Petential Energy doing Work

[Tom Kunich]

Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.

As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.

The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.

Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.

Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.

And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.

Have fun thinking about that.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.

Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.

Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.

And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

Perhaps you're an illegal too since the meanimg of English evades you.

I suggest you reread the posting with an eye to understanding it.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

That's kind of funny! You're wrong on all three counts!

But your overall point is classic Kunich: You made a fool of yourself
talking about physics, so you try to insult someone else's bikes.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

That's kind of funny! You're wrong on all three counts!
But your overall point is classic Kunich: You made a fool of yourself
talking about physics, so you try to insult someone else's bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It isn't surprising that you cannot understand the simple physics whish even has the potential energy gains or loses calculators all over the internet from almost every college. But you as a helpless ass don't even bother to look it up and tell us all we're wrong because your own education is lacking.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

That's kind of funny! You're wrong on all three counts!
But your overall point is classic Kunich: You made a fool of yourself
talking about physics, so you try to insult someone else's bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It isn't surprising that you cannot understand the simple physics whish even has the potential energy gains or loses calculators all over the internet from almost every college. But you as a helpless ass don't even bother to look it up and tell us all we're wrong because your own education is lacking.

:-) My degrees in engineering are lacking? Even my high school education
is lacking? Says a guy who has none of that education? That's funny!

Come on, Tom, do a demonstration. Have your wife film you standing tall
while track standing, then magically zooming off without pedaling by
sitting down on the saddle. You know, so your potential energy converts
to kinetic energy!

BTW, there was for a brief time a bicycle that put such an effect to
use. The Ingo-bike had no pedals, and was more like a scooter than a
bicycle. Its eccentric wheel enabled it to be propelled - rather
inefficiently - by bounding up and down in sync with the wheel rotation.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric-hub_scooter

or videos like

I rode one very briefly at a museum.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

That's kind of funny! You're wrong on all three counts!
But your overall point is classic Kunich: You made a fool of yourself
talking about physics, so you try to insult someone else's bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It isn't surprising that you cannot understand the simple physics whish even has the potential energy gains or loses calculators all over the internet from almost every college. But you as a helpless ass don't even bother to look it up and tell us all we're wrong because your own education is lacking.

:-) My degrees in engineering are lacking? Even my high school education
is lacking? Says a guy who has none of that education? That's funny!
Come on, Tom, do a demonstration. Have your wife film you standing tall
while track standing, then magically zooming off without pedaling by
sitting down on the saddle. You know, so your potential energy converts
to kinetic energy!
BTW, there was for a brief time a bicycle that put such an effect to
use. The Ingo-bike had no pedals, and was more like a scooter than a
bicycle. Its eccentric wheel enabled it to be propelled - rather
inefficiently - by bounding up and down in sync with the wheel rotation.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric-hub_scooter
or videos like http://youtu.be/EHlWS-dYvqE
I rode one very briefly at a museum.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Thank God that I didn't have an education like you. I could be living off of the income of a college which is on the verge of collapse (Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree) instead of having investments worth 1.2 million now and accomplished something with my life instead of pretending.

[John B.]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

That's kind of funny! You're wrong on all three counts!
But your overall point is classic Kunich: You made a fool of yourself
talking about physics, so you try to insult someone else's bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It isn't surprising that you cannot understand the simple physics whish even has the potential energy gains or loses calculators all over the internet from almost every college. But you as a helpless ass don't even bother to look it up and tell us all we're wrong because your own education is lacking.

:-) My degrees in engineering are lacking? Even my high school education
is lacking? Says a guy who has none of that education? That's funny!
Come on, Tom, do a demonstration. Have your wife film you standing tall
while track standing, then magically zooming off without pedaling by
sitting down on the saddle. You know, so your potential energy converts
to kinetic energy!
BTW, there was for a brief time a bicycle that put such an effect to
use. The Ingo-bike had no pedals, and was more like a scooter than a
bicycle. Its eccentric wheel enabled it to be propelled - rather
inefficiently - by bounding up and down in sync with the wheel rotation.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric-hub_scooter
or videos like http://youtu.be/EHlWS-dYvqE
I rode one very briefly at a museum.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Thank God that I didn't have an education like you. I could be living off of the income of a college which is on the verge of collapse (Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree) instead of having investments worth 1.2 million now and accomplished something with my life instead of pretending.

Doing something with my life... Hmm.
Claims to have millions but lives in a cheap house in what he
describes as a slum... drives an old "clapped out car" and fixes old
junk bicycles primarily by asking Mr. Andrew "WHAT DO I DO".

[Tom Kunich]

Post by John B.

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

That's kind of funny! You're wrong on all three counts!
But your overall point is classic Kunich: You made a fool of yourself
talking about physics, so you try to insult someone else's bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It isn't surprising that you cannot understand the simple physics whish even has the potential energy gains or loses calculators all over the internet from almost every college. But you as a helpless ass don't even bother to look it up and tell us all we're wrong because your own education is lacking.

:-) My degrees in engineering are lacking? Even my high school education
is lacking? Says a guy who has none of that education? That's funny!
Come on, Tom, do a demonstration. Have your wife film you standing tall
while track standing, then magically zooming off without pedaling by
sitting down on the saddle. You know, so your potential energy converts
to kinetic energy!
BTW, there was for a brief time a bicycle that put such an effect to
use. The Ingo-bike had no pedals, and was more like a scooter than a
bicycle. Its eccentric wheel enabled it to be propelled - rather
inefficiently - by bounding up and down in sync with the wheel rotation.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric-hub_scooter
or videos like http://youtu.be/EHlWS-dYvqE
I rode one very briefly at a museum.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Thank God that I didn't have an education like you. I could be living off of the income of a college which is on the verge of collapse (Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree) instead of having investments worth 1.2 million now and accomplished something with my life instead of pretending.

Doing something with my life... Hmm.
Claims to have millions but lives in a cheap house in what he
describes as a slum... drives an old "clapped out car" and fixes old
junk bicycles primarily by asking Mr. Andrew "WHAT DO I DO".

John, you really should talk about the things you know. My "cheap house by your reconning is worth $920,000 at the latest claim by a conpany that flips houses and has made me an offer. What is your house worth? 100 baht?

Since you haven't ridden bicycles in two decades, and when you did they were Thai bikes with cheap components and made out of cheap steel at what time did you learn to judge the worth of a bicycle? And perhaps you can quote me asking "WHAT DO I DO?"

Andrew, unlike you is an expert and the rare occasion in which I have a problen I believe in putting questions to experts and not pretending that I know everything.

That appears to me like you're suggesting that you're an expert at something. Perhaps you could tell me what you're an expert in? Living in the only country in which your Master Sargeant's retirement from the service can allow you to live as one of the middle class?

[AMuzi]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by John B.

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

That's kind of funny! You're wrong on all three counts!
But your overall point is classic Kunich: You made a fool of yourself
talking about physics, so you try to insult someone else's bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It isn't surprising that you cannot understand the simple physics whish even has the potential energy gains or loses calculators all over the internet from almost every college. But you as a helpless ass don't even bother to look it up and tell us all we're wrong because your own education is lacking.

:-) My degrees in engineering are lacking? Even my high school education
is lacking? Says a guy who has none of that education? That's funny!
Come on, Tom, do a demonstration. Have your wife film you standing tall
while track standing, then magically zooming off without pedaling by
sitting down on the saddle. You know, so your potential energy converts
to kinetic energy!
BTW, there was for a brief time a bicycle that put such an effect to
use. The Ingo-bike had no pedals, and was more like a scooter than a
bicycle. Its eccentric wheel enabled it to be propelled - rather
inefficiently - by bounding up and down in sync with the wheel rotation.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric-hub_scooter
or videos like http://youtu.be/EHlWS-dYvqE
I rode one very briefly at a museum.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Thank God that I didn't have an education like you. I could be living off of the income of a college which is on the verge of collapse (Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree) instead of having investments worth 1.2 million now and accomplished something with my life instead of pretending.

Doing something with my life... Hmm.
Claims to have millions but lives in a cheap house in what he
describes as a slum... drives an old "clapped out car" and fixes old
junk bicycles primarily by asking Mr. Andrew "WHAT DO I DO".

John, you really should talk about the things you know. My "cheap house by your reconning is worth $920,000 at the latest claim by a conpany that flips houses and has made me an offer. What is your house worth? 100 baht?
Since you haven't ridden bicycles in two decades, and when you did they were Thai bikes with cheap components and made out of cheap steel at what time did you learn to judge the worth of a bicycle? And perhaps you can quote me asking "WHAT DO I DO?"
Andrew, unlike you is an expert and the rare occasion in which I have a problen I believe in putting questions to experts and not pretending that I know everything.
That appears to me like you're suggesting that you're an expert at something. Perhaps you could tell me what you're an expert in? Living in the only country in which your Master Sargeant's retirement from the service can allow you to live as one of the middle class?

Well, thank you; I think I may have something to offer on
the subject of bicycles.

Regarding 'cheap steel', my 1953 Raleigh certainly
qualifies, being thick seamed 1020. It's heavier than your
bicycles, and yours are stronger in many ways as well. That
said, it's a joy to ride. Excellent handling and
comfortable, I have come to love it dearly over the past 53
years of riding it. You might allow some Thais the same
grace regarding their bicycles.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by John B.

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

That's kind of funny! You're wrong on all three counts!
But your overall point is classic Kunich: You made a fool of yourself
talking about physics, so you try to insult someone else's bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It isn't surprising that you cannot understand the simple physics whish even has the potential energy gains or loses calculators all over the internet from almost every college. But you as a helpless ass don't even bother to look it up and tell us all we're wrong because your own education is lacking.

:-) My degrees in engineering are lacking? Even my high school education
is lacking? Says a guy who has none of that education? That's funny!
Come on, Tom, do a demonstration. Have your wife film you standing tall
while track standing, then magically zooming off without pedaling by
sitting down on the saddle. You know, so your potential energy converts
to kinetic energy!
BTW, there was for a brief time a bicycle that put such an effect to
use. The Ingo-bike had no pedals, and was more like a scooter than a
bicycle. Its eccentric wheel enabled it to be propelled - rather
inefficiently - by bounding up and down in sync with the wheel rotation.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric-hub_scooter
or videos like http://youtu.be/EHlWS-dYvqE
I rode one very briefly at a museum.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Thank God that I didn't have an education like you. I could be living off of the income of a college which is on the verge of collapse (Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree) instead of having investments worth 1.2 million now and accomplished something with my life instead of pretending.

Doing something with my life... Hmm.
Claims to have millions but lives in a cheap house in what he
describes as a slum... drives an old "clapped out car" and fixes old
junk bicycles primarily by asking Mr. Andrew "WHAT DO I DO".

