yellowsocks93
Veteran Member
I tried to agree and be friendly. But Coyboydoc is right this ain't going no where. This is like the topic on the elastic VS plastic everybody's getting pissed at him.
Technology in Farm Machinery Field
- Thread starter nomad
- Start date
- Views: 9266
- Status
JerryG
Super Member
Richard,
This same type of thing has happened repeatedly on other Internet sites with Nomad.
This same type of thing has happened repeatedly on other Internet sites with Nomad.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">(
Yes, I am a mechanical engineer. I have worked in.... I don't intend to be mean, but you apparently are not an engineer and you should stop posing as one. )</font>
Good to talk with a colleague. Your arriving at such a conclusion must be because of your misunderstanding my simplified language for the farmers here. I have a PhD in mechanical eng. (turbulence in the fluids - experimental & computational) and have another PhD in theoretical science (mathematical physics - point symmetery groups and their applications to reduce dimension of turbulences&chaoses.) You probably know that turbulence in fluid flows is the most complixated/complex version of F=MA application. Had also worked as a worker in the undustry before started to study at faculties. Had also worked as a wheat farmer for 2 decades before leaving the rural field for the field of citi-Zens. So, I think I'm able to understand their languages of people living at different places from rural people to engineers to pure scientists. But they usually misunderstand my words. For ex., a scholar at a reasearch faculty will never understand my use of such a language "farmers are the scientists of really real field applications". Anyways..
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ALL the weight on the tractor is carried by the tractor. What else is carrying it? There are no "free rides". Every object has inertia which must be overcome before it moves at all. To sugest otherwise is ignorant. )</font>
In daily use of language, this is correct, i.e. all weight (on tractor and attachment) is carried by tractor. But the exact technical language is that, as you know, all "forces" in same direction of tractor movement is carried by the tractor. You indirectly admit that in your paragraph below. Lets continue there.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( The very definition of force is F=MA where F is force, M=mass, and A=acceleration.
)</font>
A is a vectorial quantity, hence so is F. The net force F in tractor's direction too is found from balancing the forces These are friction forces between the tires & ground and attachment & ground and resistance forces of, say, tiller tines in the soil. Friction force there is dependent on the mass M (W/g = Weight per gravitational acceleration.) Hence, we say in our daily life that "tractor is carrying the all weight", which is in fact not true as I explained above. Only the friction force which is dependent on the mass (or, in other words, the weight) is being carried by the tractor (also resistant force by tiller tines) To summarize this by simplified technical words, the force applied by the tractor is a vectorial quantity horizontally and the direction of the weight vector is toward the ground.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( This is a great idea in theory and what I thought you kept refering to, however it's simply not practical....
)</font>
Rod / Hyd. cylinder was only an example on what can be done to adjust the COG (or, COF; center of force, a term I just defined now to communicate with any person here who is far from technical language.) I was already aware of that this idea isn't much practical. I opened the door of suggestions on changing COF by not a good practical idea. There must be many ways of doing that; what else? By the way, that hydraulic cylinder idea was only a control method of added weight using the the pressure force which can be transferred from our tractor easily.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">(
Now, all this being said, I'm NOT trying to tell you to stop trying to come up with new ideas. What I'm trying to say is when you have an idea listen to those who have training, knowledge, and experience and don't make "factual" statements about things you don't seem to have a firm grasp on. )</font>
I am listening to experiences of all people; you as an experienced engineering scientist in the field, farmers as the other scientists which are at the end (last real application point) of science chain. You can see this clearly in my "elastic or plastic?" thread that I'm learning "which tire?" from these farmer scientists who have been doing many experiments in their really real field laboratories. Well, our scholars at faculties will probably not like my this language; calling farmers too as scientist because they are used to "we know all". No, I'm not such a person. I am following true learning process which is a kind of interaction which gives a birth of truths at the end. And, this interaction is involved in all parties from pure scholars/theoreticans to engineering scientists to farmer scientists to dealer scientists, etc. Hence, we are here.
