--- So, now I am asking you to come up with an experiment of your own that proves that the weight measured at the tongue is the same after the WD system is engaged, which is your claim. ---
Thomas,
Since you no longer are using the phrase "tongue weight" and seem to have replaced it with the phrase "weight measured at the tongue", I will assume that you consider the two to be equivalent. So as not to continue debating parameters which have no agreed definition, I also will assume that you are referring to the vertical load which is imposed on the ball by the TT's ball coupler. This is the load which would be measured by the "thin tongue weight scale" introduced in your post of 8/26/2004 8:06pm. Please tell me if my assumption is incorrect.
Based on this definition, I have NOT claimed that "the weight measured at the tongue is the same after the WD system is engaged". In fact, I have claimed just the OPPOSITE and have illustrated that claim with numerical examples.
On 8/26/2004 7:44pm, I said, "No, the load on the BALL actually INCREASES by the assumed 1700#. The load on the receiver DECREASES by 300# as explained above."
On 8/26/2004 8:46pm, I said, "Nope. I am saying that your scale will read 650+1700 = 2350#."
I think our communication problem stems from having two different definitions for "tongue weight".
YOUR definition: "Tongue weight" is the vertical load which is imposed on the ball by the TT's ball coupler.
MY definition (to which I referred you in my 8/26/2004 7:44pm post):
"Tongue Weight: That portion of the TT weight which is carried on the ball coupler as opposed to that carried on the axles."
Your definition includes the load imposed on the ball by the WD tensioners. Mine does not because the tensioners' load is not part of the TT's weight.