John, you really should talk about the things you know. My "cheap house by your reconning is worth $920,000 at the latest claim by a conpany that flips houses and has made me an offer. What is your house worth? 100 baht?
Since you haven't ridden bicycles in two decades, and when you did they were Thai bikes with cheap components and made out of cheap steel at what time did you learn to judge the worth of a bicycle? And perhaps you can quote me asking "WHAT DO I DO?"
Andrew, unlike you is an expert and the rare occasion in which I have a problen I believe in putting questions to experts and not pretending that I know everything.
That appears to me like you're suggesting that you're an expert at something. Perhaps you could tell me what you're an expert in? Living in the only country in which your Master Sargeant's retirement from the service can allow you to live as one of the middle class?

Well, thank you; I think I may have something to offer on
the subject of bicycles.
Regarding 'cheap steel', my 1953 Raleigh certainly
qualifies, being thick seamed 1020. It's heavier than your
bicycles, and yours are stronger in many ways as well. That
said, it's a joy to ride. Excellent handling and
comfortable, I have come to love it dearly over the past 53
years of riding it. You might allow some Thais the same
grace regarding their bicycles.
--
Andrew Muzi
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Abwsolutely nothing wrong with cheap steel bikes. But most of them were very heavy and had all screwed up gearing like a 48-53 double and a 14-21 5 speed freewheel. From the way that John talks about bikes does he really sound like a man who could ride a bike like that from the outskirts 10 miles downhill to central Bankok and back again as he claimed several times? I was willing to accept that he could be that strong but he simply cannot stop himself from pushing the envelope. He was a star shooter in an interservice shooting competition. NO ONE outshoots the Marines. Even if the Marine had a heart attack and died he would outscore ANY AF shooter and I was a later competitive shooter when I was out of the service and know that you can't even see a 1,000 yard target with a 3 foot bullseye at 1,000 yards. Then the unsolicited BS about being a crew chief. They need these people but they couldn't vaguely be called important. That he transferred to TAC says everything about his AF career.

What exactly is with these people? Frank claims to have taught mechanical engineering and he doesm't even know how to quantify potential energy which is a MAJOR component of engineering. He says tipping your bike over according to me would cause it to shoot out from under you!

Why do you suppose he hasn't responded to my question of how he would calculate the force to stoop down and stand up? That would be a force roughly equal to the physics question. It is like talking to idiots.

I didn't go to college but the people from whom I learned electronics were the BEST of the best. And believe me, they are far too rare. And now that Gavin Loathsome has broken Silicon Valley they will now become even rarer.

It would be nice to only have questions on bicycle technology but who shoots off their mouth about it? Liebermann who never rode bikes to any extent. He lives in the Santa Cruz mountains and could never climb those grades. Krygowski who rides and old freewheel 6 speed touring bike with bar end shifting and tells us that ALL of the statistical analysis of bicycle lanes reducing deaths and injuries is lies. And he doesn't wear a helmet. Now AT LEAST I have published papers on helmets and I know that accidents that kill you cannot be mediated by a helmet but that is not the source of significant injuries that a helmet CAM moderate.

Flunky who says that he races bikes but is far too old to be a competitive Cat 2 as he claims. He also claims to be an EE but makes statements showing that he is some sort of overloard of a QC department. That's perfectly fine but then he makes stupid statement after stupid statement that I don't know what I'm doing because he can't understand it. There are two major ways of measuring wire length. You can use a pulse and time it. The speed of light in a copper wire is both unknown and variable due to wire size. Timing this signal even on a good oscilloscope is tricky. So what you do is you adjust the timing of the pulses so that they have the echo at the same time that you have the next pulse. Then you can read off of the pulse generator the time. And you match time to length using a standard wire roll. This is not exact but close enough for government work.

Or knowing what size wire you have, you could use Pulse Width Modulation and simply overlay the signals for an exact fit. This makes it so that you take a lot less time doing a measurement. You really do have to know how long the wires are from the Telephone Company interface in the 2nd or 3rd basement to the 16th floor because you have to string the wires (or you used to before cell phones). How many 100 foot 3 pair 16 guage rolls are you going to need? Where are you going to need to install an interconnect so that you can link the wires together? This is done on a phone wire interconnect so that ANY section can be replaced. That shaft through which your wires run is used to everything and if someone drops something heavy and tears up wires you have to be able to easily replace them.

You can see why I prefered designing and programming to technician work no matter that the phone company I was partners in paid WAY better. My partner taught me the business and I ended up as good as he was. And miles better than the phone company installation crews. Though the guys that wired from the poles to the breakouts in the basement were very, very good. It took me a year to be that good.

The reason I was chosen to design a communications adapter for the space station is because I knew all about it. The documentation was the hardest part of the job. They wanted documentation that some space station flunky could use to repair the board which is preposterous. The boards were surface mounted wave soldered components that simply could not be repaired in space. Think of the dangers of microscopic particles of solder floating around in the space station!

Just recently, a Chinese observation satelite was hit by a micrometeorite. Meteorites travel at astonishing speeds since they could be accelerated by Earth's gravity over long periods. It exploded the satellite into a million pieces and it was in almost the same low orbit as the ISS. Do you know that NASA is so brilliant that their "plan" for such an occassion is for all of the personnel to go to their "safe spots". This means going to places all over the ISS that can be made airtight so that IF the ISS is hit and holed at least some people will survive! Since there is presently a spacecraft on the ISS wouldn't you think it better to bring the whole crew down? Well, you can't do it because the ISS requires constant maintenance and it is FAR too expensive to restart everything. So they PLAN on losing people. My experience with NASA told me that I never wanted to work with them again.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Tom Kunich
Frank claims to have taught mechanical engineering and he doesm't even know how to quantify potential energy which is a MAJOR component of engineering. He says tipping your bike over according to me would cause it to shoot out from under you!

No, Tom, you've got that precisely backwards. I said tipping a bike into
a turn would not, as you claim, generate an increase in kinetic energy.
Nor would there be an increase in kinetic energy precisely canceled by
tire friction.

I'm ignoring the rest of your verbose rant. Damn, you spew so much misery!

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Frank claims to have taught mechanical engineering and he doesm't even know how to quantify potential energy which is a MAJOR component of engineering. He says tipping your bike over according to me would cause it to shoot out from under you!

No, Tom, you've got that precisely backwards. I said tipping a bike into
a turn would not, as you claim, generate an increase in kinetic energy.
Nor would there be an increase in kinetic energy precisely canceled by
tire friction.
I'm ignoring the rest of your verbose rant. Damn, you spew so much misery!
--
- Frank Krygowski

Sorry Krygowski, you showed that you do not believe in addition or subtraction of potential energy and you supposedly were and engineer. Your comments were embarrassing and you repeated them as if you had an idea what you were talking about. I NEVER said that the addition of potential energy was "exactly" canceled by tire friction but that is the way your mind works - poorly at the very best estimation. You clearly stated that if you stand in a parking lot and tip your bike over that it would shoot out from under you because you haven't ANY idea how even simple physics works and NO real engineer would make a statement like that.

Clearly rather than teaching engineering you were treating your students to prefer communism.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Frank claims to have taught mechanical engineering and he doesm't even know how to quantify potential energy which is a MAJOR component of engineering. He says tipping your bike over according to me would cause it to shoot out from under you!

No, Tom, you've got that precisely backwards. I said tipping a bike into
a turn would not, as you claim, generate an increase in kinetic energy.
Nor would there be an increase in kinetic energy precisely canceled by
tire friction.
I'm ignoring the rest of your verbose rant. Damn, you spew so much misery!

Sorry Krygowski, you showed that you do not believe in addition or subtraction of potential energy and you supposedly were and engineer.

Tom, I used and taught conservation of energy principles many times. I
had students do experiments on those principles. You're simply
misapplying the concept.

Post by Tom Kunich
I NEVER said that the addition of potential energy was "exactly" canceled by tire friction but that is the way your mind works - ...

I don't have time to dig out your precise words; but you did claim an
increase in kinetic energy when a cyclist leans in a turn. You also said
something about tire friction scrubbing away some of that energy,
apparently to explain why a cyclists doesn't see an increase in speed.
Perhaps you didn't use the word "exactly"?

Post by Tom Kunich
You clearly stated that if you stand in a parking lot and tip your bike over that it would shoot out from under you ...

Nope, I said essentially the opposite. I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so.

Sorry you found that confusing; but I'm not surprised.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Frank claims to have taught mechanical engineering and he doesm't even know how to quantify potential energy which is a MAJOR component of engineering. He says tipping your bike over according to me would cause it to shoot out from under you!

No, Tom, you've got that precisely backwards. I said tipping a bike into
a turn would not, as you claim, generate an increase in kinetic energy.
Nor would there be an increase in kinetic energy precisely canceled by
tire friction.
I'm ignoring the rest of your verbose rant. Damn, you spew so much misery!

Sorry Krygowski, you showed that you do not believe in addition or subtraction of potential energy and you supposedly were and engineer.

Tom, I used and taught conservation of energy principles many times. I
had students do experiments on those principles. You're simply
misapplying the concept.

Post by Tom Kunich
I NEVER said that the addition of potential energy was "exactly" canceled by tire friction but that is the way your mind works - ...

I don't have time to dig out your precise words; but you did claim an
increase in kinetic energy when a cyclist leans in a turn. You also said
something about tire friction scrubbing away some of that energy,
apparently to explain why a cyclists doesn't see an increase in speed.
Perhaps you didn't use the word "exactly"?

Post by Tom Kunich
You clearly stated that if you stand in a parking lot and tip your bike over that it would shoot out from under you ...

Nope, I said essentially the opposite. I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so.
Sorry you found that confusing; but I'm not surprised.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Krygowski, you want ME to cite your exact words bereft of what you were actually addressing so I am sure that my exact words were at least as accurate as yours since I was addressing the facts.

Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
You clearly stated that if you stand in a parking lot and tip your bike over that it would shoot out from under you ...

Nope, I said essentially the opposite. I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so.
Sorry you found that confusing; but I'm not surprised.

Krygowski, you want ME to cite your exact words bereft of what you were actually addressing so I am sure that my exact words were at least as accurate as yours since I was addressing the facts.
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.

Lowering the center of mass does not necessarily add kinetic energy to
the mass. Again, as I said:

"I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so."

You've provided no evidence that tilting over in a curve makes a
bike+rider faster, which was the original point under discussion. Your
loud and frantic assertions are proving nothing.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
You clearly stated that if you stand in a parking lot and tip your bike over that it would shoot out from under you ...

Nope, I said essentially the opposite. I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so.
Sorry you found that confusing; but I'm not surprised.

Krygowski, you want ME to cite your exact words bereft of what you were actually addressing so I am sure that my exact words were at least as accurate as yours since I was addressing the facts.
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.

Lowering the center of mass does not necessarily add kinetic energy to
"I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so."
You've provided no evidence that tilting over in a curve makes a
bike+rider faster, which was the original point under discussion. Your
loud and frantic assertions are proving nothing.
--
- Frank Krygowski

The formula is clear - PE grav.=mhg

The gain in potential energy is there. I also told you where it went though as a Plant Engineer apparently that wasn't included in your plant.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Tom Kunich
The formula is clear - PE grav.=m

Not very clear. You're cut-n-paste did something funny to the letter
"g". I'm seeing a double image of the "g" when I highlight it, but
otherwise, it looks normal. How did you do that?

