|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What about Indurain?
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What about Indurain?
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What about Indurain?
FAT wrote:
Again, you make my point. Scott wrote: I thought we were talking about political spin? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZsA7OqYvIY |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What about Indurain?
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What about Indurain?
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What about Indurain?
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What about Indurain?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What about Indurain?
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What about Indurain?
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/ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Contador the New Indurain? | Tom Kunich | Racing | 39 | March 23rd 07 07:11 AM |
Indurain and Doping | B. Lafferty | Racing | 60 | July 10th 06 10:06 PM |
Indurain vs. Armstrong | Iain Jones | UK | 5 | July 5th 04 12:26 PM |
Miguel Indurain | Doug Butler | UK | 4 | May 4th 04 10:21 PM |
Indurain Comeback!!! | Garry Jones | Racing | 7 | April 6th 04 02:38 PM |