[pct-l] (no subject)

[Mike Saenz]

Getting WAY of topic, but:

Mathematically speaking, a perfectly vertical surface isn't a "slope" by
definition (it's all coming back to me now!), therefore there would be
no gradient, or it would be an "undefined slope".

But to pull this back on-topic:

The PCT seems to always be the same grade... I think I heard once that
this is by design. Granted, some parts of the trail are obviously
steeper than others, but overall, the average slope is usually somewhere
around (in my rough estimation) 6-8%. Is there any definitive info on
this?

Michael  Saenz
Associate Partner

MVE & Partners, Inc. | Architecture + Planning + Interiors 
Irvine + Oakland + Honolulu

1900 Main Street, Suite 800 | Irvine, California 92614-7318 | T
949.809.3388 | www.mve-architects.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Courtway [mailto:scourtway at bpa-arch.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:48 AM
To: Slyatpct at aol.com; Mike Saenz
Cc: pct-l at mailman.backcountry.net
Subject: Re: [pct-l] (no subject)

Trying to divide a vertical rise by no run results in a.........


divide by zero error !!!


s.c.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Slyatpct at aol.com>
To: <msaenz at mve-architects.com>
Cc: <pct-l at mailman.backcountry.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [pct-l] (no subject)


>
> You still got it, but I'm still confused.  If I were to climb El
Capitan 
> at
> a 90 degree angle (right?), what would the gradient be?
>
> Sly
>
>
>
> In a message dated 2/13/2007 2:26:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> msaenz at mve-architects.com writes:
>
> A 45 DEGREE ANGLE  does not equate to a 50% gradient. 1 unit rise in 1

> unit
> run = 1/1=1 (100%),  so a 45 degree angle, half a 90 degree angle
(your "
> straight up") is 100%  gradient.
> Yeah... I still got  it!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pct-l mailing list
> pct-l at backcountry.net
> unsubscribe or change options:
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>