Total Body Automation

On Jul 9, 9:52 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

I know precisely what a torque is. And I also know that the difference
in speed (and thus the difference in torque) between the inside and
outside arms is negligible.

That maybe is what you know, but you didn't answer the question. Put
them together, you don't know what you are talking about.

When there is an opposing torque of course.

How do you generate "an opposing torque"?

That's your "torque," when you rotate your body/ankles, i.e. your way
of skiing. Flatboarding/slipping-turn does not have to rotate the
ankles to make turns.

Whether or not you rotate the ankles is irrelevant.
There is a torque caused by air resistance.

Air resistance is mostly negligible in comparison to the torque
generated by the body.

Yup, that's only because your limited mogul techniques/experience/
knowledge.

Nope. That's the facts.

Yup, facts of "your limited mogul techniques/experience/knowledge."

No, I don't think that you're worth the talk.

Yet... ...here you are.

Yup, a dinker on my line, scared little creature, wrapped in
some half-baked junks, jumps around all over the places,
guess it would take some time to get my line straighten out.

Ah, the "I meant to be embarrassed by my failure" defense.

LOL

Yup, a dinker's shameless cheap laugh.

Nevertheless, why are you here, again?

I'm popping the balloon of a pompous twit.

What's to you if not for popping your mutated ego?

Your little knowledge doesn't shed the light on the subject.


IS

On Jul 9, 9:55 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

taichiskiing wrote:
That's only because your mediocre MA skills; nevertheless, that's
really pathetic egotistic even hinted that you know better than
VtSier's eye-witness report.

Nope. They just weren't very good.

Of course, if you don't have the necessary skills to analysis the
video clips.

Lacking of MA skills is what makes you make mediocre observation.
Guess a gapper never learns.

I wouldn't know. What I know is what it looks like when someone loses
his balance and must work to regain it. And it happens to you all the
time.

Of course you wouldn't know, you only know how to speculate in your
mind to lip-serve your mutated ego (say something your ego likes to
hear).


IS

MoonMan wrote:
lal_truckee wrote:

But do try it on steep, deep, skied out junk snow sometime. It's no
fun on the groomed - too easy.

Not if the lead skier is a racer with over 100 less seedpoints than you it
ain't

Yeah, true. Years ago I'd try following the kid's coaches - among them
Olympians - WC metal winner, and an accomplished speed course skier.
It's tough. In fact I'd say it's impossible if they don't cooperate.
Hell, I can't really even follow the kid any more if he doesn't want me
there, after all those years of his high level racing. But for everyday
experts I'll stick by my claim - do it on the steep junk for pure pleasure.

taichiskiing wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, lal_truckee wrote:

CLIP
That is not a "Chinese Downhill" by any definition.
You have once again re-defined an established English skiing definition.

It can be "Chinese Downhill," by any definition; it's all depends on
the line the lead skier chooses.

The very definition of a "Chinese Downhill" specifies each participant
selects his own line from start to finish. Following another skier by
requirement is the antithesis of a "Chinese Downhill."


CLIP
But do try it on steep, deep, skied out junk snow sometime. It's no fun
on the groomed - too easy.

You ski too hard.

Not at all. Just hard enough to commune with the mountain in all its
glory and magnificence.

Big Skis on steep junk snow - that's the ticket to nirvana. I wonder if
Shangri La has their lifts installed yet?

On Jul 10, 5:57 am, lal_truckee wrote:
taichiskiing wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, lal_truckee wrote:

CLIP
That is not a "Chinese Downhill" by any definition.
You have once again re-defined an established English skiing definition.

It can be "Chinese Downhill," by any definition; it's all depends on
the line the lead skier chooses.

The very definition of a "Chinese Downhill" specifies each participant
selects his own line from start to finish. Following another skier by
requirement is the antithesis of a "Chinese Downhill."

Yup, the new requirement is just to make it more challenge. The chaser
still skis his/her own line and is only required to ski close to the
lead skier so the tape won't break.

CLIP
But do try it on steep, deep, skied out junk snow sometime. It's no fun
on the groomed - too easy.

You ski too hard.

Not at all. Just hard enough to commune with the mountain in all its
glory and magnificence.

Big Skis on steep junk snow - that's the ticket to nirvana. I wonder if
Shangri La has their lifts installed yet?

For nirvana, try "Total Body Automation," it achieves the goal a lot
easier and faster.


IS

In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:

On Jul 9, 9:52 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

I know precisely what a torque is. And I also know that the difference
in speed (and thus the difference in torque) between the inside and
outside arms is negligible.

That maybe is what you know, but you didn't answer the question. Put
them together, you don't know what you are talking about.

When there is an opposing torque of course.

