A paradoxical thought experiment
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: The Older Gentleman on 9 Jul 2010 03:02 J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > TSR-2 was never intended to be a fighter. Yes, that's true. Tactical Strike Reconaissance. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: The Older Gentleman on 9 Jul 2010 03:09 Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: > because it's heavier and therefore has somewhat more inherent > stability than does a bicycle. I strongly suspect that someone has got his physics badly muddled here, but not being a fizzy-cyst I can't say for certain. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Twibil on 9 Jul 2010 03:49 On Jul 9, 12:09 am, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > > > > because it's heavier and therefore has somewhat more inherent > > stability than does a bicycle. > > I strongly suspect that someone has got his physics badly muddled here, > but not being a fizzy-cyst I can't say for certain. Follow the bouncing ball: 1.) Due to inertia, a moving object will travel in a straight line unless something deflects it. 2.) If two objects of differing mass are both travelling at the same speed, it will require more force to deflect the more massive one a given amount from it's original course than it will to deflect the less massive one by that same amount. 3.) Motorcycles are normally quite a bit more massive than bicycles, and it therefore requires more force to deflect a motorcycle from it's path than it does to deflect a bicycle. 4.) That means that by virtue of it's greater mass, a motorcyle is inherently more directionally stable than a bicycle.
From: mayner on 9 Jul 2010 06:12 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:22:05 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >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. > >As for the lifting bodies, they were all testing ideas for wingless >reentry vehicles. There've been at least 7 built in the US and it would >be surprising if the Russians hadn't fiddled with them as well. A >lifting body design was considered for the Shuttle but that >configuration couldn't meet all the requirements that were placed on it >by the planners, most of which capabilities have never been used. > >>> So far as I know, that's the only one that's crashed so far. >> >> <AOL> >> >> Who was it had in his sig: "Given sufficient thrust, even pigs can >> fly"? pjm, wasn't it? > >The F-4 Phantom: Proof that given sufficient thrust a brick can fly. >However, there was not enough thrust in all Christendom to fix the F-111B. Hey! Lay off the Aardvark! :-)
From: sean_q_ on 9 Jul 2010 06:45
Twibil wrote: > 4.) That means that by virtue of it's greater mass, a motorcyle is > inherently more directionally stable than a bicycle. However, a moving motorcycle has greater kinetic energy proportional to its greater mass. It is this energy that does the deflecting. SQ |