or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Acceleration - Page 2

Isn't debate supposed to have a point ?

Yippeeee !!! I accelerated my posts to top of page 2 !!!! In case I did not make myself clear. One of 2 points in this post was to make top of page 2. Acceleration ? Success ! Continue on now.
Acceleration is only interesting because of it's relationship to force and velocity. Force and velocity together give us power. Power is nothing without control. It's all about power and control, two things we are programed to like as a survival characteristic.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ghost Acceleration is only interesting because of it's relationship to force and velocity. Force and velocity together give us power. Power is nothing without control. It's all about power and control, two things we are programed to like as a survival characteristic.
Is this right? I don't remember...

What I do remember is:

v = dx/dt (where x = change in position)
a = dv/dt

F=ma

Work = F * distance (where distance = change in position = x)
Power = dW/dt = (F * x)/dt = F * dx/dt = F * v

Power = F * v

Fantastic! Hooray for seventh-grade physics and half-remembered differential equations.

Now if you really want to make things interesting, consider force - velocity - power relationships with respect to muscle contraction...
Quote:
 Originally Posted by 911over oops, I thought the point of debating was to learn & teach ?
We make a base assumption here that those participating in the debate have reasonable understanding of the concepts already. If we took Rick's approached and dumbed everything down the posts would be 10x as long.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by 911over This is your, yes yours Max, typical systematic methodoligy of leading readers & particiapants around for 3 pages or more finally getting into a discussion of a theory you have that will be disclosed 100 posts into the thread.
Wow, quite a theory. Can you find 3 threads that I started that support it?

BTW, I asked the question because a friend and I were debating the physics of skiing over a couple of beers the other night. I said there were two types of acceleration and he said there was only one. I figured I'd see what the general consensus was, although it looks like there isn't really one so far.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 How many types of acceleration are there and what are they?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Now apply that to skiing.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Interesting. Can you elaborate?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Tog btw...has anyone noticed Max's tendency to start massive threads with as few words as possible? I think he's playing some sort of thread Haiku,or he's like Dr. Evil laughing at what happens, or maybe it's like starting an auction off at \$0.99 so people who don't even want the thing bid on it.
uh, yeah. No need to elaborate.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by tdk6 Why is acceleration up for discussion?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by GarryZ Max. Did you get the answers you were looking for ? It doesn't seem to be focused on but the post by Rick concerning goals to use technical knowledge to teach concepts in a clear ,simple, accurate method that will stick in the minds of the learner is the goal of all forms of instruction is worthy of it's own discussion.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by 911over Acceleration is useless unless it takes you somewhere. Lets get to the meat of it already, okay ? So I ask, WHAT is it you really want to discuss ? WHAT about acceleration it is you want to discuss, put forth or learn about. An WHY do you wish to debate/discuss/disclose, etc etc etc ? I wish to accelerate this thread to your true direction. This thread has multi-fractionated at an alarmingly accelerated pace.
Max, the question has been asked of you 3 times and completely obtusely ( I heard that here somewhere in a similar thread) ignored. You have responded many times as evidenced below, to many things off topic in this thread. You have not answered the question asked of you in 3 different ways, 3 different times, by 3 different people.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 We make a base assumption here that those participating in the debate have reasonable understanding of the concepts already. If we took Rick's approached and dumbed everything down the posts would be 10x as long.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Exactly. The Ski Instruction and Coaching forum is a better place for applying Rick's suggestion of a less technical approach.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 That's a good thing, right? By any chance are you from the North East?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Perhaps in the right forum. This forum was specifically created so the debating and in depth analysis would be separate from the teaching stuff.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Wow, quite a theory. Can you find 3 threads that I started that support it? BTW, I asked the question because a friend and I were debating the physics of skiing over a couple of beers the other night. I said there were two types of acceleration and he said there was only one. I figured I'd see what the general consensus was, although it looks like there isn't really one so far.
A partial answer/response page 2 post 35. Improvement noted.

It is a theory, it's my theory, and I'm stickin to it. Revisions always possible as in all theories.

