On 10/9/2018 9:26 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:35:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/9/2018 5:25 PM, wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 7:08:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/8/2018 5:40 PM, wrote:

Consider Andrew, there is no possible way a bicycle tire has sufficient traction to do this. The total amount of traction of the tire has to be measure in ft/lbs of energy.

Tom, those units of measurement don't make sense.

"Traction" usually refers to a force. Depending on context, I suppose it
could possibly refer to a coefficient of friction. Neither of those is
"energy." And neither force, coefficient of friction nor energy have
units ft/lbs.

--
- Frank Krygowski

ft/lbs/sec if you have to have your hand held.

Nope, wrong again. Sorry!


Braking force is measured in different ways, but the easiest to
visualize is kinetic energy in kj and braking time which equals
kilowatts .

kj (kilo joules) is usually calculated as half the product of the
mass times the square of the speed.

Or perhaps mass (in Kilograms) times deceleration (meters per second)
equals Force (in Newtons).

See http://www.adilca.com/BRAKING_FORCE.pdf

If Tom's use of "traction" was intended to mean a force, then as the
example on page 5 of that PDF says, an appropriate unit would be Newtons
(or kiloNewtons). In the U.S., the appropriate unit would be pounds.

Again, depending on context, someone might use the word "traction" to
refer to the coefficient of friction. In that case, it would be
unitless, since coefficient of friction is a ratio of one force to
another. Newtons/Newtons = unitless.

I can't think of another possible meaning for the word "traction," but
I"m willing to listen to ideas.

The last units Tom gave would simplify to ft*sec/lb which would be
something like velocity/force. It makes no sense in relation to "traction."


--
- Frank Krygowski