Post by Tom Kunich
The gain in potential energy is there.

Where? You didn't show what your symbols meant. You threw in a
superfluous period. You didn't use the correct symbol for potential
energy. You didn't explain how the gain is calculated from whatever
is "in there". You didn't provide an corroborating reference or
examples. Try get it right or you'll fail the exam.

Neo : What is the Matrix?
Trinity : The answer is out there, Neo, and it's looking for you, and
it will find you if you want it to.

Post by Tom Kunich
I also told you where it went though as a Plant Engineer apparently that wasn't included in your plant.

Huh? That sentence makes no sense. Kinda looks like two partial
sentences spliced together. I would suggest that you proof-read your
rants before posting, but since you always do the opposite of what I
recommend, you'll only make things worse. So, I'll just recommend you
continue acting illiterate and suggest you not make any corrections.

Incidentally, your NNTP header is still had a problem. It looks like
this, unchanged from Jan 2024:

Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Petential Energy
doing Work

This was probably caused by your use of the Newshosting.com
Newsreader:
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
In keeping with my previous non-recommendation, I suggest you ignore
the problem. I advised you to try a different newsreader, but
predictably, you did nothing.

[cyclintom]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
The formula is clear - PE grav.=m

Not very clear. You're cut-n-paste did something funny to the letter
"g". I'm seeing a double image of the "g" when I highlight it, but
otherwise, it looks normal. How did you do that?

Post by Tom Kunich
The gain in potential energy is there.

Where? You didn't show what your symbols meant. You threw in a
superfluous period. You didn't use the correct symbol for potential
energy. You didn't explain how the gain is calculated from whatever
is "in there". You didn't provide an corroborating reference or
examples. Try get it right or you'll fail the exam.
Neo : What is the Matrix?
Trinity : The answer is out there, Neo, and it's looking for you, and
it will find you if you want it to.

Post by Tom Kunich
I also told you where it went though as a Plant Engineer apparently that wasn't included in your plant.

Huh? That sentence makes no sense. Kinda looks like two partial
sentences spliced together. I would suggest that you proof-read your
rants before posting, but since you always do the opposite of what I
recommend, you'll only make things worse. So, I'll just recommend you
continue acting illiterate and suggest you not make any corrections.
Incidentally, your NNTP header is still had a problem. It looks like
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Petential Energy
doing Work
This was probably caused by your use of the Newshosting.com
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
In keeping with my previous non-recommendation, I suggest you ignore
the problem. I advised you to try a different newsreader, but
predictably, you did nothing.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

You can be a lot clearer when you say "Duhhhhhh".

[zen cycle]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
The formula is clear - PE grav.=m

Not very clear. You're cut-n-paste did something funny to the letter
"g". I'm seeing a double image of the "g" when I highlight it, but
otherwise, it looks normal. How did you do that?

Post by Tom Kunich
The gain in potential energy is there.

Where? You didn't show what your symbols meant. You threw in a
superfluous period. You didn't use the correct symbol for potential
energy. You didn't explain how the gain is calculated from whatever
is "in there". You didn't provide an corroborating reference or
examples. Try get it right or you'll fail the exam.
Neo : What is the Matrix?
Trinity : The answer is out there, Neo, and it's looking for you, and
it will find you if you want it to.

Post by Tom Kunich
I also told you where it went though as a Plant Engineer apparently that wasn't included in your plant.

Huh? That sentence makes no sense. Kinda looks like two partial
sentences spliced together. I would suggest that you proof-read your
rants before posting, but since you always do the opposite of what I
recommend, you'll only make things worse. So, I'll just recommend you
continue acting illiterate and suggest you not make any corrections.
Incidentally, your NNTP header is still had a problem. It looks like
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Petential Energy
doing Work
This was probably caused by your use of the Newshosting.com
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
In keeping with my previous non-recommendation, I suggest you ignore
the problem. I advised you to try a different newsreader, but
predictably, you did nothing.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

You can be a lot clearer when you say "Duhhhhhh".

Clearly the only language you understand.

[cyclintom]

Post by zen cycle

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
The formula is clear - PE grav.=m

Not very clear. You're cut-n-paste did something funny to the letter
"g". I'm seeing a double image of the "g" when I highlight it, but
otherwise, it looks normal. How did you do that?

Post by Tom Kunich
The gain in potential energy is there.

Where? You didn't show what your symbols meant. You threw in a
superfluous period. You didn't use the correct symbol for potential
energy. You didn't explain how the gain is calculated from whatever
is "in there". You didn't provide an corroborating reference or
examples. Try get it right or you'll fail the exam.
Neo : What is the Matrix?
Trinity : The answer is out there, Neo, and it's looking for you, and
it will find you if you want it to.

Post by Tom Kunich
I also told you where it went though as a Plant Engineer apparently that wasn't included in your plant.

Huh? That sentence makes no sense. Kinda looks like two partial
sentences spliced together. I would suggest that you proof-read your
rants before posting, but since you always do the opposite of what I
recommend, you'll only make things worse. So, I'll just recommend you
continue acting illiterate and suggest you not make any corrections.
Incidentally, your NNTP header is still had a problem. It looks like
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Petential Energy
doing Work
This was probably caused by your use of the Newshosting.com
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
In keeping with my previous non-recommendation, I suggest you ignore
the problem. I advised you to try a different newsreader, but
predictably, you did nothing.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

You can be a lot clearer when you say "Duhhhhhh".

Clearly the only language you understand.

Just another case of a cowardly little punk (camel shit) afraid of the whole world.

[Zen Cycle]

Post by cyclintom

Post by zen cycle

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
The formula is clear - PE grav.=m

Not very clear. You're cut-n-paste did something funny to the letter
"g". I'm seeing a double image of the "g" when I highlight it, but
otherwise, it looks normal. How did you do that?

Post by Tom Kunich
The gain in potential energy is there.

Where? You didn't show what your symbols meant. You threw in a
superfluous period. You didn't use the correct symbol for potential
energy. You didn't explain how the gain is calculated from whatever
is "in there". You didn't provide an corroborating reference or
examples. Try get it right or you'll fail the exam.
Neo : What is the Matrix?
Trinity : The answer is out there, Neo, and it's looking for you, and
it will find you if you want it to.

Post by Tom Kunich
I also told you where it went though as a Plant Engineer apparently that wasn't included in your plant.

Huh? That sentence makes no sense. Kinda looks like two partial
sentences spliced together. I would suggest that you proof-read your
rants before posting, but since you always do the opposite of what I
recommend, you'll only make things worse. So, I'll just recommend you
continue acting illiterate and suggest you not make any corrections.
Incidentally, your NNTP header is still had a problem. It looks like
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Petential Energy
doing Work
This was probably caused by your use of the Newshosting.com
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
In keeping with my previous non-recommendation, I suggest you ignore
the problem. I advised you to try a different newsreader, but
predictably, you did nothing.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

You can be a lot clearer when you say "Duhhhhhh".

Clearly the only language you understand.

Just another case of a cowardly little punk (camel shit) afraid of the whole world.

tommy tough guy!

[cyclintom]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
You clearly stated that if you stand in a parking lot and tip your bike over that it would shoot out from under you ...

Nope, I said essentially the opposite. I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so.
Sorry you found that confusing; but I'm not surprised.

Krygowski, you want ME to cite your exact words bereft of what you were actually addressing so I am sure that my exact words were at least as accurate as yours since I was addressing the facts.
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.

Lowering the center of mass does not necessarily add kinetic energy to
"I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so."
You've provided no evidence that tilting over in a curve makes a
bike+rider faster, which was the original point under discussion. Your
loud and frantic assertions are proving nothing.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Why do you pretend to know so much more than I do? Does that in some way make you feel more like and engineer and less like a teacher? BTW, I rode Trials so you're not informing anyone about anything. The question was asking Liebermann to THINK about where energy goes when it is expended. Energy is neither created nor distroyed.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
You clearly stated that if you stand in a parking lot and tip your bike over that it would shoot out from under you ...

Nope, I said essentially the opposite. I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so.
Sorry you found that confusing; but I'm not surprised.

Krygowski, you want ME to cite your exact words bereft of what you were actually addressing so I am sure that my exact words were at least as accurate as yours since I was addressing the facts.
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.

Lowering the center of mass does not necessarily add kinetic energy to
"I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so."
You've provided no evidence that tilting over in a curve makes a
bike+rider faster, which was the original point under discussion. Your
loud and frantic assertions are proving nothing.

Why do you pretend to know so much more than I do?

You mean about engineering dynamics, that branch of physics dealing with
potential and kinetic energy that was part of my degree, part of the
test used to earn my PE license, and which I taught for many years at
the university?

I'm not pretending, Tom. You are.

[cyclintom]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by cyclintom

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
You clearly stated that if you stand in a parking lot and tip your bike over that it would shoot out from under you ...

Nope, I said essentially the opposite. I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so.
Sorry you found that confusing; but I'm not surprised.

Krygowski, you want ME to cite your exact words bereft of what you were actually addressing so I am sure that my exact words were at least as accurate as yours since I was addressing the facts.
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.

Lowering the center of mass does not necessarily add kinetic energy to
"I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so."
You've provided no evidence that tilting over in a curve makes a
bike+rider faster, which was the original point under discussion. Your
loud and frantic assertions are proving nothing.

Why do you pretend to know so much more than I do?

You mean about engineering dynamics, that branch of physics dealing with
potential and kinetic energy that was part of my degree, part of the
test used to earn my PE license, and which I taught for many years at
the university?
I'm not pretending, Tom. You are.
--
- Frank Krygowski

I mean that part of your "degree" that you never used because you couldn't even maintain plant equipment and they fired you. Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering. And please tell us all again that electronics engineering is just as complicated as mechanical engineering. If you were still working I would send that to the Dean of Youngstown and he could explain real engineering to you.

[Shadow]

Post by cyclintom
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.

Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.
And of course, an engineer is still an engineer if he decides
to go for another diploma, like art or biology. LOL, he could go all
the way down and become a lawyer...
And, as in every profession, an engineer can teach others. He
doesn't have to work on some company's projects....
Imagine how much the profession would degrade if an engineer
was taught my a tech. He'd be as good as the tech. But not better. And
that is not good enough.
HTH
[]'s

[cyclintom]

Post by Shadow

Post by cyclintom
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.

Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.
And of course, an engineer is still an engineer if he decides
to go for another diploma, like art or biology. LOL, he could go all
the way down and become a lawyer...
And, as in every profession, an engineer can teach others. He
doesn't have to work on some company's projects....
Imagine how much the profession would degrade if an engineer
was taught my a tech. He'd be as good as the tech. But not better. And
that is not good enough.
HTH
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021

Well obviously the standards in Argentina must be far better than in the US as is shown by the way that the US used to be so far ahead in technology before Obama was elected and they started hiring people based on their sexual preferences. The media here purposely hid the fact that Obama was a homosexual prostitute. I'm sure that in Argentina things are a great deal better.