There is NO need to pull up 3 other threads to support this theory. This thread in & of itself is well on it's way to being a live support of it. But it doesnt matter. By your " Wow" I have to figure it is something beyond your belief & there for unsupportable. Now if I pulled up 3 other threads & put in here to support my theory, this thread would only become a 4th such example. It already is.

So, after all this, you have provided a partial answer. Your friend thinks there is only 1 type of acceleration. You think there are 2 types. You want to see if there is consensus. The rest of it you left blank. What are the types ? What consensus can be built when there are no types put forth by you. Max, in my opinion, supported by my theory, I think you are being stingy. Everyone else puts in their thoughts & opinions for many postings and pages. But where is yours ? At least in this thread about acceleration ? You are being a true miser & running it out on everyone elses input, without showing your cards or thoughts on acceleration.
You are reading into this way way too much.

I think there are two types as I already said. Those would be linear and angular.

I asked RiDeC58 if he could elaborate because he said we deal with linear most often and I was wondering why that is.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 911over It is a theory, it's my theory, and I'm stickin to it. Revisions always possible as in all theories.
Its a theory and an accusation and you should be willing to back it up.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 You are reading into this way way too much. I think there are two types as I already said. Those would be linear and angular. I asked RiDeC58 if he could elaborate because he said we deal with linear most often and I was wondering why that is. Its a theory and an accusation and you should be willing to back it up.
Post 37 we get the 2 types of acceleration you are thinking of. Thank you.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by 911over It is a theory, it's my theory, and I'm stickin to it. Revisions always possible as in all theories.There is NO need to pull up 3 other threads to support this theory. This thread in & of itself is well on it's way to being a live support of it. But it doesnt matter. By your " Wow" I have to figure it is something beyond your belief & there for unsupportable. Now if I pulled up 3 other threads & put in here to support my theory, this thread would only become a 4th such example. It already is.
Max, I'm willing to support my opinion. Doing so requires a total hijack of this thread or a start of a new thread. I can do either. In my opinion this thread alone gives an inkling of what historical threads will show as well. I really don't think it needs an "overkill" to pull up the past.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 911over I think you are being stingy. Everyone else puts in their thoughts & opinions for many postings and pages. But where is yours ? At least in this thread about acceleration ? You are being a true miser & running it out on everyone elses input, without showing your cards or thoughts on acceleration.
When I asked the question where is yours ? there wasn't an answer yet by post 36. And YOU were the OP. Yep , I accused you of being stingy & a miser. One in the same really. Most of us have been called worse at one time or another I guess.
Good luck to you 911over...

Max has a long history of nebulous posts, circulative logic and textual gamesmanship around here. He's quite good at it and would make a great politician.

.ma

### You can categorize all you want if it makes you happy.

To restate what others have said:

1. Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, ie how fast velocity is changing.

2. An object's velocity consists of two pieces of information (actually four but we can pretend it's two): How fast it is going (speed), and in what direction. Like any vector, you can think of it as an arrow. The length of the arrow represents its magnitude (in this case speed), and the direction it points tells you, well, its direction. Longer arrow means going faster, shorter arrow means going more slowly.

So acceleration means that your velocity arrow is changing in time. If it's changing direction, then you are turning. If it's getting longer, you are speeding up. If it's getting shorter, you are slowing down. Some people think of slowing down and its associated shrinking velocity arrow as a special kind of acceleration, so it gets to be described its own very special term: "deceleration". If you decide to call the direction in which you are travelling the positive direction (often a natural choice), then decceleration is a negative acceleration, or an acceleration in the negative direction.

If your velocity arrow is changing quickly (quickly growing longer or shorter or changing direction), then your accelartion is large. If it is changing slowly, then your acceleration is small. If it is not changing at all, then you are traveling at constant velocity and your acceleration is zero.

The categorization of acceleration into various "types" is completely arbitrary. If you want, you can say that there is only one type of acceleration (its definition) and that further categorization is artificial. If you prefer, you can say that there are two types - linear acceleration associated with a change in speed, and angular (or centripetal) acceleration associated with a change in direction. This seems to make sense from a pedagogical standpoint, and the two are typically treated seperately in physics classes. You would be equally justified in saying that there are three types of acceleration: acceleration up/down, acceleration to the right/left, and acceleration to the front/back. This categorization is also used at some point in virtually every physics class. If you have a gas of 100 particles, then it might make equally good sense to say that there are 300 "types" of acceleration - corresponding to three directions for each particle.

So the botttom line is that there is no "right answer" to the original question on the number of types of acceleration, and you and your friend might as well find something else to argue about.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by amiles So the botttom line is that there is no "right answer" to the original question on the number of types of acceleration, and you and your friend might as well find something else to argue about.
...but if there's no "right" answer, then you can't have someone claiming that everyone else is wrong, and then where's the fun in that?

Although, thinking about it, by interpolation, if there is no single "right answer", then we could say that anyone who claims there is only one "right answer" is therefore wrong (or at least very insular/narrow-minded)

Am I getting into a circular argument here?
1. Anyone who says there is a right answer is wrong.
2. Anyone who says there isn't a right answer is right, and thus, by point 1, is wrong. Right?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by 911over Post 37 we get the 2 types of acceleration you are thinking of. Thank you.
You are still missing the point of this thread. I started it to find out what others think, hoping to settle a debate I was having with a racer buddy.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 911over When I asked the question where is yours ? there wasn't an answer yet by post 36. And YOU were the OP.
I did not want to influence the outcome of the consensus answer (in either way). And, because of the purpose of the thread my thoughts weren't relevant.

I'm still interested to know what RiDeC58 is thinking about it as his statement covers both sides of the debate that we had the other night.
Good friggin' grief! A two page (already) thread about something that is a simple matter of definition. It's not about consensus, opinion, or debate--it's just something you either understand or you don't. That's all. Max, you could have solved your dilemma with a simple peek at a good dictionary or high school physics book.

To a physicist, "acceleration" has one simple meaning: change in velocity. It is the result of force (the sum of all external forces acting on a body at any given moment). If this sum ("resultant") is not zero, there will be acceleration. Always. If there is acceleration, there is a non-zero ("unbalanced") force. Always. It is that simple, by definition. It is not up for debate.

Of course, in the real world, there are many different situations that involve force, motion, velocity, and acceleration (each of which is a term with its own specific definition--please look them up before "debating" them). There are many different forces. There are infinite directions in which forces can act--which determines whether the velocity change comes in the form of a speed increase or decrease, a direction change, or both. There are infinite points on a real object on which forces can act--which determines whether the acceleration is "linear" (change in the velocity of the center of mass) or "angular" (change in the rate of rotation) or both. Many different forces can, and usually do, act on us at once--but again, the "force that matters" is the net force, the sum of all of them. And, of course, there are infinite magnitudes of force--the more force, the greater the acceleration. To further complicate matters, consider that motion is relative, meaning that your perspective (frame of reference) matters--something accelerating from one person's perspective may be motionless from another's.

Are each of these "different forms of acceleration"? That's up to you, I suppose--you can give them all different names if you choose. But who really cares? They are all the result of the exact same thing--the application of force (push or pull) on a body. The same thing happens (force applies), the same thing results (acceleration). There is a beautiful simplicity in that that is lost if you try to (re)define each different instance of acceleration as a "different form of acceleration." Who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result? Apply "force," get "acceleration"--every time. That's the beauty of the physicist's elegantly simple definition.

How complicated we make it when we (lay people) say, "apply force, sometimes you get acceleration, sometimes you get deceleration, sometimes you make things spin or spin faster, sometimes you make them slow or stop spinning, sometimes you just change the direction they're going. Maybe they'll blow up! Sometimes you push on something and it seems like nothing happens (in which case, of course, the sum of all forces acting on the thing is still zero). And then there's Fudd's Law: if you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Then there are those situations where things appear to move and accelerate with no obvious force applying whatsoever--like the loose change that suddenly up and flies off your dashboard as you drive fast around a curve. Can you accelerate in a turn? The question itself betrays a lack of education in the questioner!

Ahh--confusing it is, eh? But it still is not a question for debate or opinion. Buy a basic physics text and study up. Nothing simplifies like understanding!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
So, as 911Over (and others, I'm sure) have asked, what really is the point to be discussed here? Max, I'll join the chorus here asking you to be more forthcoming. Why not start your thread with something like, "I and my racing buddy were having the following discussion the other day: [detailed explication of the relevant substance of your "debate"]. Can anyone shed any light on this matter?"