Yes, I am a mechanical engineer. I have worked in.... I don't intend to be mean, but you apparently are not an engineer and you should stop posing as one. )</font>
Good to talk with a colleague. Your arriving at such a conclusion must be because of your misunderstanding my simplified language for the farmers here. I have a PhD in mechanical eng. (turbulence in the fluids - experimental & computational) and have another PhD in theoretical science (mathematical physics - point symmetery groups and their applications to reduce dimension of turbulences&chaoses.) You probably know that turbulence in fluid flows is the most complixated/complex version of F=MA application. Had also worked as a worker in the undustry before started to study at faculties. Had also worked as a wheat farmer for 2 decades before leaving the rural field for the field of citi-Zens. So, I think I'm able to understand their languages of people living at different places from rural people to engineers to pure scientists. But they usually misunderstand my words. For ex., a scholar at a reasearch faculty will never understand my use of such a language "farmers are the scientists of really real field applications". Anyways..
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ALL the weight on the tractor is carried by the tractor. What else is carrying it? There are no "free rides". Every object has inertia which must be overcome before it moves at all. To sugest otherwise is ignorant. )</font>
In daily use of language, this is correct, i.e. all weight (on tractor and attachment) is carried by tractor. But the exact technical language is that, as you know, all "forces" in same direction of tractor movement is carried by the tractor. You indirectly admit that in your paragraph below. Lets continue there.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( The very definition of force is F=MA where F is force, M=mass, and A=acceleration.
)</font>
A is a vectorial quantity, hence so is F. The net force F in tractor's direction too is found from balancing the forces These are friction forces between the tires & ground and attachment & ground and resistance forces of, say, tiller tines in the soil. Friction force there is dependent on the mass M (W/g = Weight per gravitational acceleration.) Hence, we say in our daily life that "tractor is carrying the all weight", which is in fact not true as I explained above. Only the friction force which is dependent on the mass (or, in other words, the weight) is being carried by the tractor (also resistant force by tiller tines) To summarize this by simplified technical words, the force applied by the tractor is a vectorial quantity horizontally and the direction of the weight vector is toward the ground.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( This is a great idea in theory and what I thought you kept refering to, however it's simply not practical....
)</font>
Rod / Hyd. cylinder was only an example on what can be done to adjust the COG (or, COF; center of force, a term I just defined now to communicate with any person here who is far from technical language.) I was already aware of that this idea isn't much practical. I opened the door of suggestions on changing COF by not a good practical idea. There must be many ways of doing that; what else? By the way, that hydraulic cylinder idea was only a control method of added weight using the the pressure force which can be transferred from our tractor easily.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">(
Now, all this being said, I'm NOT trying to tell you to stop trying to come up with new ideas. What I'm trying to say is when you have an idea listen to those who have training, knowledge, and experience and don't make "factual" statements about things you don't seem to have a firm grasp on. )</font>
I am listening to experiences of all people; you as an experienced engineering scientist in the field, farmers as the other scientists which are at the end (last real application point) of science chain. You can see this clearly in my "elastic or plastic?" thread that I'm learning "which tire?" from these farmer scientists who have been doing many experiments in their really real field laboratories. Well, our scholars at faculties will probably not like my this language; calling farmers too as scientist because they are used to "we know all". No, I'm not such a person. I am following true learning process which is a kind of interaction which gives a birth of truths at the end. And, this interaction is involved in all parties from pure scholars/theoreticans to engineering scientists to farmer scientists to dealer scientists, etc. Hence, we are here.
By the way, just to make Villengineer sure about that I understand from engineering as well as to give a little info to some of farmers who don't know what's the friction force.
It can be calculated by using a simplified engineering formula;
F = c x W
Where F: friction force, c: friction coefficient on the surface and W = weight. (ps: Actually, instead of W here, the correct is the reaction force of the ground - but it's equal to the weight in case of tractor moving horizontally on the ground. So, I used W in this formula instead of reaction force of the ground.)
