| From: | Amonchare <mak9@******.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | No more physics/calculus (Promise) |
| Date: | Wed, 10 Mar 93 18:20:21 EST |
I, Michael A. Kauffman, promise not to post any more physics or calculus to
this list.
There I said it. I am doing this for two reasons:
1) We aren't getting anywhere. Both sides the "realists" and the
"simplists"
need to concede some points. By giving up the derivations I hope to make
discussion less complex (more simplistic).
2) The derivations posted so far are all that are necessary (IMHO). Any
further derivations from "realistic" eqs. requires too many assumptions to be
valuable.
Now before the "realists" claim the I am jumping ship, I greatly object to
moving from an Eq. based system to an arbitrary one. The most important
reason I have for this in that I don't believe we could improve enough on
FASA's system to justify the time spent. Every time Hayden (excuse me for
using you as an example, your just the most vocal simplist) suggests setting
an arbitrary value (Cruising is designed to be 120 kph), I see us taking a step
back to RBB.
I still think Eqs. are way to go. As long as they are simple. We have simple
eqs. for cruising speed, max speed, and economy. If Glen's suggestion that we
make tables out of these eqs. so that those who don't want to do the math
don't have to, I could post these charts in a day or two.
As a side note, I'm glad to see a few more names posting to this list. For
those watching please add your 2 cents. Which way should we go? Totally
simplistic? More realistic? Somewhere in between? If the latter, where's a
good balance?
]-----------------------\--------------------------/---------------------------[
]Guak \ Lehigh University / 670 Atlantic Str. [
]A.K.A. Amonchare \ Chemistry Department / Bethlehem, PA 18015-3538[
](Michael A. Kauffman) \ 6 E. Packer Ave. / (215) 758-4706 (w) [
]mak9@******.edu \ Bethlehem, PA 18015 / (215) 868-5043 (h) [
]-----------------------\--------------------------/---------------------------[
