Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RaCeR

Vortex

Recommended Posts

^You did not start any thing, you made a statement that I did not agree with. At that point DeLorian Rider did not agree with me. At that point he used an example that did not have any thing to do with what I did not agree with in your statement. I decided to egg him on when he started to apply articles that he was contradicting, and throw insults at me. For a final stand, I used the word CENTRIFICAL, all physics majors know that centrifical is not a term used with inertia. (It is a word however, it is actually a type of a pump, take notes Mr. Rider). The term that MOST scientists use is CENTRIPETAL, I however use inertia because I subscribe to the theories of Newtonian mechanics. One other big difference is in a common scientific statement; With all things being equal, the outcome will be the same. We think that it is impossible to create all things equal, thus injecting variables that need to be over come. Basically it is thinking outside of the box but from the inside of a different box. To answer your post, I am not sore at any one and I do not care what any one on here thinks of me. If you agree with me that is fine, same as if you agree with some one else. I am basically here to have fun just like you. (And some thing to do in the middle of the night).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well.... there has been some discussion in this thread about who "started" this argument, and, unfortunately, I believe it was me.

Alhough I agree with DeLorean about the physics, I hope that this is a "family" argument.... In other words, I have a brother and a sister and we fought like cats and dogs growing up, but, in the end, we still loved each other.........The people on this site all love the park, and we all love roller coasters, and, when this argument is over, we should all just ride together and experience the thrills and excitement that brought us all here in the first place.... And then relax at the lake by Bubba Gumps, drink a beer, and toast how happy we are to be there.......

After all, don't we go to KI to just have fun and escape the problems and petty conflicts in our lives????????

Hopefully, you realize that:

* Many, if not perhaps most, of the posters here are underage to be drinking beer.

* Many others who are of age do not partake, either in the park or perhaps not at all, for reasons ranging from religious to lack of desire to participate in such activities to being recovering alcoholics to not wanting to encourage Cedar Fair's food and drink pricing practices. Some of us don't even drink root beer anymore...

See, even a conciliatory statement on this board can get one in a quibble!

We're funny like that. Most of us, anywho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well.... there has been some discussion in this thread about who "started" this argument, and, unfortunately, I believe it was me.

Alhough I agree with DeLorean about the physics, I hope that this is a "family" argument.... In other words, I have a brother and a sister and we fought like cats and dogs growing up, but, in the end, we still loved each other.........The people on this site all love the park, and we all love roller coasters, and, when this argument is over, we should all just ride together and experience the thrills and excitement that brought us all here in the first place.... And then relax at the lake by Bubba Gumps, drink a beer, and toast how happy we are to be there.......

After all, don't we go to KI to just have fun and escape the problems and petty conflicts in our lives????????

Hopefully, you realize that:

* Many, if not perhaps most, of the posters here are underage to be drinking beer.

* Many others who are of age do not partake, either in the park or perhaps not at all, for reasons ranging from religious to lack of desire to participate in such activities to being recovering alcoholics to not wanting to encourage Cedar Fair's food and drink pricing practices. Some of us don't even drink root beer anymore...

See, even a conciliatory statement on this board can get one in a quibble!

We're funny like that. Most of us, anywho.

Beatle you also need to realize a few other things that you fail to clarify and could also get you in a quibble in addition to what Interpreter said:

* What brand of beer?

and

* Who's buying? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's o.k. I was just trying to keep DeLorian Rider going, he was on a pretty good roll with the insults. Also there is no need to agree with me, just discover for yourself. I normally do not argue about technical items, but he tends to put his foot in his mouth at times so I figured I would keep it going.