[Shadow]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Shadow

Post by cyclintom
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.

Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.
And of course, an engineer is still an engineer if he decides
to go for another diploma, like art or biology. LOL, he could go all
the way down and become a lawyer...
And, as in every profession, an engineer can teach others. He
doesn't have to work on some company's projects....
Imagine how much the profession would degrade if an engineer
was taught my a tech. He'd be as good as the tech. But not better. And
that is not good enough.
HTH
[]'s

Well obviously the standards in Argentina must be far better than in the US as is shown by the way that the US used to be so far ahead in technology before Obama was elected and they started hiring people based on their sexual preferences. The media here purposely hid the fact that Obama was a homosexual prostitute. I'm sure that in Argentina things are a great deal better.

Argentina is Chaos itself. They elected a madman to govern it.
He believes in not taxing the rich. And lowering the salaries of the
poor. And firing all civil servants (Except the military and
judiciary, who had massive wage increases, which increased the
national debt, so they had to get yet another loan from the IMF)
The result? Three digit inflation, massive unemployment,
around 10.000 small/medium businesses filed for bankruptcy from
absolute lack of customers and 60% of Argentineans don't have anything
to eat.

How is that relevant to Brazil? Brazil is doing much, much
better. And how is this relevant to Obama? He's not a woman hater. He
doesn't rape them or treat the like slaves. I think you got the wrong
President.
[]'s

[AMuzi]

Post by Shadow

Post by cyclintom

Post by Shadow

Post by cyclintom
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.

Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.
And of course, an engineer is still an engineer if he decides
to go for another diploma, like art or biology. LOL, he could go all
the way down and become a lawyer...
And, as in every profession, an engineer can teach others. He
doesn't have to work on some company's projects....
Imagine how much the profession would degrade if an engineer
was taught my a tech. He'd be as good as the tech. But not better. And
that is not good enough.
HTH
[]'s

Well obviously the standards in Argentina must be far better than in the US as is shown by the way that the US used to be so far ahead in technology before Obama was elected and they started hiring people based on their sexual preferences. The media here purposely hid the fact that Obama was a homosexual prostitute. I'm sure that in Argentina things are a great deal better.

Argentina is Chaos itself. They elected a madman to govern it.
He believes in not taxing the rich. And lowering the salaries of the
poor. And firing all civil servants (Except the military and
judiciary, who had massive wage increases, which increased the
national debt, so they had to get yet another loan from the IMF)
The result? Three digit inflation, massive unemployment,
around 10.000 small/medium businesses filed for bankruptcy from
absolute lack of customers and 60% of Argentineans don't have anything
to eat.
How is that relevant to Brazil? Brazil is doing much, much
better. And how is this relevant to Obama? He's not a woman hater. He
doesn't rape them or treat the like slaves. I think you got the wrong
President.
[]'s

I believe you have misrepresented Mr Millei's positions.

[Shadow]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Shadow

Post by cyclintom

Post by Shadow

Post by cyclintom
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.

Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.
And of course, an engineer is still an engineer if he decides
to go for another diploma, like art or biology. LOL, he could go all
the way down and become a lawyer...
And, as in every profession, an engineer can teach others. He
doesn't have to work on some company's projects....
Imagine how much the profession would degrade if an engineer
was taught my a tech. He'd be as good as the tech. But not better. And
that is not good enough.
HTH
[]'s

Well obviously the standards in Argentina must be far better than in the US as is shown by the way that the US used to be so far ahead in technology before Obama was elected and they started hiring people based on their sexual preferences. The media here purposely hid the fact that Obama was a homosexual prostitute. I'm sure that in Argentina things are a great deal better.

Argentina is Chaos itself. They elected a madman to govern it.
He believes in not taxing the rich. And lowering the salaries of the
poor. And firing all civil servants (Except the military and
judiciary, who had massive wage increases, which increased the
national debt, so they had to get yet another loan from the IMF)
The result? Three digit inflation, massive unemployment,
around 10.000 small/medium businesses filed for bankruptcy from
absolute lack of customers and 60% of Argentineans don't have anything
to eat.
How is that relevant to Brazil? Brazil is doing much, much
better. And how is this relevant to Obama? He's not a woman hater. He
doesn't rape them or treat the like slaves. I think you got the wrong
President.
[]'s

I believe you have misrepresented Mr Millei's positions

Milei isn't a woman chaser. A dog chaser, perhaps.

His first girlfriend coincided with his campaign for
president. He was over 50 at the time. A year after he was elected,
he dumped her and announced his "romance" with an old (and still
popular) TV star. Normal men don't start dating at 50. Argentineans
are very "machista". They would never vote for someone who was
obviously gay.
He's about as convincing as Bolsonaro and his 3 "loves". All
prostitutes, I mean, "escorts". LOL
[]'s

[AMuzi]

Post by Shadow

Post by AMuzi

Post by Shadow

Post by cyclintom

Post by Shadow

Post by cyclintom
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.

Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.
And of course, an engineer is still an engineer if he decides
to go for another diploma, like art or biology. LOL, he could go all
the way down and become a lawyer...
And, as in every profession, an engineer can teach others. He
doesn't have to work on some company's projects....
Imagine how much the profession would degrade if an engineer
was taught my a tech. He'd be as good as the tech. But not better. And
that is not good enough.
HTH
[]'s

Well obviously the standards in Argentina must be far better than in the US as is shown by the way that the US used to be so far ahead in technology before Obama was elected and they started hiring people based on their sexual preferences. The media here purposely hid the fact that Obama was a homosexual prostitute. I'm sure that in Argentina things are a great deal better.

Argentina is Chaos itself. They elected a madman to govern it.
He believes in not taxing the rich. And lowering the salaries of the
poor. And firing all civil servants (Except the military and
judiciary, who had massive wage increases, which increased the
national debt, so they had to get yet another loan from the IMF)
The result? Three digit inflation, massive unemployment,
around 10.000 small/medium businesses filed for bankruptcy from
absolute lack of customers and 60% of Argentineans don't have anything
to eat.
How is that relevant to Brazil? Brazil is doing much, much
better. And how is this relevant to Obama? He's not a woman hater. He
doesn't rape them or treat the like slaves. I think you got the wrong
President.
[]'s

I believe you have misrepresented Mr Millei's positions

Milei isn't a woman chaser. A dog chaser, perhaps.
His first girlfriend coincided with his campaign for
president. He was over 50 at the time. A year after he was elected,
he dumped her and announced his "romance" with an old (and still
popular) TV star. Normal men don't start dating at 50. Argentineans
are very "machista". They would never vote for someone who was
obviously gay.
He's about as convincing as Bolsonaro and his 3 "loves". All
prostitutes, I mean, "escorts". LOL
[]'s

It may be a special gift, but I seldom look to things like
that, or hair color, or which school someone attended if any
or other such when evaluating policy. Meh.

[Shadow]

Post by AMuzi
It may be a special gift, but I seldom look to things like
that, or hair color, or which school someone attended if any
or other such when evaluating policy. Meh.

Au contraire, I think politicians personalities and life
styles are as, or more, important than their speeches.
I find it strange that Milei came from a very poor family, yet
even though he had terrible exam results at school he was "sponsored"
and attended the most expensive private universities. Nobody knows who
sponsored him. And he refuses to say.

Take it from me. Argentina is absolutely bankrupt. Milei will
next sell off the rights to all the lithium (hello Musk) and petroleum
and then seek asylum, probably in the US. A very, very rich man. There
is absolutely no chance of him being re-elected. Maybe he'll declare a
dictatorship?

As long as he doesn't make the same mistake Pinochet made and
torture ONE Englishman - he's home and dry.
[]'s

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Shadow

Post by cyclintom
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.

Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.

In the U.S., a company can give an employee the title "engineer" for
internal purposes, as long as his work is contained only within the
company, so to speak. But a person doing work that affects the public,
or a person hiring himself out to other companies, needs a Professional
Engineering license. To qualify to even take the licensing test, a
person has to have a proper engineering degree and documented work
experience and references.

I recall one tiny three person company that I did some work for. One of
the three was very incompetent technically, but in a newspaper
interview, he called himself an "engineer." His degree was in business -
which is where most guys transferred to if they were flunking out of
engineering.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:47:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow

Post by cyclintom
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.

Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.

In the U.S., a company can give an employee the title "engineer" for
internal purposes, as long as his work is contained only within the
company, so to speak. But a person doing work that affects the public,
or a person hiring himself out to other companies, needs a Professional
Engineering license.

Nonsense.

To qualify to even take the licensing test, a

Post by Frank Krygowski
person has to have a proper engineering degree and documented work
experience and references.
I recall one tiny three person company that I did some work for. One of
the three was very incompetent technically, but in a newspaper
interview, he called himself an "engineer." His degree was in business -
which is where most guys transferred to if they were flunking out of
engineering.

<eyeroll> More Krygowski nonsense.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Zen Cycle]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:47:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow

Post by cyclintom
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.

Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.

In the U.S., a company can give an employee the title "engineer" for
internal purposes, as long as his work is contained only within the
company, so to speak. But a person doing work that affects the public,
or a person hiring himself out to other companies, needs a Professional
Engineering license.

Nonsense.

No, that's quite true. If you have proof to the contrary, post it.

Post by Catrike Ryder
To qualify to even take the licensing test, a

Post by Frank Krygowski
person has to have a proper engineering degree and documented work
experience and references.
I recall one tiny three person company that I did some work for. One of
the three was very incompetent technically, but in a newspaper
interview, he called himself an "engineer." His degree was in business -
which is where most guys transferred to if they were flunking out of
engineering.

<eyeroll> More Krygowski nonsense.

my, what a compelling argument.....for a dumbass.

Post by Catrike Ryder
--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Shadow]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:47:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Shadow

Post by cyclintom
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.

Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.

In the U.S., a company can give an employee the title "engineer" for
internal purposes, as long as his work is contained only within the
company, so to speak. But a person doing work that affects the public,
or a person hiring himself out to other companies, needs a Professional
Engineering license. To qualify to even take the licensing test, a
person has to have a proper engineering degree and documented work
experience and references.
I recall one tiny three person company that I did some work for. One of
the three was very incompetent technically, but in a newspaper
interview, he called himself an "engineer." His degree was in business -
which is where most guys transferred to if they were flunking out of
engineering.

In Brazil it's a serious crime to claim to have a
qualification you don't have. Like a fraudster pretending he's a
doctor. I'm surprised people were not sentenced to decades in jail in
the US for killing so many people during the pandemic. I saw them
claiming to be doctors and advertising "natural drugs", horse
medicine, malaria pills and badmouthing vaccines.

OTOH, anyone can claim he's a "programmer". My son has a
complete university course in programming, He works with other
programmers, some of which are self-taught. Terrible salaries, all of
them.
He's happy ...
[]'s

[zen cycle]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
You clearly stated that if you stand in a parking lot and tip your bike over that it would shoot out from under you ...

Nope, I said essentially the opposite. I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so.
Sorry you found that confusing; but I'm not surprised.