How do you generate "an opposing torque"?

A torque in the opposite direction, of course.


That's your "torque," when you rotate your body/ankles, i.e. your way
of skiing. Flatboarding/slipping-turn does not have to rotate the
ankles to make turns.

Whether or not you rotate the ankles is irrelevant.
There is a torque caused by air resistance.

Air resistance is mostly negligible in comparison to the torque
generated by the body.

But not when it's caused by ski poles that are far smaller than the body?

LOL


Yup, that's only because your limited mogul techniques/experience/
knowledge.

Nope. That's the facts.

Yup, facts of "your limited mogul techniques/experience/knowledge."

Facts about moguls. Moguls are bumps surrounded by lower areas. There is
no way to pass through a field of moguls without spending a significant
amount of time in those lower areas.


No, I don't think that you're worth the talk.

Yet... ...here you are.

Yup, a dinker on my line, scared little creature, wrapped in
some half-baked junks, jumps around all over the places,
guess it would take some time to get my line straighten out.

Ah, the "I meant to be embarrassed by my failure" defense.

LOL

Yup, a dinker's shameless cheap laugh.

LOL


Nevertheless, why are you here, again?

I'm popping the balloon of a pompous twit.

What's to you if not for popping your mutated ego?

Your little knowledge doesn't shed the light on the subject.

LOL

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:

On Jul 9, 9:55 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

taichiskiing wrote:
That's only because your mediocre MA skills; nevertheless, that's
really pathetic egotistic even hinted that you know better than
VtSier's eye-witness report.

Nope. They just weren't very good.

Of course, if you don't have the necessary skills to analysis the
video clips.

Very little skill was necessary, but I had more than enough.

Did you forget: I'm a ski instructor.


Lacking of MA skills is what makes you make mediocre observation.
Guess a gapper never learns.

I wouldn't know. What I know is what it looks like when someone loses
his balance and must work to regain it. And it happens to you all the
time.

Of course you wouldn't know, you only know how to speculate in your
mind to lip-serve your mutated ego (say something your ego likes to
hear).

LOL

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

On Jul 9, 10:46*pm, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:39 am, Alan Baker wrote:

In article
,

*taichiskiing wrote:

A=V*V/R; where A is angular acceleration, V is velocity, and R is the
radius of the turn.

Sorry. Do the math for a specific turn and show what the difference in
torque is.

Let's say for a skier traveling at 20 mph making a turn with a radius of
20 feet.

Do you own math if you cannot think/draw conclusion without the
numbers. And you haven't demonstrated that you even know what a
"torque" is, why "the torque on the inside shoulder speeds it up...."
what's the "torque on the inside shoulder," and how it "speeds"
it/"what" up?



Yes, there's always "spinning/rotation motion," when referencing to
the center of the turn/curved path.

That's as may be. But one can have a torque without a "spinning/rotation
motion".

Fancy, what, and how?

Don't think you can.

I don't doubt that you don't think.

Of course, you only think you know.

There's air resistance, but won't affect the balance if you have the
footing solidly planted on sliding.

And thus a torque, since the centre of pressure is located roughly half
your height above the point about which your body rotates with respect
to the snow: your ankles.

That's your "torque," when you rotate your body/ankles, i.e. your way
of skiing. Flatboarding/slipping-turn does not have to rotate the
ankles to make turns.


Are you taking physics lessons from Jeff Davis?

In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:

On Jul 10, 5:57 am, lal_truckee wrote:
taichiskiing wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, lal_truckee wrote:

CLIP
That is not a "Chinese Downhill" by any definition.
You have once again re-defined an established English skiing definition.

It can be "Chinese Downhill," by any definition; it's all depends on
the line the lead skier chooses.

The very definition of a "Chinese Downhill" specifies each participant
selects his own line from start to finish. Following another skier by
requirement is the antithesis of a "Chinese Downhill."

Yup, the new requirement is just to make it more challenge. The chaser
still skis his/her own line and is only required to ski close to the
lead skier so the tape won't break.

So the two skiers, start even and then one suddenly turns away and the
tape breaks...

Who won?


CLIP
But do try it on steep, deep, skied out junk snow sometime. It's no fun
on the groomed - too easy.

You ski too hard.

Not at all. Just hard enough to commune with the mountain in all its
glory and magnificence.

Big Skis on steep junk snow - that's the ticket to nirvana. I wonder if
Shangri La has their lifts installed yet?

For nirvana, try "Total Body Automation," it achieves the goal a lot
easier and faster.

LOL

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

On Jul 10, 7:39 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,

LOL

Beware, when you slip into shameless denials, there'll be no
redemption for your soul. All for the vanity that you think you know
better, sad.

I rest,
IS