Oh, I wasn't agreeing with you just to be agreeable. I read that entire post with illustration and all. I thought it made perfect sense. It also amused me to see someone getting schooled on the boards. Everyone always says back up what you say with sources and to me, that post kinda epitified exactly what was being asked for. Nice job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^You did not start any thing, you made a statement that I did not agree with. At that point DeLorian Rider did not agree with me. At that point he used an example that did not have any thing to do with what I did not agree with in your statement. I decided to egg him on when he started to apply articles that he was contradicting, and throw insults at me. For a final stand, I used the word CENTRIFICAL, all physics majors know that centrifical is not a term used with inertia. (It is a word however, it is actually a type of a pump, take notes Mr. Rider). The term that MOST scientists use is CENTRIPETAL, I however use inertia because I subscribe to the theories of Newtonian mechanics. One other big difference is in a common scientific statement; With all things being equal, the outcome will be the same. We think that it is impossible to create all things equal, thus injecting variables that need to be over come. Basically it is thinking outside of the box but from the inside of a different box. To answer your post, I am not sore at any one and I do not care what any one on here thinks of me. If you agree with me that is fine, same as if you agree with some one else. I am basically here to have fun just like you. (And some thing to do in the middle of the night).

Whether or not you were trying to "egg me on" you gave information and you said many things that were not true. I proved that they were not true and you refused to admit that you were wrong. For example, the word centrifical. First, I challenge you to type the word "centrifical" into Webster or wikipedia, the result is: did you mean centrifugal? If you type the word into Word it tries to change it to centrifugal. See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Rather than admitting that you were saying centrifical when you should have been saying centrifugal, you change the argument. Yea, of course physics majors dont use centrifical to describe inertia, because it's not a word. You make no sense; inertia is what carries you through a loop, if you meant centrifugal force, even though it's not a calculated force, it is used in describing an objects inertia. Either way, centrifical, even if it is a type of pump, it has no significance what so ever. Then you said that I should have been using centripetal; you obviously weren't reading thoroughly because I was using it since the beginning. This is what you do, all the time you were just trying to change the subject and not admit that you were using the word centrifical, which is not a word.

For a final stand, I used the word CENTRIFICAL, all physics majors know that centrifical is not a term used with inertia. (It is a word however, it is actually a type of a pump, take notes Mr. Rider). The term that MOST scientists use is CENTRIPETAL, I however use inertia because I subscribe to the theories of Newtonian mechanics.

This statement does not make sense. You did not use inertia, you used the word centrifical.

Any other mature member here would have just said "oh yea, I guess it is centrifugal not centrifical." Not "yea well centrifical is a type of pump," which has no relation to our argument on roller coaster physics.

Also the phrase "I subscribe to the theories of Newtonian Mechanics," simply means, "I believe in the Basic Laws of Physics." All Newtonian Mechanics are are Physics according to Newton's laws, which any basic physics student would understand.

This ENTIRE thing started when you talked about all the reasons restraints were necessary, one of which saying they keep riders in during inversions. You showed rides like Firehawk (no **** do you really need restraints on Firehawk) and other coasters. Huge argument entailed, then you said: "well I never actually said that everyone would fall out." Maybe not in so few words, but if you're going to argue about it, then you obviously thought it. Going back and changing the argument when you're proven wrong is immature, but it's what you do.

By the way, you threw the first insult when you said I needed to get my money back for my classes; well, at least I've taken classes...

Besides the spelling and grammar errors, in which I am always happy to admit that I am not perfect and I do make mistakes, I have not flip flopped on any thing. DeLorian Rider, you are the one who started this argument in the direction it went. You are also the one that sounds like you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole, and once again I would like to see the video and I would like to see where I said that EVERY ONE WILL FALL OUT.

HOWS THIS?

O.K. I have held back long enough. The only restraint on a roller coaster that is "redundant" is the belt from the otsr to the seat. The primary restraints on a roller coaster are THERE TO HOLD YOU IN, G-forces will not hold every one in. There are too many considerations such as weight, and even the shape of the object. Roller coasters are designed with the least amount of G's possible and still provide a thrill for the rider. Coasters with high G's are designed that way because a certain element requires it. (Example: a certain element was removed from a new roller coaster at CP last summer because of this problem). If The Vortex were designed to hold you in without restraints, then they would make every one put on a G-suit before riding. As for the psychological part, yes you got part of that right, it is actually for the psychological comfort of the designer knowing that the passengers are safe on the ride. Designers are very conscious of how a rider feels on a ride, and comfort and safety is priority. Psychological comfort is the part that is redundant. There are a couple of aspiring designers that have posted on this board before, some have internships with design firms. I would suggest that you hunt them down and ask them before you make an assumption like this.