Krygowski, you want ME to cite your exact words bereft of what you were actually addressing so I am sure that my exact words were at least as accurate as yours since I was addressing the facts.
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.

Lowering the center of mass does not necessarily add kinetic energy to
"I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so."
You've provided no evidence that tilting over in a curve makes a
bike+rider faster, which was the original point under discussion. Your
loud and frantic assertions are proving nothing.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Why do you pretend to know so much more than I do?

IF anyone is pretending in this forum, it isn't Frank.

Post by cyclintom
Does that in some way make you feel more like and engineer and less like a teacher? BTW, I rode Trials so you're not informing anyone about anything.

Complete bullshit. Besides, it doesn't require an understanding of the
physic behind trials riding to be a good trials rider.

Post by cyclintom
The question was asking Liebermann to THINK about where energy goes when it is expended.

You probably should have asked yourself that question before
embarrassing yourself.

Post by cyclintom
Energy is neither created nor distroyed.

True, but irrelevant to fundamental point of the discussion.

[cyclintom]

Post by zen cycle

Post by cyclintom

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
You clearly stated that if you stand in a parking lot and tip your bike over that it would shoot out from under you ...

Nope, I said essentially the opposite. I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so.
Sorry you found that confusing; but I'm not surprised.

Krygowski, you want ME to cite your exact words bereft of what you were actually addressing so I am sure that my exact words were at least as accurate as yours since I was addressing the facts.
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.

Lowering the center of mass does not necessarily add kinetic energy to
"I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so."
You've provided no evidence that tilting over in a curve makes a
bike+rider faster, which was the original point under discussion. Your
loud and frantic assertions are proving nothing.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Why do you pretend to know so much more than I do?

IF anyone is pretending in this forum, it isn't Frank.

Post by cyclintom
Does that in some way make you feel more like and engineer and less like a teacher? BTW, I rode Trials so you're not informing anyone about anything.

Complete bullshit. Besides, it doesn't require an understanding of the
physic behind trials riding to be a good trials rider.

Post by cyclintom
The question was asking Liebermann to THINK about where energy goes when it is expended.

You probably should have asked yourself that question before
embarrassing yourself.

Post by cyclintom
Energy is neither created nor distroyed.

True, but irrelevant to fundamental point of the discussion.

Frank has pretended from his first posting and you support himn because you're the same sort of coward that can't admit that you are nothing more than a faker without a clue.

[Zen Cycle]

Post by cyclintom

Post by zen cycle

Post by cyclintom

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
You clearly stated that if you stand in a parking lot and tip your bike over that it would shoot out from under you ...

Nope, I said essentially the opposite. I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so.
Sorry you found that confusing; but I'm not surprised.

Krygowski, you want ME to cite your exact words bereft of what you were actually addressing so I am sure that my exact words were at least as accurate as yours since I was addressing the facts.
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.

Lowering the center of mass does not necessarily add kinetic energy to
"I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so."
You've provided no evidence that tilting over in a curve makes a
bike+rider faster, which was the original point under discussion. Your
loud and frantic assertions are proving nothing.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Why do you pretend to know so much more than I do?

IF anyone is pretending in this forum, it isn't Frank.

Post by cyclintom
Does that in some way make you feel more like and engineer and less like a teacher? BTW, I rode Trials so you're not informing anyone about anything.

Complete bullshit. Besides, it doesn't require an understanding of the
physic behind trials riding to be a good trials rider.

Post by cyclintom
The question was asking Liebermann to THINK about where energy goes when it is expended.

You probably should have asked yourself that question before
embarrassing yourself.

Post by cyclintom
Energy is neither created nor distroyed.

True, but irrelevant to fundamental point of the discussion.

Frank has pretended from his first posting and you support himn because you're the same sort of coward that can't admit that you are nothing more than a faker without a clue.

blah blah blah......

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Tom Kunich
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving
body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes
or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.

If this energy GOES somewhere, it's not potential energy. It's
kinetic energy.

<https://taraenergy.com/blog/potential-and-kinetic-energy-explained/>
"...potential energy is stationary, with stored energy to be released;
kinetic energy is energy in motion, actively using energy for
movement."

By slowly lowering your center of mass, you are lowering your
potential energy. Potential energy is where nothing is moving. You
have the potential of moving but there's little or no kinetic (moving)
energy produced. In other words, you cannot dissipate potential
energy without first converting it to kinetic energy.

If you rapidly descend onto your bicycle saddle, you do produce some
kinetic energy. To answer your question, the kinetic energy is
absorbed by your tires. Jump off a building and land in your saddle
and you will probably explode the tires, which is a good demonstration
of dissipating kinetic energy.

Note that both lowering your center of mass by slowly lowering
yourself onto the saddle or rapidly lowering it by jumping off a
building into the saddle are going to produce any forward motion.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
By slowly lowering your center of mass, you are lowering your
potential energy. Potential energy is where nothing is moving. You
have the potential of moving but there's little or no kinetic (moving)
energy produced. In other words, you cannot dissipate potential
energy without first converting it to kinetic energy.

Actually, by using your body strength to lower a mass, you do dissipate
the potential energy without (necessarily) converting it to kinetic
energy. You do it by applying opposing work.

Mechanical work is defined as essentially force times distance. (I'm
omitting details Tom wouldn't understand.) The work done in lowering a
mass to a position of rest is equal and opposite to the mass's initial
potential energy. At the end of the process, the energy would be zero.

Again, there are some complications (variable forces, accelerations and
decelerations, various possibilities for the PE datum, etc.) which
people other than Tom might want to discuss. But the simple case should
make the physics clear.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 21:13:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Jeff Liebermann
By slowly lowering your center of mass, you are lowering your
potential energy. Potential energy is where nothing is moving. You
have the potential of moving but there's little or no kinetic (moving)
energy produced. In other words, you cannot dissipate potential
energy without first converting it to kinetic energy.

Actually, by using your body strength to lower a mass, you do dissipate
the potential energy without (necessarily) converting it to kinetic
energy. You do it by applying opposing work.

Yeah, that's more accurate. I intentionally didn't include that
because it would have required that I include the velocity at which
the center of mass is raised and lowered. Since you mentioned it and
since Tom wanted to know where the energy went, it's easy enough to
explain. If you raise yourself up with your feet on the pedals,
you're also compressing the tires and increasing the size of the
contact patch. That's where the energy went. If you start with your
legs straight and are out of the saddle, lowering yourself into the
saddle will momentarily reduce the load on the tires, thus allowing
the tires to expand (slightly) and momentarily decreasing the size of
the contact patch. When you stop moving up or down, the tire pressure
and contact patch sizes are the same for both cases (up and down).

We haven't even gotten Tom to realize that jumping up and down on the
saddle does not change the direction of the forces involved and
therefore does not produce any forward motion.

Post by Frank Krygowski
Mechanical work is defined as essentially force times distance. (I'm
omitting details Tom wouldn't understand.) The work done in lowering a
mass to a position of rest is equal and opposite to the mass's initial
potential energy. At the end of the process, the energy would be zero.
Again, there are some complications (variable forces, accelerations and
decelerations, various possibilities for the PE datum, etc.) which
people other than Tom might want to discuss. But the simple case should
make the physics clear.

The static model is VERY simple because it ignores any states where
something is moving, accelerating, bouncing, storing or releasing
energy, or involving relativistic complications.

[cyclintom]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 21:13:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Jeff Liebermann
By slowly lowering your center of mass, you are lowering your
potential energy. Potential energy is where nothing is moving. You
have the potential of moving but there's little or no kinetic (moving)
energy produced. In other words, you cannot dissipate potential
energy without first converting it to kinetic energy.

Actually, by using your body strength to lower a mass, you do dissipate
the potential energy without (necessarily) converting it to kinetic
energy. You do it by applying opposing work.

Yeah, that's more accurate. I intentionally didn't include that
because it would have required that I include the velocity at which
the center of mass is raised and lowered. Since you mentioned it and
since Tom wanted to know where the energy went, it's easy enough to
explain. If you raise yourself up with your feet on the pedals,
you're also compressing the tires and increasing the size of the
contact patch. That's where the energy went. If you start with your
legs straight and are out of the saddle, lowering yourself into the
saddle will momentarily reduce the load on the tires, thus allowing
the tires to expand (slightly) and momentarily decreasing the size of
the contact patch. When you stop moving up or down, the tire pressure
and contact patch sizes are the same for both cases (up and down).
We haven't even gotten Tom to realize that jumping up and down on the
saddle does not change the direction of the forces involved and
therefore does not produce any forward motion.

Post by Frank Krygowski
Mechanical work is defined as essentially force times distance. (I'm
omitting details Tom wouldn't understand.) The work done in lowering a
mass to a position of rest is equal and opposite to the mass's initial
potential energy. At the end of the process, the energy would be zero.
Again, there are some complications (variable forces, accelerations and
decelerations, various possibilities for the PE datum, etc.) which
people other than Tom might want to discuss. But the simple case should
make the physics clear.

The static model is VERY simple because it ignores any states where
something is moving, accelerating, bouncing, storing or releasing
energy, or involving relativistic complications.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Is there ANYTHING that you can understand? I know where the energy is going and you don't. I was attempting to get you to think which you showed yourself incapable of doing.

[cyclintom]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving
body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes
or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.

If this energy GOES somewhere, it's not potential energy. It's
kinetic energy.
<https://taraenergy.com/blog/potential-and-kinetic-energy-explained/>
"...potential energy is stationary, with stored energy to be released;
kinetic energy is energy in motion, actively using energy for
movement."
By slowly lowering your center of mass, you are lowering your
potential energy. Potential energy is where nothing is moving. You
have the potential of moving but there's little or no kinetic (moving)
energy produced. In other words, you cannot dissipate potential
energy without first converting it to kinetic energy.
If you rapidly descend onto your bicycle saddle, you do produce some
kinetic energy. To answer your question, the kinetic energy is
absorbed by your tires. Jump off a building and land in your saddle
and you will probably explode the tires, which is a good demonstration
of dissipating kinetic energy.
Note that both lowering your center of mass by slowly lowering
yourself onto the saddle or rapidly lowering it by jumping off a
building into the saddle are going to produce any forward motion.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

More proof of why you're on welfare. Moving the CG down does release kenetic energy but after it is moved it represents LESS potential energy. Why was this so difficult for you to understand and why did you feel the need to misrepretent my statement to make yourself feel clever?

[zen cycle]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving
body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes
or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.

