A paradoxical thought experiment
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: J. Clarke on 8 Jul 2010 20:04 On 7/8/2010 7:07 PM, Beav wrote: > > > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message > news:i14ghs02nvi(a)news5.newsguy.com... >> On 7/8/2010 4:26 AM, TOG(a)Toil wrote: >>> On 8 July, 08:16, Twibil<nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jul 7, 10:53 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older >>>> >>>> Gentleman) wrote: >>>> >>>>> The US built an experimental lifting body, yes. It crashed. >>>> >>>> The US has built and flown a number of different lifting body aircraft >>>> featuring various configuations. >>> >>> I'm sure the US has, but that was the only one I could remember. I >>> suppose you could say that the Northrop whatever-it-was and the B2 >>> bomber are lifting bodies of a kind. >> >> Nope, they're flying wings, the opposite of a lifting body. By the >> way, the B2 is a "Northrop whatever-it-was", sixth in the line of >> development--there was the small prototype, a 1/3 scale development >> mule, the propeller driven bomber, the rocket fighter, the jet bomber, >> then a long hiatus, then the B2. > > But people have been flying RC lawnmowers (based on the lifting body > principle) for years. Not based on lifting body principle. Based on big tip plates on low aspect ratio wings. > Put a big enough engine into a big enough lawn > mower and you could even carry the grass catcher full of people. >
From: S'mee on 8 Jul 2010 20:31 On Jul 8, 2:42 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > sean_q_ <nos...(a)no.spam> wrote: > > I wonder if there would be any military applications for something > > like this. Imagine a high-explosive-laden, satellite or drone-guided > > Hayabusa tear-assing along at 150 mph across the open desert > > seeking out enemy targets. A lot more economical than a cruise missile. > > I think, given the terrain, that a BMW R1200GS might be more effective > ;-) I thought the final drives on those were not to be relied upon?
From: S'mee on 8 Jul 2010 20:33 On Jul 8, 2:45 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > sean_q_ wrote: > > I wonder if there would be any military applications for something > > like this. Imagine a high-explosive-laden, satellite or drone-guided > > Hayabusa tear-assing along at 150 mph across the open desert > > seeking out enemy targets. A lot more economical than a cruise > > missile. > > First problem that comes to mind, though, is that something > like that would be too easy for the other side to knock over. > The guidance system required for a two-wheeled vehicle > to make it over variable terrain with a reasonable confidence > of hitting the target, AND remaining stable and able to > recover from unexpected stuff in the way or the intentional > attempt to knock it out would be wayyyyy pricy, too. > > Bob M. Never saw a radio controled motorcycle have you? They've been around since the 70's. No gyo to stabilize them except the front wheel. 8^)
From: S'mee on 8 Jul 2010 20:34 On Jul 8, 3:00 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > The Older Gentleman wrote: > > Bob Myers <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > > >> sean_q_ wrote: > > >>> I wonder if there would be any military applications for something > >>> like this. Imagine a high-explosive-laden, satellite or drone-guided > >>> Hayabusa tear-assing along at 150 mph across the open desert > >>> seeking out enemy targets. A lot more economical than a cruise > >>> missile. > > >> First problem that comes to mind, though, is that something > >> like that would be too easy for the other side to knock over. > >> The guidance system required for a two-wheeled vehicle > >> to make it over variable terrain with a reasonable confidence > >> of hitting the target, AND remaining stable and able to > >> recover from unexpected stuff in the way or the intentional > >> attempt to knock it out would be wayyyyy pricy, too. > > > But as a suicide weapon, for use by the Bad Guys, it has its good > > points ;-) > > Yeah, I thought of that variant, too - the kamikaze bike. The > cheapest, most sophisticated guidance system I can think of > (and one which is readily available, thanks to being produced by > unskilled, volunteer labor...;-)) is the human bean. But if you > think about it, that really is a scary and quite serious possibility. You are SO behind the times. That's been done for decades now...
From: S'mee on 8 Jul 2010 20:34
On Jul 8, 2:23 pm, "tomor...(a)erols.com" <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 3:50 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 12:47 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 8, 11:05 am, Mark Olson <ols...(a)tiny.invalid> wrote: > > > > > A riderless bike will happily stay upright so long as it is moving. > > > > Put a throttle lock on it and give it open space and it will go > > > > until it runs out of gas. > > > > Only on some ideal -but unreal- perfectly flat surface that extends > > > forever. > > > Wrong again...it can and will change direction due to impacts with > > imperfections but that's about it. > > > > In real life, on real roads, a riderless bike will fall over rather > > > quickly. > > > No it wont. > > Yes it will. seen it happen with powered and unpowered. <shrug> |