It's not too late!

Best regards,
Bob
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado So, as 911Over (and others, I'm sure) have asked, what really is the point to be discussed here? Max, I'll join the chorus here asking you to be more forthcoming. Why not start your thread with something like, "I and my racing buddy were having the following discussion the other day: [detailed explication of the relevant substance of your "debate"]. Can anyone shed any light on this matter?" It's not too late! Best regards, Bob

Sad part is, there actually is potential for learning from a discussion on this topic. It would just need a major lane change from what ever the heck has been happening here so far.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado So, as 911Over (and others, I'm sure) have asked, what really is the point to be discussed here? Max, I'll join the chorus here asking you to be more forthcoming.
I cannot be more forthcoming than I already have been. I told you exactly why I asked the question. There is no hidden agenda or any other theory waiting to be hurled forth.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado Why not start your thread with something like, "I and my racing buddy were having the following discussion the other day: [detailed explication of the relevant substance of your "debate"]. Can anyone shed any light on this matter?"
So now there is a 'right' way to open a thread on Epic?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick Sad part is, there actually is potential for learning from a discussion on this topic. It would just need a major lane change from what ever the heck has been happening here so far.
Do you think your posts number 7 and then 10 helped?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Do you think your posts number 7 and then 10 helped?

They carried the potential to help. I think in the long run, and in other threads conducted by others who are open to the suggestion, they could. Or they'll just get lost in the clutter here, and nothing will change. Who knows.

Anyway,,, your question in this post does nothing to help gear this thread towards something productive. Rather than ask for suggestions on how the tread could be directed toward something productive, which I obviously from my statement have ideas on, you just ignor it and sidetrack into this. OK, then, carry on as you are.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick Rather than ask for suggestions on how the tread could be directed toward something productive, which I obviously from my statement have ideas on, you just ignor it and sidetrack into this. OK, then, carry on as you are.
What, exactly, is the IT you are talking about above that is being ignored?
Quote:
 So now there is a 'right' way to open a thread on Epic?
Max, as with nearly everything, the "right way" depends on the outcome you intend to achieve. If this thread has gone where you wanted it to, and accomplished your goals, then you started it just right.

Best regards,
Bob
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 I cannot be more forthcoming than I already have been. I told you exactly why I asked the question. There is no hidden agenda or any other theory waiting to be hurled forth. So now there is a 'right' way to open a thread on Epic?
Max, it seems it may be possible, or not, that there COULD be a right way to open a thread. Yes, no, depends. Is there a point or is there a purpose ? If so, & if presented at the BEGINNING of a thread (not 35 & 37 posts later when a force has to direct the non-directional out of control acceleration) it lends itself to becoming a discussion of VALUE. Which as Rick eluded to, we can all learn from or expand our learning. Or not. If the purpose was to determine a consensus of opinion the point was not necessarily to learn further about the subject, but just to learn what people believe & settle an argument. Then it may or may not have met it's purpose. But it is EXTREMELY helpful for people to know there is a point & purpose to where they put their efforts & energy into. If it had been known what the purpose was at the beginning, I suspect you would have received more than enough responses to actually be able to develop a consensus.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado So, as 911Over (and others, I'm sure) have asked, what really is the point to be discussed here? Max, I'll join the chorus here asking you to be more forthcoming. Why not start your thread with something like, "I and my racing buddy were having the following discussion the other day: [detailed explication of the relevant substance of your "debate"]. Can anyone shed any light on this matter?" It's not too late! Best regards, Bob
Pretty simply put Bob. Thank you for articulating it far clearer than I could.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 You are still missing the point of this thread. I started it to find out what others think, hoping to settle a debate I was having with a racer buddy. I did not want to influence the outcome of the consensus answer (in either way). And, because of the purpose of the thread my thoughts weren't relevant. I'm still interested to know what RiDeC58 is thinking about it as his statement covers both sides of the debate that we had the other night.
Max, we can all get the point now because you have now articulated it.
I don't think you really need to be concerned in influencing anyone's actual answer other than it gives them a direction to respond.