If this energy GOES somewhere, it's not potential energy. It's
kinetic energy.
<https://taraenergy.com/blog/potential-and-kinetic-energy-explained/>
"...potential energy is stationary, with stored energy to be released;
kinetic energy is energy in motion, actively using energy for
movement."
By slowly lowering your center of mass, you are lowering your
potential energy. Potential energy is where nothing is moving. You
have the potential of moving but there's little or no kinetic (moving)
energy produced. In other words, you cannot dissipate potential
energy without first converting it to kinetic energy.
If you rapidly descend onto your bicycle saddle, you do produce some
kinetic energy. To answer your question, the kinetic energy is
absorbed by your tires. Jump off a building and land in your saddle
and you will probably explode the tires, which is a good demonstration
of dissipating kinetic energy.
Note that both lowering your center of mass by slowly lowering
yourself onto the saddle or rapidly lowering it by jumping off a
building into the saddle are going to produce any forward motion.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

More proof of why you're on welfare. Moving the CG down does release kenetic energy but after it is moved it represents LESS potential energy.

That's exactly what Jeff wrote, which isn't what you wrote previously.

Post by cyclintom
Why was this so difficult for you to understand and why did you feel

the need to misrepretent my statement to make yourself feel clever?

It might be simpler if you admitted you were wrong, then jeff corrected
you, and now you're agreeing with him.

[cyclintom]

Post by zen cycle

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving
body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes
or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.

If this energy GOES somewhere, it's not potential energy. It's
kinetic energy.
<https://taraenergy.com/blog/potential-and-kinetic-energy-explained/>
"...potential energy is stationary, with stored energy to be released;
kinetic energy is energy in motion, actively using energy for
movement."
By slowly lowering your center of mass, you are lowering your
potential energy. Potential energy is where nothing is moving. You
have the potential of moving but there's little or no kinetic (moving)
energy produced. In other words, you cannot dissipate potential
energy without first converting it to kinetic energy.
If you rapidly descend onto your bicycle saddle, you do produce some
kinetic energy. To answer your question, the kinetic energy is
absorbed by your tires. Jump off a building and land in your saddle
and you will probably explode the tires, which is a good demonstration
of dissipating kinetic energy.
Note that both lowering your center of mass by slowly lowering
yourself onto the saddle or rapidly lowering it by jumping off a
building into the saddle are going to produce any forward motion.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

More proof of why you're on welfare. Moving the CG down does release kenetic energy but after it is moved it represents LESS potential energy.

That's exactly what Jeff wrote, which isn't what you wrote previously.

Post by cyclintom
Why was this so difficult for you to understand and why did you feel

the need to misrepretent my statement to make yourself feel clever?
It might be simpler if you admitted you were wrong, then jeff corrected
you, and now you're agreeing with him.

Is this the opinion of a QC expert that never doex any actual work for his employer?

[Zen Cycle]

Post by cyclintom

Post by zen cycle

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving
body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes
or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.

If this energy GOES somewhere, it's not potential energy. It's
kinetic energy.
<https://taraenergy.com/blog/potential-and-kinetic-energy-explained/>
"...potential energy is stationary, with stored energy to be released;
kinetic energy is energy in motion, actively using energy for
movement."
By slowly lowering your center of mass, you are lowering your
potential energy. Potential energy is where nothing is moving. You
have the potential of moving but there's little or no kinetic (moving)
energy produced. In other words, you cannot dissipate potential
energy without first converting it to kinetic energy.
If you rapidly descend onto your bicycle saddle, you do produce some
kinetic energy. To answer your question, the kinetic energy is
absorbed by your tires. Jump off a building and land in your saddle
and you will probably explode the tires, which is a good demonstration
of dissipating kinetic energy.
Note that both lowering your center of mass by slowly lowering
yourself onto the saddle or rapidly lowering it by jumping off a
building into the saddle are going to produce any forward motion.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

More proof of why you're on welfare. Moving the CG down does release kenetic energy but after it is moved it represents LESS potential energy.

That's exactly what Jeff wrote, which isn't what you wrote previously.

Post by cyclintom
Why was this so difficult for you to understand and why did you feel

the need to misrepretent my statement to make yourself feel clever?
It might be simpler if you admitted you were wrong, then jeff corrected
you, and now you're agreeing with him.

Is this the opinion of a QC expert that never doex any actual work for his employer?

I wouldn't know, the QC experts I know all do fine work. And it isn't an
opinion, it's a statement of fact.

[Frank Krygowski]

Regarding 'cheap steel', my 1953 Raleigh certainly qualifies, being
thick seamed 1020. It's heavier than your bicycles, and yours are
stronger in many ways as well. That said, it's a joy to ride. Excellent
handling and comfortable, I have come to love it dearly over the past 53
years of riding it.

You've beaten me there. I've been riding my oldest* bike, my steel
Raleigh Super Course, for only 48 years.

(* I do own a much older ~1930s antique, but I don't ride it. It's
stored away.)

[John B.]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by John B.

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

That's kind of funny! You're wrong on all three counts!
But your overall point is classic Kunich: You made a fool of yourself
talking about physics, so you try to insult someone else's bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It isn't surprising that you cannot understand the simple physics whish even has the potential energy gains or loses calculators all over the internet from almost every college. But you as a helpless ass don't even bother to look it up and tell us all we're wrong because your own education is lacking.

:-) My degrees in engineering are lacking? Even my high school education
is lacking? Says a guy who has none of that education? That's funny!
Come on, Tom, do a demonstration. Have your wife film you standing tall
while track standing, then magically zooming off without pedaling by
sitting down on the saddle. You know, so your potential energy converts
to kinetic energy!
BTW, there was for a brief time a bicycle that put such an effect to
use. The Ingo-bike had no pedals, and was more like a scooter than a
bicycle. Its eccentric wheel enabled it to be propelled - rather
inefficiently - by bounding up and down in sync with the wheel rotation.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric-hub_scooter
or videos like http://youtu.be/EHlWS-dYvqE
I rode one very briefly at a museum.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Thank God that I didn't have an education like you. I could be living off of the income of a college which is on the verge of collapse (Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree) instead of having investments worth 1.2 million now and accomplished something with my life instead of pretending.

Doing something with my life... Hmm.
Claims to have millions but lives in a cheap house in what he
describes as a slum... drives an old "clapped out car" and fixes old
junk bicycles primarily by asking Mr. Andrew "WHAT DO I DO".

John, you really should talk about the things you know. My "cheap house by your reconning is worth $920,000 at the latest claim by a conpany that flips houses and has made me an offer. What is your house worth? 100 baht?
Since you haven't ridden bicycles in two decades, and when you did they were Thai bikes with cheap components and made out of cheap steel at what time did you learn to judge the worth of a bicycle? And perhaps you can quote me asking "WHAT DO I DO?"
Andrew, unlike you is an expert and the rare occasion in which I have a problen I believe in putting questions to experts and not pretending that I know everything.
That appears to me like you're suggesting that you're an expert at something. Perhaps you could tell me what you're an expert in? Living in the only country in which your Master Sargeant's retirement from the service can allow you to live as one of the middle class?

Well, thank you; I think I may have something to offer on
the subject of bicycles.
Regarding 'cheap steel', my 1953 Raleigh certainly
qualifies, being thick seamed 1020. It's heavier than your
bicycles, and yours are stronger in many ways as well. That
said, it's a joy to ride. Excellent handling and
comfortable, I have come to love it dearly over the past 53
years of riding it. You might allow some Thais the same
grace regarding their bicycles.

While Thailand does make high tech bikes, I'm not sure to what extent
they are sold in Thailand as most of what I see here are Chinese made,
or imported.

[Zen Cycle]

Post by Tom Kunich
Andrew, unlike you is an expert and the rare occasion in which I have
a problen

"rare occasion"?!?!?!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Zen Cycle

Post by Tom Kunich
Andrew, unlike you is an expert and the rare occasion in which I have
a problen

"rare occasion"?!?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell us how you ride more than I do. Give us a citation to a site that shows the racing finishing order?

[John B.]

Post by John B.

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

That's kind of funny! You're wrong on all three counts!
But your overall point is classic Kunich: You made a fool of yourself
talking about physics, so you try to insult someone else's bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It isn't surprising that you cannot understand the simple physics whish even has the potential energy gains or loses calculators all over the internet from almost every college. But you as a helpless ass don't even bother to look it up and tell us all we're wrong because your own education is lacking.

:-) My degrees in engineering are lacking? Even my high school education
is lacking? Says a guy who has none of that education? That's funny!
Come on, Tom, do a demonstration. Have your wife film you standing tall
while track standing, then magically zooming off without pedaling by
sitting down on the saddle. You know, so your potential energy converts
to kinetic energy!
BTW, there was for a brief time a bicycle that put such an effect to
use. The Ingo-bike had no pedals, and was more like a scooter than a
bicycle. Its eccentric wheel enabled it to be propelled - rather
inefficiently - by bounding up and down in sync with the wheel rotation.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric-hub_scooter
or videos like http://youtu.be/EHlWS-dYvqE
I rode one very briefly at a museum.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Thank God that I didn't have an education like you. I could be living off of the income of a college which is on the verge of collapse (Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree) instead of having investments worth 1.2 million now and accomplished something with my life instead of pretending.

Doing something with my life... Hmm.
Claims to have millions but lives in a cheap house in what he
describes as a slum... drives an old "clapped out car" and fixes old
junk bicycles primarily by asking Mr. Andrew "WHAT DO I DO".

John, you really should talk about the things you know. My "cheap house by your reckoning is worth $920,000 at the latest claim by a company that flips houses and has made me an offer. What is your house worth? 100 baht.

The last sale of your house - I assume when your mother bought it was
what " $80,000. The rest of it's value today was simply the loss in
value of the U.S. dollar.

As for my house. We bought it a few years ago. About a 1 acre lot, and
cost 6 million Baht. To compare it with U.S. values it cost about
600,000, 1,643 years, minimum day' wages..

Since you haven't ridden bicycles in two decades, and when you did they

were Thai bikes with cheap components and made out of cheap steel at
what time did you learn to judge the worth of a bicycle? And perhaps
you can quote me asking "WHAT DO I DO?"

Wrong again I last rode a bike bout 1 year ago and again you are wrong
Thailand markets the same bikes you buy in America, Made in China:-)
And sell here much cheaper then the identical ones sold in the U.S.

Andrew, unlike you is an expert and the rare occasion in which I have a problen I believe in putting questions to experts and not pretending that I know everything.
That appears to me like you're suggesting that you're an expert at something. Perhaps you could tell me what you're an expert in? Living in the only country in which your Master Sargeant's retirement from the service can allow you to live as one of the middle class?

Nope, I'm saying that you are not an expert in bicycles and have to
beg Andrew for help on a nearly daily basis.

Ah but Tommy, I don't depend on my retirement pay. After I retired
from the Air Force I worked for about 30 years here in Asia for very
nice salaries.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by John B.

Post by John B.

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

That's kind of funny! You're wrong on all three counts!
But your overall point is classic Kunich: You made a fool of yourself
talking about physics, so you try to insult someone else's bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It isn't surprising that you cannot understand the simple physics whish even has the potential energy gains or loses calculators all over the internet from almost every college. But you as a helpless ass don't even bother to look it up and tell us all we're wrong because your own education is lacking.

