A paradoxical thought experiment
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: S'mee on 9 Jul 2010 12:51 On Jul 9, 10:42 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Go away little boy. Let twit try to speak for itself. S'oaky fruicake bukakke' boy. I don't mind busting your stupid pig ignorant balls. I just wish it weren't so easy. Go play with the other mentally challenged kids...bradley and them are over there---------------------------------> which is't far enough away yet.
From: S'mee on 9 Jul 2010 12:53 On Jul 9, 8:06 am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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) > Correction that should have been 3.5cc / .21ci. Hadn't had my second pot of coffee nor my first quad espreso of the day when I sent that. I blame it on the 7 drunken nights...my liver will never be the same.
From: tomorrow on 9 Jul 2010 14:07 On Jul 9, 8:52 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Twitbull timidly backpedaled and weaseled: > > > 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. > > You said that left to its own devices, a bike will fall right > over, and whether said bike is at speed or at rest makes no > difference. You're backpedaling and weaseling again. Only in HenryWorld does someone who, upon being attacked based on word choice, EXPANDS and CLARIFIES what was originally meant, get attacked AGAIN as backpedaling and weaseling. Only in the fantasy world of Henry Hansteen.
From: Twibil on 9 Jul 2010 14:08 On Jul 9, 3:45 am, sean_q_ <nos...(a)no.spam> 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. Um, unless I'm badly misunderstanding you, you've got it backwards: it's that energy that *resists* deflecting the motorcycle's original course. The forces that cause a riderless motorcycle (or bicycle) to deviate from a straight course are inputs from non-systemic things such as road camber, potholes, crosswinds, etcetera.
From: Henry on 9 Jul 2010 15:00
tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > On Jul 9, 8:52 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Twitbull timidly backpedaled and weaseled: >>> 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. >> You said that left to its own devices, a bike will fall right >> over, and whether said bike is at speed or at rest makes no >> difference. You're backpedaling and weaseling again. > Only in HenryWorld does someone who, upon being attacked based on word > choice, EXPANDS and CLARIFIES what was originally meant, get attacked > AGAIN as backpedaling and weaseling. Earth to Timmy! twit claimed that there is no difference in stability between a moving bike and a bike at rest - they'll both fall right over and moving makes no difference. Now it's claiming that a bike at speed is dynamically stable. Ask twitbull why it "thinks" the more stable bike will fall right over just as easily and the stationary bike. I'd ask twit myself, but it's been reduced to hiding from its own idiocy behind its killfile. <chuckle> -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |