I found an automatic that I really like....

[Squint]

Let's just switch to Kelvin.

Oh boy, it's 273! Grab your parka. (I've forgotten the exact conversion factor.

273 K = 0 C if memory serves. So yeah, grab the parka.

[ClutchFork]

Let's just switch to Kelvin.

Oh boy, it's 273! Grab your parka. (I've forgotten the exact conversion factor.

I like it! So if absolute zero is the theoretical point where everything stops moving, then what is the corresponding hot point, that at which everything theoretically vaporizes? No, heat is motion in a sense, so maybe it would have something to do with the heat at the speed of light.

[tankinbeans]

Haps Zen can chime in on the theoretical hot point at which nothing can get hotter. I'm guessing you're right about it being related to the speed of light. After all, Energy =Mass x Velocity of Light Squirreled.

[zenfiz6]

Haps Zen can chime in on the theoretical hot point at which nothing can get hotter. I'm guessing you're right about it being related to the speed of light. After all, Energy =Mass x Velocity of Light Squirreled.

At this point, I must defer to the superior intellect of the great Dr. Isaac Asimov:

... the Einsteinian view of the universe, which gives an upper limit of velocity and therefore seems to offer hope of an upper limit of heat, does not consider mass a constant. The mass of any object... increases as its velocity increases, becoming indefinitely large as one gets closer and closer to the velocity of light.... [Therefore,] "m" becomes very large and reaches toward the infinite regardless of the particle considered, and so consequently does [its temperature.] There is no maximum possible temperature in the Einsteinian universe....

"The Height of Up," View from a Height, Lancer, 1963

[tankinbeans]

I should get some of his books. Right now most of my science-y books are regarding micro-biology and a little environmental science. I may be able to get into a physics class next semester, if my work schedule permits.

I do have a couple of Brian Green's books, but haven't had a chance to really sink my teeth into them.

[ClutchFork]

I should get some of his books.

I would direct you to Richard P. Feynman: "Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics Explained by Its Most Brilliant Teacher." If you really want to get deep into it then try reading The Feynman Lectures on Physics. I read Six Easy Pieces years ago with great comprehension. Tried reading one volume of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, but it was way over my head.

[zenfiz6]

I should get some of his books.

Yes, you should. Isaac Asimov was a very prolific writer in both science fact and fiction. I got my start in physics by reading every science book of his I could find in my local library. He is extremely readable at the introductory level.

I would direct you to Richard P. Feynman: "Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics Explained by Its Most Brilliant Teacher." If you really want to get deep into it then try reading The Feynman Lectures on Physics. I read Six Easy Pieces years ago with great comprehension. Tried reading one volume of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, but it was way over my head.

Oddly enough, I've never read Feynman's general science books, so I couldn't tell you if they're worth reading. However, I have read his QED textbook (the one with the blue and white cover) and skimmed his three-volume tome. Neither of those books are at the introductory level. Feynman was a great teacher, but not for the 100-level courses. If you already know the basics, then the connections he makes between concepts is amazing.

But I'd get my start with Asimov and, say, Halliday & Resnick.

[Rope-Pusher]

^What he said.

My brain is only comfortable with the awkward but familiar English units (which the English gave up on). What puzzles me is why tires are rated in metric for tread width and English for wheel size. In the 1970 I recall letter designations for tread width and that my car at the time took G/78/15s. There are conversion charts on the web, think G was like a 215 mm width.

It was easy to change to metric for tire width. People with old tires could keep using them until they needed new tires, then they could just get a similar width. It would not be easy to change rim diameter, nobody wants to buy new wheels just so there can be a new unit used to describe diameter, and who wants to talk about 381mm wheels? 205/75-381 is a little weird.

What I don't get, and this really irritates me, is why sidewall height is a percentage of width instead of just a quantity of millimeters (or, heaven forbid, an actual diameter measurement). Who's the crackhead who had that idea? That's why we need tire size calculators and why people end up with wrong-sized tires.

I spent a summer with GM Tire-n-Wheel engineering. Tires of different brands or different models from same tire manufacturer have different revs per mile even when they are the same "size". Worn tire rev per mile figure is different than when they were gnu. Also makes a difference as to how much load they are carrying, what speed you are driving, and whether they are powered or just coasting.

Calculated values are prolly close enuff for making comparisons between two different sizes, sins the relative difference is watt ewer after.

No country in the world is pure metric. It's not just wheel sizes. Take a look at their socket sets. 1/4", 3/8" and 1/2" drive sizes are used everywhere, even if they never owe up to it by labeling them as such.

Anyone here have a Musclestang with a 390mm rimsize?
"The Michelin TRX, (and the related TDX), is a radial tire introduced by the Michelin Group in 1975. It is one of the first volume-produced low-profile tires. Although technologically advanced, and reasonably successful, the tire's requirement for a non-standard rim ultimately condemned it to a relatively short commercial life. It has thus been called the "Betamax of the tire industry.[1]""

[ClutchFork]

I wanna know if the effective tire circumference is affected by the vehicle weight. Does squish factor effectively reduce the diameter for calculating circumference? Or does the squish not matter because the length of tread that has to pass through remains the same?

[theholycow]

I wanna know if the effective tire circumference is affected by the vehicle weight. Does squish factor effectively reduce the diameter for calculating circumference? Or does the squish not matter because the length of tread that has to pass through remains the same?

I've always reasoned that it doesn't make sense that revs per mile, rollout circumference, or however you want to name it, would change for squish factor. However:

I spent a summer with GM Tire-n-Wheel engineering. Tires of different brands or different models from same tire manufacturer have different revs per mile even when they are the same "size". Worn tire rev per mile figure is different than when they were gnu. Also makes a difference as to how much load they are carrying, what speed you are driving, and whether they are powered or just coasting.

I remain skeptical but RP tends to be correct in these matters...

[ClutchFork]

I remain skeptical but RP tends to be correct in these matters...

Yes, RP does have a lot of car knowledge. I should have picked that up from his post. Would be something to see the variables of squish, road speed, etc on graphs but probably changes depending on tire design, profile, and type of rubber (soft vs hard).