:-) My degrees in engineering are lacking? Even my high school education
is lacking? Says a guy who has none of that education? That's funny!
Come on, Tom, do a demonstration. Have your wife film you standing tall
while track standing, then magically zooming off without pedaling by
sitting down on the saddle. You know, so your potential energy converts
to kinetic energy!
BTW, there was for a brief time a bicycle that put such an effect to
use. The Ingo-bike had no pedals, and was more like a scooter than a
bicycle. Its eccentric wheel enabled it to be propelled - rather
inefficiently - by bounding up and down in sync with the wheel rotation.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric-hub_scooter
or videos like http://youtu.be/EHlWS-dYvqE
I rode one very briefly at a museum.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Thank God that I didn't have an education like you. I could be living off of the income of a college which is on the verge of collapse (Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree) instead of having investments worth 1.2 million now and accomplished something with my life instead of pretending.

Doing something with my life... Hmm.
Claims to have millions but lives in a cheap house in what he
describes as a slum... drives an old "clapped out car" and fixes old
junk bicycles primarily by asking Mr. Andrew "WHAT DO I DO".

John, you really should talk about the things you know. My "cheap house by your reckoning is worth $920,000 at the latest claim by a company that flips houses and has made me an offer. What is your house worth? 100 baht.

The last sale of your house - I assume when your mother bought it was
what " $80,000. The rest of it's value today was simply the loss in
value of the U.S. dollar.
As for my house. We bought it a few years ago. About a 1 acre lot, and
cost 6 million Baht. To compare it with U.S. values it cost about
600,000, 1,643 years, minimum day' wages..

Since you haven't ridden bicycles in two decades, and when you did they

were Thai bikes with cheap components and made out of cheap steel at
what time did you learn to judge the worth of a bicycle? And perhaps
you can quote me asking "WHAT DO I DO?"
Wrong again I last rode a bike bout 1 year ago and again you are wrong
Thailand markets the same bikes you buy in America, Made in China:-)
And sell here much cheaper then the identical ones sold in the U.S.

Andrew, unlike you is an expert and the rare occasion in which I have a problen I believe in putting questions to experts and not pretending that I know everything.
That appears to me like you're suggesting that you're an expert at something. Perhaps you could tell me what you're an expert in? Living in the only country in which your Master Sargeant's retirement from the service can allow you to live as one of the middle class?

Nope, I'm saying that you are not an expert in bicycles and have to
beg Andrew for help on a nearly daily basis.
Ah but Tommy, I don't depend on my retirement pay. After I retired
from the Air Force I worked for about 30 years here in Asia for very
nice salaries.
--
Cheers,
John B.

John, keep your bullshit to yourself. I have no interest in it. I am happy that you made a good retirement from outside industry. But somehow you feel the need to deny my success.

[John B.]

Post by John B.

Post by John B.

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

That's kind of funny! You're wrong on all three counts!
But your overall point is classic Kunich: You made a fool of yourself
talking about physics, so you try to insult someone else's bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It isn't surprising that you cannot understand the simple physics whish even has the potential energy gains or loses calculators all over the internet from almost every college. But you as a helpless ass don't even bother to look it up and tell us all we're wrong because your own education is lacking.

:-) My degrees in engineering are lacking? Even my high school education
is lacking? Says a guy who has none of that education? That's funny!
Come on, Tom, do a demonstration. Have your wife film you standing tall
while track standing, then magically zooming off without pedaling by
sitting down on the saddle. You know, so your potential energy converts
to kinetic energy!
BTW, there was for a brief time a bicycle that put such an effect to
use. The Ingo-bike had no pedals, and was more like a scooter than a
bicycle. Its eccentric wheel enabled it to be propelled - rather
inefficiently - by bounding up and down in sync with the wheel rotation.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric-hub_scooter
or videos like http://youtu.be/EHlWS-dYvqE
I rode one very briefly at a museum.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Thank God that I didn't have an education like you. I could be living off of the income of a college which is on the verge of collapse (Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree) instead of having investments worth 1.2 million now and accomplished something with my life instead of pretending.

Doing something with my life... Hmm.
Claims to have millions but lives in a cheap house in what he
describes as a slum... drives an old "clapped out car" and fixes old
junk bicycles primarily by asking Mr. Andrew "WHAT DO I DO".

John, you really should talk about the things you know. My "cheap house by your reckoning is worth $920,000 at the latest claim by a company that flips houses and has made me an offer. What is your house worth? 100 baht.

The last sale of your house - I assume when your mother bought it was
what " $80,000. The rest of it's value today was simply the loss in
value of the U.S. dollar.
As for my house. We bought it a few years ago. About a 1 acre lot, and
cost 6 million Baht. To compare it with U.S. values it cost about
600,000, 1,643 years, minimum day' wages..

Since you haven't ridden bicycles in two decades, and when you did they

were Thai bikes with cheap components and made out of cheap steel at
what time did you learn to judge the worth of a bicycle? And perhaps
you can quote me asking "WHAT DO I DO?"
Wrong again I last rode a bike bout 1 year ago and again you are wrong
Thailand markets the same bikes you buy in America, Made in China:-)
And sell here much cheaper then the identical ones sold in the U.S.

Andrew, unlike you is an expert and the rare occasion in which I have a problen I believe in putting questions to experts and not pretending that I know everything.
That appears to me like you're suggesting that you're an expert at something. Perhaps you could tell me what you're an expert in? Living in the only country in which your Master Sargeant's retirement from the service can allow you to live as one of the middle class?

Nope, I'm saying that you are not an expert in bicycles and have to
beg Andrew for help on a nearly daily basis.
Ah but Tommy, I don't depend on my retirement pay. After I retired
from the Air Force I worked for about 30 years here in Asia for very
nice salaries.
--
Cheers,
John B.

John, keep your bullshit to yourself. I have no interest in it.I am happy that you made a good retirement from outside industry. But somehow you feel the need to deny my success.

What success? Living in a cheap house, driving a old car, trying to
repair old bicycles and having to ask Mr Muzi for help on a nearly
daily basis and telling lies?

[Tom Kunich]

Post by John B.

Post by John B.

Post by John B.

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

That's kind of funny! You're wrong on all three counts!
But your overall point is classic Kunich: You made a fool of yourself
talking about physics, so you try to insult someone else's bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It isn't surprising that you cannot understand the simple physics whish even has the potential energy gains or loses calculators all over the internet from almost every college. But you as a helpless ass don't even bother to look it up and tell us all we're wrong because your own education is lacking.

:-) My degrees in engineering are lacking? Even my high school education
is lacking? Says a guy who has none of that education? That's funny!
Come on, Tom, do a demonstration. Have your wife film you standing tall
while track standing, then magically zooming off without pedaling by
sitting down on the saddle. You know, so your potential energy converts
to kinetic energy!
BTW, there was for a brief time a bicycle that put such an effect to
use. The Ingo-bike had no pedals, and was more like a scooter than a
bicycle. Its eccentric wheel enabled it to be propelled - rather
inefficiently - by bounding up and down in sync with the wheel rotation.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric-hub_scooter
or videos like http://youtu.be/EHlWS-dYvqE
I rode one very briefly at a museum.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Thank God that I didn't have an education like you. I could be living off of the income of a college which is on the verge of collapse (Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree) instead of having investments worth 1.2 million now and accomplished something with my life instead of pretending.

Doing something with my life... Hmm.
Claims to have millions but lives in a cheap house in what he
describes as a slum... drives an old "clapped out car" and fixes old
junk bicycles primarily by asking Mr. Andrew "WHAT DO I DO".

John, you really should talk about the things you know. My "cheap house by your reckoning is worth $920,000 at the latest claim by a company that flips houses and has made me an offer. What is your house worth? 100 baht.

The last sale of your house - I assume when your mother bought it was
what " $80,000. The rest of it's value today was simply the loss in
value of the U.S. dollar.
As for my house. We bought it a few years ago. About a 1 acre lot, and
cost 6 million Baht. To compare it with U.S. values it cost about
600,000, 1,643 years, minimum day' wages..

Since you haven't ridden bicycles in two decades, and when you did they

were Thai bikes with cheap components and made out of cheap steel at
what time did you learn to judge the worth of a bicycle? And perhaps
you can quote me asking "WHAT DO I DO?"
Wrong again I last rode a bike bout 1 year ago and again you are wrong
Thailand markets the same bikes you buy in America, Made in China:-)
And sell here much cheaper then the identical ones sold in the U.S.

Andrew, unlike you is an expert and the rare occasion in which I have a problen I believe in putting questions to experts and not pretending that I know everything.
That appears to me like you're suggesting that you're an expert at something. Perhaps you could tell me what you're an expert in? Living in the only country in which your Master Sargeant's retirement from the service can allow you to live as one of the middle class?

Nope, I'm saying that you are not an expert in bicycles and have to
beg Andrew for help on a nearly daily basis.
Ah but Tommy, I don't depend on my retirement pay. After I retired
from the Air Force I worked for about 30 years here in Asia for very
nice salaries.
--
Cheers,
John B.

John, keep your bullshit to yourself. I have no interest in it.I am happy that you made a good retirement from outside industry. But somehow you feel the need to deny my success.

What success? Living in a cheap house, driving a old car, trying to
repair old bicycles and having to ask Mr Muzi for help on a nearly
daily basis and telling lies?
--
Cheers,
John B.

It really bugs the shit out of you that I have a total worth of over $2 Million and you have a dollar 95 a month retirement. It pisses you off that I actually know what the sort of company you worked for after retirement did.

Tell us how you beat the Marine sharp shooters in an interservice competition. I partoicularly liked that one.

[John B.]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by John B.

Post by John B.

Post by John B.

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

That's absolute nonsense.
Try coasting at a fairly high speed on a flat, smooth surface, maybe a
parking lot. Watch your speedometer as you lean into a sharp curve. You
don't increase in speed while in the curve due to any loss in potential
energy.
Watch your speedometer again as you exit that curve and go straight. You
will not find a significant decrease in speed. That indicates that it's
wrong to think the tires were "absorbing" the change in potential energy.
And anyone who thinks Joules are the same as Watts ("320 joules, or if
you prefer, watts") knows very, very little about physics.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It's nice to know that you cannot understand English but then I didn't expect you to know anything about bicycles since you're still stuck in the era with wheels with loose balls and high friction and downtube shifters with a 7 speed freewheel.

That's kind of funny! You're wrong on all three counts!
But your overall point is classic Kunich: You made a fool of yourself
talking about physics, so you try to insult someone else's bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

It isn't surprising that you cannot understand the simple physics whish even has the potential energy gains or loses calculators all over the internet from almost every college. But you as a helpless ass don't even bother to look it up and tell us all we're wrong because your own education is lacking.

:-) My degrees in engineering are lacking? Even my high school education
is lacking? Says a guy who has none of that education? That's funny!
Come on, Tom, do a demonstration. Have your wife film you standing tall
while track standing, then magically zooming off without pedaling by
sitting down on the saddle. You know, so your potential energy converts
to kinetic energy!
BTW, there was for a brief time a bicycle that put such an effect to
use. The Ingo-bike had no pedals, and was more like a scooter than a
bicycle. Its eccentric wheel enabled it to be propelled - rather
inefficiently - by bounding up and down in sync with the wheel rotation.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric-hub_scooter
or videos like http://youtu.be/EHlWS-dYvqE
I rode one very briefly at a museum.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Thank God that I didn't have an education like you. I could be living off of the income of a college which is on the verge of collapse (Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree) instead of having investments worth 1.2 million now and accomplished something with my life instead of pretending.