Thats pretty solid. "Restraints are there to HOLD YOU IN; Doesn't that mean that if they're not there YOU'LL FALL OUT?" If you want to try to snake your way out of this saying this isn't what I meant, or you're misinterpreting that, or you want to change your story, then fine, thats the typical Monroe.

Heck, you still wont admit that several times you said explicitly that the g's are constant through a circular loop which is wrong. I proved you wrong, then you said it again, I proved you wrong AGAIN, and you wont admit that you were wrong, you just avoid the subject.

Don't try to act like you weren't trying to prove anything; that you were just, "egging me on" seeing where it would go. You dug yourself into a big hole by saying a bunch of things that were not true and then when the evidence that you were wrong was presented you refused to admit that you were wrong or just ignored the evidence. Simple as that.

I dont know where you think I put my foot in my mouth but I'd really like to know. You can tell me after you take all the feet out of your mouth.

But you know what, **** it, I've had it with this argument, I've proved what needs to be proved. You can be the one to not accept roller coaster physics, but I hope everyone else does. If you need to convince yourself that you did not say this, or didn't use this word, or I didn't mean this, or but you said that, or your info is just ok, or avoid the subject when you're proven wrong, then fine; whatever helps you sleep at night. I sleep great knowing that when I discuss roller coaster physics, I know what I'm talking about. You, maybe you should just admit you were wrong and consider a sleep aid.:rolleyes:

See ya next time I have to prove you wrong! So I guess as they say at Disney World, See ya real soon!

P.S. Way to go going back and changing all of your "centrifical's" with "centripetal's".

By the way:

Oh, I wasn't agreeing with you just to be agreeable. I read that entire post with illustration and all. I thought it made perfect sense. It also amused me to see someone getting schooled on the boards. Everyone always says back up what you say with sources and to me, that post kinda epitified exactly what was being asked for. Nice job.

Not sure if you're confused by all the quoting, but I was the one who posted the information with illustration and all that "made perfect sense." Thank you, I do try to back up my information. And yes school is still out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is my point.

Many of us do NOT post our status as it gives us freedom to say that which we otherwise could not or would not say publicly. Yet you ASSUME that those discussing are NOT professionals. There are coaster designers, elementary school teachers, retail managers, clerks, students of everything from architecture to theology, theme park managers, marketing folks, company presidents, insurance claims adjusters, bankers, lawyers, accountants, reporters, doctors, surgeons and large animal veterinarians here. And that's just a few of the ones I KNOW of. Almost none of them post what their occupation is. Quite frankly, it's not always a good idea to do that any more, if it ever was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^You did not start any thing, you made a statement that I did not agree with. At that point DeLorian Rider did not agree with me. At that point he used an example that did not have any thing to do with what I did not agree with in your statement. I decided to egg him on when he started to apply articles that he was contradicting, and throw insults at me. For a final stand, I used the word CENTRIFICAL, all physics majors know that centrifical is not a term used with inertia. (It is a word however, it is actually a type of a pump, take notes Mr. Rider). The term that MOST scientists use is CENTRIPETAL, I however use inertia because I subscribe to the theories of Newtonian mechanics. One other big difference is in a common scientific statement; With all things being equal, the outcome will be the same. We think that it is impossible to create all things equal, thus injecting variables that need to be over come. Basically it is thinking outside of the box but from the inside of a different box. To answer your post, I am not sore at any one and I do not care what any one on here thinks of me. If you agree with me that is fine, same as if you agree with some one else. I am basically here to have fun just like you. (And some thing to do in the middle of the night).

