?

Log in

No account? Create an account
escalator math - Alierak
June 14th, 2004
12:42 am

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
escalator math

(4 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:lite
Date:June 14th, 2004 11:43 am (UTC)
(Link)
*blink... blink... blink*

OK, but what about the very real possibility that one or more of your escalators, due to age, don't actually move at constant speed v_e, but actually a variable speed, v(t), where C_a v_e <= v(t) <= (1-C_b) v_e, where C_a and C_b are small constants (perhaps close to 0.05 or 0.1).
[User Picture]
From:alierak
Date:June 14th, 2004 12:50 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Well, I'm very sure they don't have a constant rate of vertical rise, hence "ignoring the shallow steps at top and bottom". This is already supposed to be an approximation.

But I sense you might be poking fun at me anyway as your inequality makes insufficient sense. It would mean something like 0.5 v_e <= v(t) <= 0.95 v_e, thus v(t) is always less than how fast I think the escalator should be going. Porter Square has the longest escalators in Boston, and typically one of them is down for maintenance every other day. So maybe that's not so inaccurate :)
[User Picture]
From:lite
Date:June 14th, 2004 02:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It is probable that I am mocking you gently.
I mock all my friends. I'm just a big dork like that :)
Powered by LiveJournal.com