On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, John Gardner wrote: > Mr. Turgut - > > Please don't associate my comments with the ad hominem attacks > being posted on this thread. > > I guess it"s that time of the month again. > > best regards, > > Jack Dear Jack, I know your intention is nothing but to help thus feel free to comment because I posted this topic to clear question marks - thanks for your constructive reply. I am not getting the math of this fully either and I believe there is someone who can explain the phenomena or we can get to a reasonable solution by discussing as well, doesn't matter one way or another. On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Oli Glaser wrote= : > On 15/02/2011 16:38, Yigit Turgut wrote: >>> There's the real problem. =A0Try physics instead of faith if you want t= o do >>> > =A0real engineering. >> He is the one (guy who invented) who already did the engineering part >> eventhough without control, I am trying to build a reasonable >> theoretical model for this VERY REAL WORLD EXAMPLE. Which means THERE >> EXISTS such a system and beside that I am telling that I drove it. >> Which part of your 3-piece techo-brain doesn't get the scheme ? > > I don't get the "scheme" either, as there does not seem to be any > "scheme" to get.. > I generally try to keep an open mind, not get too cynical etc, (prior to > a proper scientific investigation) but from the outside I'm afraid this > looks like utter nonsense. I would love to be proven wrong though. If > this is a "very real world example", then to gather some *real* data, > post a video or pictures should be no problem (unless it's top secret of > course, but it's unlikely you would be discussing it here if that was > the case) > If it's simply something you are trying to understand, then with the > requested information I'm sure most folk will be happy to help. If it's > something else, well... I justify you by your approach because mine was approximately the same before actually using the vehicle. There are some links at my second post in this topic feel free to check them out. On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 7:34 PM, wrote: >> So you assumed the road is linear ? What kind of a perception is that >> (((: have you heard the word "helical" ? > > If the road is not linear, but involves curves then even more energy will= be required to replace the energy scrubbed off by turning. > > Even if that wasn't the case, the helix would still need to be as high as= the linear road previously mentioned. That's also correct. --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .