sure what skittles
are exactly, or even if I would like them.

http://mixthatdrink.com/skittles-vodka-tutorial/