When people actually posted about acceleration, they didn't receive a lick of feed back acknowledging they were headed in the direction you wanted information about. Comments such as "Interesting, expand ?" or "apply that to skiing" get no responses from the posters. I liken to the following: Your goldfish is swimming in a tank of water. You feed it more water & tell it to swim. No nutritive food is given so it dies. No more fish, no more swimming, but you still have a tank of water. And the kids are pissed off cause they've been caring for the gold fish, feeding it for a month, left for camp, came back & their gold fish is dead. They don't want another goldfish cause their energy was wasted.

Yes I read into whatever I read into. That's what people do when there is basically nothing there to read. We make stuff up in an effort to figure out the whole point. What could this be about ? Nothing really stated, so they try to figure it out or just throw out a bone & see what they get. No one got anything "nutritive" from you about their input on acceleration. Just more water.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 We make a base assumption here that those participating in the debate have reasonable understanding of the concepts already. If we took Rick's approached and dumbed everything down the posts would be 10x as long.
You pretty much dumbed everything down at the start with lack of info. , point or purpose. THAT is the essence of "dumbing down". People don't like or enjoy the "dumbing down" thing.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 911over Acceleration is useless unless it takes you somewhere. Max , I like ya, so I just have to be honest. I like honesty, it can be kind, & the occasional brutality of it provides areas to grow & plenty of good laughter. .
I really do mean this or I wouldn't have wasted my time. I would have just nominated this thread to be accelerated over to the WTHF humor section as to how many directions off topic a thread can go & how many areas off topic can be explored.
To all the others who posted here I really did enjoy your posts. Lots of different topics of discussion as well as info not well known. I would have liked to add to them, but many are worthy of their own thread to be added to, discussed and expanded upon.

Rick that includes both your it's.

Acrophobia if you head to Whistler for the new snow I'll be looking for your TR and a some photos !
The question was simple, clear, and concise (can't see how that is dumbed down). Perhaps I should have said, as a skier, how many types of acceleration do we use (or encounter) when skiing. But I thought that was implied since we are in the ski technique and analysis forum.

The thread was moving along just fine until Rick and you took it off on this tangent.
Quote:
 You are still missing the point of this thread. I started it to find out what others think, hoping to settle a debate I was having with a racer buddy. -max
You're right on the first sentence - I have no idea of the point.
Quote:
 I did not want to influence the outcome of the consensus answer (in either way). And, because of the purpose of the thread my thoughts weren't relevant. -max
I can see the point of the first sentence, although expecting a "consensus" in the tech & analysis forum is ...I'd say naive but you know better. Perhaps consensus wasn't the right word. Let's face it if _ (world's most famous living physicist -?) showed up here somebody would argue he's wrong and call him an idiot.

I thought 911over nailed it pretty well in an earlier assesment of the thread technique. There's no right way to start a thread and perhaps you feel jumped on for attempting to start one without influencing the discussion. If you start a thread and don't participate - yes that's probably in a 'not so great' category of thread starting.

The bold section is a little problematic though.

-What's the purpose of the thread? Apparently you know, but no one else does. This goes back to 911's statement about how we'll get 4 pages and then you'll come out with the agenda. Frankly you should be flattered she actually takes the time to address these issues.
Telling us about the "debate" might make the discussion move along and get somewhere.

-If your thoughts aren't relevant why start a thread in the first place looking for discussion? Are anybody else's thoughts relevant? This is what makes it seem like you're attempting to elicit some sort of response you know is coming.

amiles,
Welcome to epic! You have perhaps landed in some sort of tunneling vortex hole to another universe - sorry if you hoped for a learned discussion. Maybe we'll get there and at least you have addressed the topic.