Whether or not you were trying to "egg me on" you gave information and you said many things that were not true. I proved that they were not true and you refused to admit that you were wrong. For example, the word centrifical. First, I challenge you to type the word "centrifical" into Webster or wikipedia, the result is: did you mean centrifugal? If you type the word into Word it tries to change it to centrifugal. See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Rather than admitting that you were saying centrifical when you should have been saying centrifugal, you change the argument. Yea, of course physics majors dont use centrifical to describe inertia, because it's not a word. You make no sense; inertia is what carries you through a loop, if you meant centrifugal force, even though it's not a calculated force, it is used in describing an objects inertia. Either way, centrifical, even if it is a type of pump, it has no significance what so ever. Then you said that I should have been using centripetal; you obviously weren't reading thoroughly because I was using it since the beginning. This is what you do, all the time you were just trying to change the subject and not admit that you were using the word centrifical, which is not a word.

For a final stand, I used the word CENTRIFICAL, all physics majors know that centrifical is not a term used with inertia. (It is a word however, it is actually a type of a pump, take notes Mr. Rider). The term that MOST scientists use is CENTRIPETAL, I however use inertia because I subscribe to the theories of Newtonian mechanics.

This statement does not make sense. You did not use inertia, you used the word centrifical.

Any other mature member here would have just said "oh yea, I guess it is centrifugal not centrifical." Not "yea well centrifical is a type of pump," which has no relation to our argument on roller coaster physics.

Also the phrase "I subscribe to the theories of Newtonian Mechanics," simply means, "I believe in the Basic Laws of Physics." All Newtonian Mechanics are are Physics according to Newton's laws, which any basic physics student would understand.

This ENTIRE thing started when you talked about all the reasons restraints were necessary, one of which saying they keep riders in during inversions. You showed rides like Firehawk (no **** do you really need restraints on Firehawk) and other coasters. Huge argument entailed, then you said: "well I never actually said that everyone would fall out." Maybe not in so few words, but if you're going to argue about it, then you obviously thought it. Going back and changing the argument when you're proven wrong is immature, but it's what you do.

By the way, you threw the first insult when you said I needed to get my money back for my classes; well, at least I've taken classes...

Besides the spelling and grammar errors, in which I am always happy to admit that I am not perfect and I do make mistakes, I have not flip flopped on any thing. DeLorian Rider, you are the one who started this argument in the direction it went. You are also the one that sounds like you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole, and once again I would like to see the video and I would like to see where I said that EVERY ONE WILL FALL OUT.

HOWS THIS?

O.K. I have held back long enough. The only restraint on a roller coaster that is "redundant" is the belt from the otsr to the seat. The primary restraints on a roller coaster are THERE TO HOLD YOU IN, G-forces will not hold every one in. There are too many considerations such as weight, and even the shape of the object. Roller coasters are designed with the least amount of G's possible and still provide a thrill for the rider. Coasters with high G's are designed that way because a certain element requires it. (Example: a certain element was removed from a new roller coaster at CP last summer because of this problem). If The Vortex were designed to hold you in without restraints, then they would make every one put on a G-suit before riding. As for the psychological part, yes you got part of that right, it is actually for the psychological comfort of the designer knowing that the passengers are safe on the ride. Designers are very conscious of how a rider feels on a ride, and comfort and safety is priority. Psychological comfort is the part that is redundant. There are a couple of aspiring designers that have posted on this board before, some have internships with design firms. I would suggest that you hunt them down and ask them before you make an assumption like this.

Thats pretty solid. "Restraints are there to HOLD YOU IN; Doesn't that mean that if they're not there YOU'LL FALL OUT?" If you want to try to snake your way out of this saying this isn't what I meant, or you're misinterpreting that, or you want to change your story, then fine, thats the typical Monroe.

Heck, you still wont admit that several times you said explicitly that the g's are constant through a circular loop which is wrong. I proved you wrong, then you said it again, I proved you wrong AGAIN, and you wont admit that you were wrong, you just avoid the subject.

