A paradoxical thought experiment
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Henry on 9 Jul 2010 08:54 Twitbull dig itself an even deeper hole with: > 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. It won't fall right over as quickly as a stationary bike, which was your claim, twit. -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: J. Clarke on 9 Jul 2010 08:49 On 7/8/2010 11:14 PM, don (Calgary) wrote: > 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. No, it was a matter of stability, specifically the lack thereof.
From: Henry on 9 Jul 2010 09:00 tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > On Jul 8, 8:30 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 8, 6:29 pm, Twitbull imagined: >>> 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. Even this part? "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." If you believe that, then you must also believe that all the people who've seen riderless bikes roll along for considerable distances are delusional, and all the videos showing the same thing are faked. That's incredibly silly, but then, you are known for your sense of humor and sarcasm! -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: don (Calgary) on 9 Jul 2010 09:38 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:49:09 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >On 7/8/2010 11:14 PM, don (Calgary) wrote: >> 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. > >No, it was a matter of stability, specifically the lack thereof. > Well I do recall stability as an issue, but the main problem was a lack of power. At least that is what a couple of the Avro Aircraft engineers had to say about it in the documentary I watched. You could of course disagree with them.
From: S'mee on 9 Jul 2010 10:06
On Jul 9, 1:09 am, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > S'mee <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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^) > > And that, ladies and gentleman, concludes the case for the defence. > 8^) and they still make the electric powered ones. Not sure if the 1/8 scale .21cc powered ones are in production (wouldn't mind having one though) -- Keith Morse code...the original text messaging |