Isn't there a difference between centripetal acceleration - towards the center of the circle, and angular acceleration - around the circle ?
It seems that with shaped skis angular velocities and accelerations have changed dramatically. Do we even ski in sections of a circle anyway? Maybe the sections are ellipses or some other shape.

edit: Ok I see you have clarified a bit, I should have hit refresh before posting. Although "simple, clear, concise" - really don't make me take this one to Judge Judy! I think 911 would win that case.
Here's a suggestion, folks. One that's worked well in the past. If Max starts a thread that seemingly has no point, feel free to choose one for yourself and discuss it with each other. Some value can be created like that, and has at times before. Max can try to go where ever he wants with the thread, and if he eventually decides to share where that is with everyone, and it seems an interesting topic to discuss, you can always come back and discuss that too.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick Here's a suggestion, folks. One that's worked well in the past. If Max starts a thread that seemingly has no point, feel free to choose one for yourself and discuss it with each other. Some value can be created like that, and has at times before. Max can try to go where ever he wants with the thread, and if he eventually decides to share where that is with everyone, and it seems an interesting topic to discuss, you can always come back and discuss that too.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick Here's a suggestion, folks. One that's worked well in the past. If Max starts a thread that seemingly has no point, feel free to choose one for yourself and discuss it with each other. Some value can be created like that, and has at times before. Max can try to go where ever he wants with the thread, and if he eventually decides to share where that is with everyone, and it seems an interesting topic to discuss, you can always come back and discuss that too.
Rick you are correct on this & the prior postings on this thread display exactly that. This is the norm & the trend. But, yes there is always a but, there are problems with this common occurrence & these problems seem to frequent themselves in Max's threads. Or threads where the one liner demands or comments are inserted.

1. Skiers finding EpicSki would be new to this forum and not know the established strategy of avoiding pointless expended energy and resulting frustration. They wouldn't know how to avoid the black hole in the first place, let alone how to get out of the vortex. They just give up, I'm sure you could name a list of them. Or just don't venture in here after the experience.

2. Threads where this occurs de-values the T&A forum. New comers to Epic with any sense of sanity would abandon the thought of joining this community upon reading the disjointedness. It takes a lot of effort to try and follow all the various topics that occurred just in this thread. And this thread didn't go anywhere as it hasn't reached it's 3rd page yet !

3. If new participants actually post, they may get the impression they are talking to a rock. This is not a spelunking or geology forum is it ?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Tog You're right on the first sentence - I have no idea of the point.
Really? The first post asked for a definition of acceleration. In the second post, slider supplied it. Subsequently there was some joking around. As for pointlessness, over the course of the thread mathematical definitions for speed, velocity, and acceleration were presented. Force - power -velocity relationships were derived. Angular acceleration was mentioned. Given the typical Epic thread, I'd say the signal to noise ratio is about average, really.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 The question was simple, clear, and concise (can't see how that is dumbed down). Perhaps I should have said, as a skier, how many types of acceleration do we use (or encounter) when skiing. But I thought that was implied since we are in the ski technique and analysis forum. The thread was moving along just fine until Rick and you took it off on this tangent.
I have to say, I agree. Somehow it got personal.

Max started off with a simple question: What is acceleration?
He then asked a slightly more specific question: Can you apply that definition to skiing?

Asking open-ended questions and then progressively narrowing down can be an effective way of exploring a complicated issue. Perhaps Max didn't respond as quickly as people might have liked, but I'm not sure that warrants the dogpiling.

Quote:
 Here's a suggestion, folks. One that's worked well in the past. If Max starts a thread that seemingly has no point, feel free to choose one for yourself and discuss it with each other.
Isn't that what we've been doing already? Isn't that what people do on most every thread?

That said, I agree that looking for "consensus" on a point of physics is a little bit silly. It's like asking people for their opinions on pi.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick Here's a suggestion, folks. One that's worked well in the past. If Max starts a thread that seemingly has no point, feel free to choose one for yourself and discuss it with each other. Some value can be created like that, and has at times before. Max can try to go where ever he wants with the thread, and if he eventually decides to share where that is with everyone, and it seems an interesting topic to discuss, you can always come back and discuss that too.
or do what I do.

|
|
|
V

I am unclear on something. If you take off the physicist hat and look at this from the point of view of a skier carving arc to arc, are linear and angular acceleration two different things?

To go a bit further, if you make the following assumptions:

1) Carving arc to arc
2) C shaped turns
3) Release just before skis are perpendicular to the fall line
4) Radius is the same for each turn (and at least 1 meter less than the radius printed on the ski)
5) Slope is 23.7 degrees

At what point(s) does your rate of acceleration increase?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching