scott wrote:
>>>> So d = -340 K + 3,400 = 4.905 K^2.
>>>>
>>>> At this point, I have insufficient knowledge of algebra to deduce a 
>>>> solution, although obviously one exists.
> 
> ...
> 
>> Solving a single quadratic equation is trivial.
> 
> What do you call that equation you got at the top there?

A pair of equations welded together?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>>>> So d = -340 K + 3,400 = 4.905 K^2.

> A pair of equations welded together?

A = B = C implies that B = C, no?

Post a reply to this message

> A = B = C implies that B = C, no?

Then we have -340 K = 3,400 = 4.905 K^2, which I still don't know how to 
solve.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > A = B = C implies that B = C, no?

> Then we have -340 K = 3,400 = 4.905 K^2, which I still don't know how to 
> solve.

  That's not what you had. You had this:

-340 K + 3,400 = 4.905 K^2

which is equivalent to

4.905 K^2 + 340 K + 3400 = 0

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Then we have -340 K = 3,400 = 4.905 K^2, which I still don't know how to 
>> solve.
> 
>   That's not what you had. You had this:
> 
> -340 K + 3,400 = 4.905 K^2

Yeah, a simple typo.

> which is equivalent to
> 
> 4.905 K^2 + 340 K + 3400 = 0

Mmm, I hadn't realised that.

[But... are the signs correct?]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > 4.905 K^2 + 340 K + 3400 = 0

> Mmm, I hadn't realised that.

> [But... are the signs correct?]

  Probably not because that curve doesn't get even close to 0.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

In article <48316f48$1@news.povray.org>, sco### [at] scottcom says...
> > to keep it against such small things as air friction isn't all that lar
ge.
> 
> At 75 mph air friction isn't small.  A lot of small cars give up not much
 
> faster than this because their engine cannot generate enough power to 
> overcome the air friction.
> 
Yep. A lot of truck companies in the US are down-tuning their trucks to 
run between 60-65 now, instead of 70+, because they *save* 25% on fuel 
just by doing that. The last time we had a gas crisis, the President 
opted to mandate a nation wide reduction to 55MPH, to force people to 
save fuel.

This one... Has increased the amount of "reserve" oil stored away for 
when we run out of the real stuff, lowered environmental standards, 
where possible, to help promote pumping, and a mess of other useless BS. 
Somehow the things that "would" effect cost and usage... he just never 
thinks of. But then, what do you expect from a guy whose campaign was, 
in part, funded by the very credit people that later wrote the law to 
make it harder to file bankruptcy, so you didn't have to *pay* the 
credit people? Fixing the real problem isn't what he wants. He wants to 
pretend that, as long as it not him whose house is in foreclosure, him 
that has 90 credit cards, all maxed, or him that has to spend the babies 
milk money on gas, everything is just peachy. After all, according to 
him, my yearly income *must be* $100,000 a year (never mind that its not 
even 1/5th of that... There simply isn't a problem from the perspective 
of the people like him.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

> Yep. A lot of truck companies in the US are down-tuning their trucks to
> run between 60-65 now, instead of 70+, because they *save* 25% on fuel
> just by doing that.

All trucks over 3500 kg in the EU are physically limited to 90 km/h (55 
mph).  Most countries have a limit for trucks equal or higher than that (eg 
in the UK it is 60 mph, but of course no truck can go that speed), but some 
have lower, eg in Germany it's 80 km/h for trucks.

> The last time we had a gas crisis, the President
> opted to mandate a nation wide reduction to 55MPH, to force people to
> save fuel.

Have different speed limits depending on how much pollution your car 
produces.  Allow the most fuel efficient cars to go slightly faster than 
they can today, and make other cars go slower.  In the centre of cities that 
are prone to pollution, simply don't allow the most fuel inefficient cars to 
enter.  We have a system like that just starting off here in Germany.

> or him that has to spend the babies
> milk money on gas,

Sorry, I don't accept complaints about gas prices from people living in the 
US :-) Your prices are ridiculously low no matter how expensive you say they 
are.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> 
> Have different speed limits depending on how much pollution your car 
> produces.  Allow the most fuel efficient cars to go slightly faster than 
> they can today, and make other cars go slower.  In the centre of cities 

That would require more lanes. On a normal 2-lane (1 per direction) road 
different limits on same-class cars only generates angry drivers, while 
the traffic ain't smooth and easy anymore, but there's lots and lots of 
overtakes going on all the time.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Le Sun, 18 May 2008 18:44:19 +0200, Tor Olav Kristensen a modifié des
petits morceaux de l'univers pour nous faire lire :

> Warp wrote:
> ...
>>   3500 rpm = 3500*60 rph, and in 1 hour it travels 75 miles. Thus
>>   divide
>> 75 miles by 3500*60 revolutions, and you have the amount of miles per
>> one revolution, which would be approximately 0.0003571428 miles.
>> 
>>   Given that I'm not sure which whacky units miles are divided into,
> ...
> 
> 0.0003571428 mile
> = 1 foot + 2 hands + 2.6285678 inches = 22 and 5/8 inch (and something).
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?q=1+foot+2+hands+2.6285678+inches+in+miles
> http://www.google.com/search?q=%2822+5/8+%29+inches+in+miles
> 
> 1 mile
> = 8 furlongs
[snip] 
> 1 hand
> = 4 inches
> 
> 1 inch
> = 1000 mils

And you did not even talk about time & liquid & weight...
A gallon, a ton or just a fortnight ?

In Montreal or Los angeles... or Sydney!

Metrics rulez!

Post a reply to this message