Subject	Great to see some thinkin' goin' on. I looked into this a
Posted by	240Z FeO2 on June 17, 2006 at 10:20 PM
	This message has been viewed 63 times.
In Reply To	JUST WONDERIN'. Alright math and physics buffs out there, posted by 240Z FeO2 on June 17, 2006 at 09:12 PM
Message	bit and I'll offer my simplistic analysis. To start, an assumption about acceleration is in order. If acceleration is constant then the velocity at the midpoint of the 0 to 60 run, 30mph, can be considered to be the average velocity for the entire run. 30mph is 44 ft/sec. [(ft in a mile x miles traveled in an hr)/ sec in an hr or (5280 x 30)/3600]. If 5 sec at 44ft/sec is required to reach 60 mph, your car has traveled 220 ft. Car speed road calling / bird freed leaf falling / we can bide time.
Follow Ups	JUST WONDERIN'. Alright math and physics buffs out there, - 240Z FeO2 21:12:36 06/17/06 Re: JUST WONDERIN'. Alright math and physics buffs out there, - rvin 21:26:45 06/17/06 Acceleration = 60mph/5sec = 17.6 ft/sec^2 (n/m) - Joe(NoVA) 21:28:05 06/17/06 I tried to delete this but you responded ;) (n/m) - rvin 21:28:51 06/17/06 Exactly why i responded ;-) (n/m) - Joe(NoVA) 21:29:25 06/17/06 your wrong too, i responded...no deleting now..luckily this - rvin 21:35:17 06/17/06 219ft - rvin 21:32:01 06/17/06 hmm... i was using the calculator on my computer - Joe(NoVA) 21:38:31 06/17/06 same calculator..gotta love all those decimals it throws out (n/m) - rvin 21:43:48 06/17/06 correct! (n/m) - IJUMPMAN 02:24:20 06/18/06 440 feet, if it is constant acceleration - Joe(NoVA) 21:26:50 06/17/06 your wrong...look above "219ft" - rvin 21:34:07 06/17/06 "you're ;-) - Joe(NoVA) 21:39:48 06/17/06 Yes, because acceleraion is not constant for our cars. (n/m) - Technomancer 07:03:39 06/18/06 Or anything for that matter. - Kenny 12:53:59 06/18/06 Yes! Newton and Laplace give us the impression that we can - Technomancer 09:23:34 06/19/06 f that...i have a hard time with 3+3 = 6 - genic 22:01:12 06/17/06 Lol - Spddracer 22:03:32 06/17/06 6?!?!?!?!? i thought it was 5! (n/m) - itsmyz (SoCal-San Diego) 00:27:13 06/18/06 totally agree (n/m) - Patrick(Austin) 08:05:46 06/18/06 Great to see some thinkin' goin' on. I looked into this a - 240Z FeO2 22:20:05 06/17/06 nice - nemo1080 03:40:44 06/18/06 Absolutely right. Plus there are almost no linear functions - 240Z FeO2 14:17:58 06/18/06
Post a Followup	You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.