Don't try to act like you weren't trying to prove anything; that you were just, "egging me on" seeing where it would go. You dug yourself into a big hole by saying a bunch of things that were not true and then when the evidence that you were wrong was presented you refused to admit that you were wrong or just ignored the evidence. Simple as that.

I dont know where you think I put my foot in my mouth but I'd really like to know. You can tell me after you take all the feet out of your mouth.

But you know what, **** it, I've had it with this argument, I've proved what needs to be proved. You can be the one to not accept roller coaster physics, but I hope everyone else does. If you need to convince yourself that you did not say this, or didn't use this word, or I didn't mean this, or but you said that, or your info is just ok, or avoid the subject when you're proven wrong, then fine; whatever helps you sleep at night. I sleep great knowing that when I discuss roller coaster physics, I know what I'm talking about. You, maybe you should just admit you were wrong and consider a sleep aid.:rolleyes:

See ya next time I have to prove you wrong! So I guess as they say at Disney World, See ya real soon!

P.S. Way to go going back and changing all of your "centrifical's" with "centripetal's".

By the way:

Oh, I wasn't agreeing with you just to be agreeable. I read that entire post with illustration and all. I thought it made perfect sense. It also amused me to see someone getting schooled on the boards. Everyone always says back up what you say with sources and to me, that post kinda epitified exactly what was being asked for. Nice job.

Not sure if you're confused by all the quoting, but I was the one who posted the information with illustration and all that "made perfect sense." Thank you, I do try to back up my information. And yes school is still out.

There was only one centrifical to change to centripetal which proves that you do not read and comprehend very well. Also you do not know Newtonian Mechanics very well because we do not believe in the term centripetal. It is inertia but that is for an argument at a bar some where. I have not changed any of my arguments, you however have. I am sure though that you will find some thing wrong with this post and make a long statement about how you are right. I do not care if you think I am wrong or right, the original argument was not just about loops, but you made it that. I am sure though that you will not understand this either, so why am I posting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well.... there has been some discussion in this thread about who "started" this argument, and, unfortunately, I believe it was me.

Alhough I agree with DeLorean about the physics, I hope that this is a "family" argument.... In other words, I have a brother and a sister and we fought like cats and dogs growing up, but, in the end, we still loved each other.........The people on this site all love the park, and we all love roller coasters, and, when this argument is over, we should all just ride together and experience the thrills and excitement that brought us all here in the first place.... And then relax at the lake by Bubba Gumps, drink a beer, and toast how happy we are to be there.......

After all, don't we go to KI to just have fun and escape the problems and petty conflicts in our lives????????

Hopefully, you realize that:

* Many, if not perhaps most, of the posters here are underage to be drinking beer.

* Many others who are of age do not partake, either in the park or perhaps not at all, for reasons ranging from religious to lack of desire to participate in such activities to being recovering alcoholics to not wanting to encourage Cedar Fair's food and drink pricing practices. Some of us don't even drink root beer anymore...

See, even a conciliatory statement on this board can get one in a quibble!

We're funny like that. Most of us, anywho.

Beatle you also need to realize a few other things that you fail to clarify and could also get you in a quibble in addition to what Interpreter said:

* What brand of beer?

and

* Who's buying? ;)

Since I made the offer, I am buying the first round, and, before I walk up to the bar, I'm asking what everybody wants.........:")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^You did not start any thing, you made a statement that I did not agree with. At that point DeLorian Rider did not agree with me. At that point he used an example that did not have any thing to do with what I did not agree with in your statement. I decided to egg him on when he started to apply articles that he was contradicting, and throw insults at me. For a final stand, I used the word CENTRIFICAL, all physics majors know that centrifical is not a term used with inertia. (It is a word however, it is actually a type of a pump, take notes Mr. Rider). The term that MOST scientists use is CENTRIPETAL, I however use inertia because I subscribe to the theories of Newtonian mechanics. One other big difference is in a common scientific statement; With all things being equal, the outcome will be the same. We think that it is impossible to create all things equal, thus injecting variables that need to be over come. Basically it is thinking outside of the box but from the inside of a different box. To answer your post, I am not sore at any one and I do not care what any one on here thinks of me. If you agree with me that is fine, same as if you agree with some one else. I am basically here to have fun just like you. (And some thing to do in the middle of the night).

Monroe, I like your posts and I hope that I have never said anything to you, or anyone else, that would be construed as "throwing insults". I remember our posts in other threads, and I hope that you and I can respectfully "agree to disagree" without this being personal as it seems to be with others on here........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^There is nothing personal about it, I can be any body's friend. (As long as they are buying) I have no hard feelings against any one, even DR. Like I said, it does not matter to me if some one agrees with me or not. Some times things bug me, especially if it deals with safety, but I get over it. And no DR I am not changing what I said again, and for the last time the argument had to do with new roller coasters, not just loops. If DR is making it personal on his end that is something that he will have to deal with on his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard from my friend who knows the Dip 'n Dots guy, who's related to the frozen lemonade guy, who know's the popcorn vendor that is best friends with the cabana lady that Vortex is not sinking. But it IS beginning to float. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard from my friend who knows the Dip 'n Dots guy, who's related to the frozen lemonade guy, who know's the popcorn vendor that is best friends with the cabana lady that Vortex is not sinking. But it IS beginning to float. ;)

He sounds very reliable, and I am going to believe him just as far as I can throw him. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the rides at Kings Island are safe.

Just as safe as the Flight Commander.

Just had to put that out.

Hey now, you may have been to young to remember flight commander, but Flight Commander had a pretty intricate restraint system, even more so after the accident. Just because there was an accident doesn't mean the ride is not safe. They wouldn't operate it if it wasn't safe.

^I'm not saying the entire disaster will play out,

But I feel SO much safer with the handlebars and seatbelts.

I have been on all of the Coasters at Kings Island and other parks with out a seatbelt and was fine. Also look at the old King Kobra at Kinds Dominion just a buzz bar also.

Why don't you take a look, the handle you are refering to is NOT a buzz bar, it is a handel mounted to the car similar to the ones on the wooden coasters at our park.

p5268.jpg

It would be pretty impossible to have a buzz bar and a handle on the same car since on a buzz bar car, the buzz bar is the handle.

I love these pictures. This ride looks like it would be more fun than the Screamin Demon, although I was such a fan of SC! Is the King Kobra still there? At King's Dominion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. It has long since been removed. The location of that ride was approximately where the location of Anaconda`s lift stands today. I believe the ride itself was moved to another park, but which park escapes me right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's kinda refreshing to see that the question was not, "Is Vortex Sinking?"

Same here Woofer.

As for what your sister told you, its entirely not true. Nobody has ever been killed on The Vortex or seriously injured. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok im gonna lay this out for you... i work at The Vortex this summer and none of these are true. The first rumor, that two women were flung out is completley false... no one has ever fell out of this coaster in the 21 years that is has been here and in operation. This is not true and as for the "photo evidence" that has nothing to do with the restraints. That is a faulty wheel which we have all the time, matter of fact, had one today. The restraint system is completly different from that and is in a different location than that. The picture there is a picture of the train on the moving track that moves the trains into storage after the train slipped off of the track during movement to storage, nothing big... just a wheel needed replaced. And as for the part of The Vortex sinking... no not true either. The Vortex has never moved, the only part of it that has moved is the old supports for The Bat coaster that used to be their and if I hear one more person say that The Vortex is sinking, im gonna kill myself! This is the safest coaster in the park. If you wanna worry about a coaster, worry about the Firehawk, it breaks down at least once a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firehawk is perhaps the safest coaster in the park...its many safety systems are highly redundant....and if hearing that Vortex is sinking is going to cause you to contemplate such a dramatic event, you'd best seek professional help, as the rumors are not apt to end any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...