F and W are forces; meaning that a vectorial quantity defined with as scalar magnitude and with a direction. F and W is vertical to each other if the object (like in tractor) moves horizontally to the ground. But this has not to be so. If you are driving your tractor on a slope of a hill, then F and W vectors have an angle of that slope. As for c friction coefficient; it's an emphirical scalar quantity; meaning that it is determined from experimental data. Actually, it's a semi-emphirical quanity, but will not go into its detail here. Hope Villengineer belives now in that I too understand from engineering.
While we are at it; since Villengineer mentioned, another thing about formulation of F = M x A. This is, what we can call, a semi-emphirical formula of Newton, and the main formula of classical mechanics after the conservation of mass. Remember that classical mechanics had ignored the speed of light. Einstein didn't. And, he said the mass isn't conserved actually and he added you could see that when you increase the speed of object toward the speed of light (C) and gave the simplified formula as E (Energy) = M x (V/C)^2, which is usually known as E = M x C^2. So, we can claim that according to Einstein mechanics, some masses (very very small amount) of a tractor running at a speed of, say, 100 miles/hour are actually disappearing (being converted to the energy) which isn't taken into account today's engineering calculations mainly based on classical mechanics which in fact is an approximate mechanics. By the way, Einstein's this formulae is not a semi-emphirical formula as he found it from pure mathematical games unlike classical mechanics (only mass-conservation there in classical mechanic is a pure theoretical result which was later claimed to be, by Einstein, not correct.) Just a side info. (ps: now, Villengineer, do you still think I don't understand from engineering?;-)
It can be calculated by using a simplified engineering formula;
F = c x W
Where F: friction force, c: friction coefficient on the surface and W = weight. (ps: Actually, instead of W here, the correct is the reaction force of the ground - but it's equal to the weight in case of tractor moving horizontally on the ground. So, I used W in this formula instead of reaction force of the ground.)
F and W are forces; meaning that a vectorial quantity defined with as scalar magnitude and with a direction. F and W is vertical to each other if the object (like in tractor) moves horizontally to the ground. But this has not to be so. If you are driving your tractor on a slope of a hill, then F and W vectors have an angle of that slope. As for c friction coefficient; it's an emphirical scalar quantity; meaning that it is determined from experimental data. Actually, it's a semi-emphirical quanity, but will not go into its detail here. Hope Villengineer belives now in that I too understand from engineering.
While we are at it; since Villengineer mentioned, another thing about formulation of F = M x A. This is, what we can call, a semi-emphirical formula of Newton, and the main formula of classical mechanics after the conservation of mass. Remember that classical mechanics had ignored the speed of light. Einstein didn't. And, he said the mass isn't conserved actually and he added you could see that when you increase the speed of object toward the speed of light (C) and gave the simplified formula as E (Energy) = M x (V/C)^2, which is usually known as E = M x C^2. So, we can claim that according to Einstein mechanics, some masses (very very small amount) of a tractor running at a speed of, say, 100 miles/hour are actually disappearing (being converted to the energy) which isn't taken into account today's engineering calculations mainly based on classical mechanics which in fact is an approximate mechanics. By the way, Einstein's this formulae is not a semi-emphirical formula as he found it from pure mathematical games unlike classical mechanics (only mass-conservation there in classical mechanic is a pure theoretical result which was later claimed to be, by Einstein, not correct.) Just a side info. (ps: now, Villengineer, do you still think I don't understand from engineering?;-)
Old_Hickory
Platinum Member
Man,
I have a headache after reading that post.
I have a headache after reading that post.
IDjunker
Member
Me too
art
Super Member
Old Hickory I agree with you! Bring it in my yard when you get done boys and I have a couple of fields here we'll go play on with your fine new toy when you get thru building it! Merry Xmas 2099! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
MossRoad
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 58,153
- Location
- South Bend, Indiana (near)
- Tractor
- Power Trac PT425 2001 Model Year
Well, this post has been informative and brought up some good points for discussion. However, it seems to have stopped progressing, so.... /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
- Status