Harry Veeder wrote: > > Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating > electricity. > > http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm > > > Harry > > The last time I drove over a concave speed bump aka a "pothole" it cost me a tire and a new wheel. I guess I was going too slow Harry.
At 60 mph (0.088 ft/millisecond) against a wheel drop distance of 1/2 * 32.2 ft/second^2 * 0.001 second^2 = 0.0161 ft or 0.193 inches for the first 0.088 feet or 1.056 inches of initial pothole width.(not counting the downward thrust of the wheel by the springs ). This GSU URL will guide you through bigger concave speed bumps "Potholes". with the free fall and trajectory calculators. (spring-shock absorber contribution not included) it covers it all. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html KinergyPower is coming from your gas tank-wallet. The oil interests will endorse it too. :-) Fred > > Frederick Sparber wrote: > > > Glad you're finally getting through, Michel. > > > > BTW. Harry tends to lay down on the job so to speak, hence > > assumes what WalMart calls their "entry level" position. > > > > OTOH, I hear that missionary positions abound in Amsterdam > > if you tend to have a religious bent. > > > > Fred > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Date: 11/24/2006 2:54:25 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > >> > >> LOL > >> > >> BTW my posts to Vortex are getting through again since I swapped ISP's, I > > am quite glad. Maybe the list server is equipped with some whimsical > > antispam software blocking all posts from my previous ISP's smtp server? > >> > >> Michel > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Frederick Sparber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:20 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > >> > >> > >>> Harry wasn't kidding Michel. He knows this from his experience > >>> moonlighting as a speed-bump at WalMart. > >>> > >>> Fred > >>> > >>>> [Original Message] > >>>> From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> To: <[email protected]> > >>>> Date: 11/24/2006 2:00:09 AM > >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > >>>> > >>>> I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight > >>> minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at > > the > >>> right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people > > in > >>> orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they > >>> obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction > > (weight). > >>>> > >>>> Michel > >>>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> To: <[email protected]> > >>>> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:14 AM > >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 > >>>>> -0500: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> [snip] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when > >>>>>> moving in a horizontal plane. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the > >>> less > >>>>>> you weigh. > >>>>>> Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. > >>>>>> Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Harry > >>>>> > >>>>> Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of > >>>>> them. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Robin van Spaandonk > >>>>> > >>>>> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Competition provides the motivation, > >>>>> Cooperation provides the means. > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > >
