A paradoxical thought experiment
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: S'mee on 8 Jul 2010 20:42 On Jul 8, 6:04 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 7/8/2010 7:07 PM, Beav wrote: > > > > > > > > > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(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. Nope it's a lifting body, but it is also a matter of great debate by those who design all sized of aircraft and those who build and fly them. You can believe that it's a low aspect ratio wing. I know it's a lifting body...no need to believe.
From: sean_q_ on 8 Jul 2010 21:18 don (Calgary) wrote: > All too often... people are willing to sacrifice their morals, > their ethics and their dignity for a little bit of fame, recognition > or power. Uh oh, and here's me -- morally, ethically and dignifiably bankrupt, without even any of the compensating benefits you listed. SQ
From: don (Calgary) on 8 Jul 2010 21:40 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:18:51 -0700, sean_q_ <nospam(a)no.spam> wrote: >don (Calgary) wrote: > >> All too often... people are willing to sacrifice their morals, >> their ethics and their dignity for a little bit of fame, recognition >> or power. > >Uh oh, and here's me -- morally, ethically and dignifiably bankrupt, >without even any of the compensating benefits you listed. > >SQ You just need to work harder at it.
From: don (Calgary) on 8 Jul 2010 21:52 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:00:42 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> I wish I had a better memory. First I am the last one to take anything >> the CBC reports as fact, and folks around here know how suspicious I >> am of people passing bullshit, but that said even I was convinced, >> based on the interviews of those who were there, and the photographic >> evidence, the lost Arrow is a myth. YMMV > >Whether it is a myth or not is unimportant. Either it will surface or >it will not. Most likely not. Avro Aircraft had another neat little flying machine they were goofing around with for the US military, the Avrocar. If memory serves it was a flying saucer that took advantage of technology seized from Nazi Germany after the war. I haven't read this entire thread so if someone has already mentioned the Avrocar, my bad.
From: Twibil on 8 Jul 2010 22:26
On Jul 8, 5:30 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Yes, a bike at speed is dynamically stable. But only until (A) some > > input such as road camber upsets that stability and starts the bike > > leaning towards one side or another, or (B) the bike hits something. > > > In the real world, neither thing ever takes very long to occur because > > the slower the bike is going the less stability it has, and the faster > > it's going the more quickly it's likely to laminate itself to an > > immovable object. > > You are just not correct. Real-world demonstration: Take a bicycle (they're a lot cheaper than motorcycles), run it up to speed on a nice smooth -and downhill- road (so it will maintain speed), and then release it pointing straight down the center of said road. Heck, you can even take the time to find a perfectly straight road to release it on. Now watch what happens. See? The exact same thing will happen to a riderless motorcycle, except that the motorcycle will usually take a little longer to wipe out because it's heavier and therefore has somewhat more inherent stability than does a bicycle. OTOH, there's a pretty good chance the bicycle will still be usable after you pick it back up, but the odds say that's not likely to be the case with a motorcycle... |