A paradoxical thought experiment
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: J. Clarke on 8 Jul 2010 22:44 On 7/8/2010 9:52 PM, don (Calgary) wrote: > 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. The Avrocar was basically a hovercraft. Never got out of ground effect. On the other hand Vought built one successful somewhat saucer-shaped aircraft and was testing a fighter based on the same concept.
From: don (Calgary) on 8 Jul 2010 23:14 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 22:44:34 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >On 7/8/2010 9:52 PM, don (Calgary) wrote: >> 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. > >The Avrocar was basically a hovercraft. Never got out of ground effect. They had hopes it would be more. It was all a matter of power, or the lack of.
From: tomorrow on 8 Jul 2010 23:45 On Jul 8, 8:30 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 6:29 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 2:15 pm, "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > Note: Left to it's own devices, a non-sidecar bike will fall right > > > > over. And this is equally true whether said bike is moving or at rest. > > > > > It's only the kickstand when at rest, or the rider's constant > > > > corrections when moving, that keep it upright. > > > > You're joking? I've seen bikes buck their rider off then proceed to the > > > next corner just fine on their own. I assume you have too. > > > Sigh. > > > 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. Aamof, everything he wrote above is entirely correct.
From: S'mee on 9 Jul 2010 00:42 On Jul 8, 8:26 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Did it...rolled straight and true until it slowed. > 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. Not true. > 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... possible but...you'd be surprised how rideable they are after going down. BTDT.
From: S'mee on 9 Jul 2010 00:43
On Jul 8, 9:45 pm, "tomor...(a)erols.com" <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 8:30 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 6:29 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 8, 2:15 pm, "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > Note: Left to it's own devices, a non-sidecar bike will fall right > > > > > over. And this is equally true whether said bike is moving or at rest. > > > > > > It's only the kickstand when at rest, or the rider's constant > > > > > corrections when moving, that keep it upright. > > > > > You're joking? I've seen bikes buck their rider off then proceed to the > > > > next corner just fine on their own. I assume you have too. > > > > Sigh. > > > > 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. > > Aamof, everything he wrote above is entirely correct.- I have to disagree. Vito was correct. |