Doing something with my life... Hmm.
Claims to have millions but lives in a cheap house in what he
describes as a slum... drives an old "clapped out car" and fixes old
junk bicycles primarily by asking Mr. Andrew "WHAT DO I DO".

John, you really should talk about the things you know. My "cheap house by your reckoning is worth $920,000 at the latest claim by a company that flips houses and has made me an offer. What is your house worth? 100 baht.

The last sale of your house - I assume when your mother bought it was
what " $80,000. The rest of it's value today was simply the loss in
value of the U.S. dollar.
As for my house. We bought it a few years ago. About a 1 acre lot, and
cost 6 million Baht. To compare it with U.S. values it cost about
600,000, 1,643 years, minimum day' wages..

Since you haven't ridden bicycles in two decades, and when you did they

were Thai bikes with cheap components and made out of cheap steel at
what time did you learn to judge the worth of a bicycle? And perhaps
you can quote me asking "WHAT DO I DO?"
Wrong again I last rode a bike bout 1 year ago and again you are wrong
Thailand markets the same bikes you buy in America, Made in China:-)
And sell here much cheaper then the identical ones sold in the U.S.

Andrew, unlike you is an expert and the rare occasion in which I have a problen I believe in putting questions to experts and not pretending that I know everything.
That appears to me like you're suggesting that you're an expert at something. Perhaps you could tell me what you're an expert in? Living in the only country in which your Master Sargeant's retirement from the service can allow you to live as one of the middle class?

Nope, I'm saying that you are not an expert in bicycles and have to
beg Andrew for help on a nearly daily basis.
Ah but Tommy, I don't depend on my retirement pay. After I retired
from the Air Force I worked for about 30 years here in Asia for very
nice salaries.
--
Cheers,
John B.

John, keep your bullshit to yourself. I have no interest in it.I am happy that you made a good retirement from outside industry. But somehow you feel the need to deny my success.

What success? Living in a cheap house, driving a old car, trying to
repair old bicycles and having to ask Mr Muzi for help on a nearly
daily basis and telling lies?
--
Cheers,
John B.

It really bugs the shit out of you that I have a total worth of over $2 Million

and you have a dollar 95 a month retirement. It pisses you off that I
actually know what the sort of company you worked for after retirement
did.


Do you know what sort of company I worked fore? So tell us as I think
you are lying....again.

Post by Tom Kunich
Tell us how you beat the Marine sharp shooters in an interservice competition. I partoicularly liked that one.

What beat the Marine sharp shooters? I said I shot on the SAC team, I
didn't say I beat anybody.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).

Youngstown State University has 10,580 students:
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>

About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>

The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>

Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.

02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

[John B.]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

All this hoopla about navigation seem rather over whelming. Tom has
mentioned sailing only in the bay where you can see where you want to
get to and "navigation" is, in any event, a sometimes thing in
sailing boats where you can only go where the wind sends you.

And, I might add, Yes, I have crewed on a yacht sailing in the King's
Cup Regatta. one of the more famous yacht races in the world, and I do
know what I'm talking about. (Unlike Tom)

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

All this hoopla about navigation seem rather over whelming. Tom has
mentioned sailing only in the bay where you can see where you want to
get to and "navigation" is, in any event, a sometimes thing in
sailing boats where you can only go where the wind sends you.
And, I might add, Yes, I have crewed on a yacht sailing in the King's
Cup Regatta. one of the more famous yacht races in the world, and I do
know what I'm talking about. (Unlike Tom)

A sailboat can sail (close hauled) 45 degrees or so away from directly
into the wind, and thus can travel in the exact opposite direction of
the wind by tacking.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 03:59:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

All this hoopla about navigation seem rather over whelming. Tom has
mentioned sailing only in the bay where you can see where you want to
get to and "navigation" is, in any event, a sometimes thing in
sailing boats where you can only go where the wind sends you.
And, I might add, Yes, I have crewed on a yacht sailing in the King's
Cup Regatta. one of the more famous yacht races in the world, and I do
know what I'm talking about. (Unlike Tom)

A sailboat can sail (close hauled) 45 degrees or so away from directly
into the wind, and thus can travel in the exact opposite direction of
the wind by tacking.

This is how I know.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/j_soloman/53815532814/

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 05:34:08 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 03:59:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

All this hoopla about navigation seem rather over whelming. Tom has
mentioned sailing only in the bay where you can see where you want to
get to and "navigation" is, in any event, a sometimes thing in
sailing boats where you can only go where the wind sends you.
And, I might add, Yes, I have crewed on a yacht sailing in the King's
Cup Regatta. one of the more famous yacht races in the world, and I do
know what I'm talking about. (Unlike Tom)

A sailboat can sail (close hauled) 45 degrees or so away from directly
into the wind, and thus can travel in the exact opposite direction of
the wind by tacking.

This is how I know.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/j_soloman/53815532814/

That's the wrong image, of course . Here's the correct one.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/j_soloman/53501235204/

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

All this hoopla about navigation seem rather over whelming. Tom has
mentioned sailing only in the bay where you can see where you want to
get to and "navigation" is, in any event, a sometimes thing in
sailing boats where you can only go where the wind sends you.
And, I might add, Yes, I have crewed on a yacht sailing in the King's
Cup Regatta. one of the more famous yacht races in the world, and I do
know what I'm talking about. (Unlike Tom)

A sailboat can sail (close hauled) 45 degrees or so away from directly
into the wind, and thus can travel in the exact opposite direction of
the wind by tacking.

Close hauled to the wind you can get to 30 degree or so but the speed of the boat pulls the wind forward so it is usually faster not to go that close and not tighten the jib in much and ease off of the main. Going downwind you can only go the speed of the wind. But there are conditions where tacking can allow you to exceed the windspeed.

[John B.]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

All this hoopla about navigation seem rather over whelming. Tom has
mentioned sailing only in the bay where you can see where you want to
get to and "navigation" is, in any event, a sometimes thing in
sailing boats where you can only go where the wind sends you.
And, I might add, Yes, I have crewed on a yacht sailing in the King's
Cup Regatta. one of the more famous yacht races in the world, and I do
know what I'm talking about. (Unlike Tom)

A sailboat can sail (close hauled) 45 degrees or so away from directly
into the wind, and thus can travel in the exact opposite direction of
the wind by tacking.

Close hauled to the wind you can get to 30 degree or so but the speed of the boat pulls the wind forward so it is usually faster not to go that close and not tighten the jib in much and ease off of the main. Going downwind you can only go the speed of the wind. But there are conditions where tacking can allow you to exceed the windspeed.

Yawn... Just what I said above.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by John B.

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

All this hoopla about navigation seem rather over whelming. Tom has
mentioned sailing only in the bay where you can see where you want to
get to and "navigation" is, in any event, a sometimes thing in
sailing boats where you can only go where the wind sends you.
And, I might add, Yes, I have crewed on a yacht sailing in the King's
Cup Regatta. one of the more famous yacht races in the world, and I do
know what I'm talking about. (Unlike Tom)

A sailboat can sail (close hauled) 45 degrees or so away from directly
into the wind, and thus can travel in the exact opposite direction of
the wind by tacking.

Close hauled to the wind you can get to 30 degree or so but the speed of the boat pulls the wind forward so it is usually faster not to go that close and not tighten the jib in much and ease off of the main. Going downwind you can only go the speed of the wind. But there are conditions where tacking can allow you to exceed the windspeed.

Yawn... Just what I said above.
--
Cheers,
John B.

What makes you think that you have proven anything? Conditions have to be JUST right for downwind tacking to make a boat faster than simply setting a spinnaker and traveling at hull speed! Will you stop your bullshitting when you don't know anything about it?

[John B.]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by John B.

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

All this hoopla about navigation seem rather over whelming. Tom has
mentioned sailing only in the bay where you can see where you want to
get to and "navigation" is, in any event, a sometimes thing in
sailing boats where you can only go where the wind sends you.
And, I might add, Yes, I have crewed on a yacht sailing in the King's
Cup Regatta. one of the more famous yacht races in the world, and I do
know what I'm talking about. (Unlike Tom)

A sailboat can sail (close hauled) 45 degrees or so away from directly
into the wind, and thus can travel in the exact opposite direction of
the wind by tacking.

Close hauled to the wind you can get to 30 degree or so but the speed of the boat pulls the wind forward so it is usually faster not to go that close and not tighten the jib in much and ease off of the main. Going downwind you can only go the speed of the wind. But there are conditions where tacking can allow you to exceed the windspeed.

Yawn... Just what I said above.
--
Cheers,
John B.

What makes you think that you have proven anything? Conditions

have to be JUST right for downwind tacking to make a boat faster than
simply setting a spinnaker and traveling at hull speed! Will you stop
your bulls hitting when you don't know anything about it?


More proof of Tom's of lack of knowledge.

A Spinnaker is a light wind sail and simply using one doesn't mean you
will be traveling at "hull speed"
In fact very few cruising boats carry a spinnaker as they, depending
on the location, are used so seldom used as they are a pain in the
arse to tack with.

But down wind tacking? Boats "tack" to sail on a specific course so
simply setting a larger sail doesn't change the need to tack.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by John B.

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

All this hoopla about navigation seem rather over whelming. Tom has
mentioned sailing only in the bay where you can see where you want to
get to and "navigation" is, in any event, a sometimes thing in
sailing boats where you can only go where the wind sends you.
And, I might add, Yes, I have crewed on a yacht sailing in the King's
Cup Regatta. one of the more famous yacht races in the world, and I do
know what I'm talking about. (Unlike Tom)

A sailboat can sail (close hauled) 45 degrees or so away from directly
into the wind, and thus can travel in the exact opposite direction of
the wind by tacking.

Close hauled to the wind you can get to 30 degree or so but the speed of the boat pulls the wind forward so it is usually faster not to go that close and not tighten the jib in much and ease off of the main. Going downwind you can only go the speed of the wind. But there are conditions where tacking can allow you to exceed the windspeed.

Yawn... Just what I said above.
--
Cheers,
John B.

What makes you think that you have proven anything? Conditions

have to be JUST right for downwind tacking to make a boat faster than
simply setting a spinnaker and traveling at hull speed! Will you stop
your bulls hitting when you don't know anything about it?
More proof of Tom's of lack of knowledge.
A Spinnaker is a light wind sail and simply using one doesn't mean you
will be traveling at "hull speed"
In fact very few cruising boats carry a spinnaker as they, depending
on the location, are used so seldom used as they are a pain in the
arse to tack with.
But down wind tacking? Boats "tack" to sail on a specific course so
simply setting a larger sail doesn't change the need to tack.
--
Cheers,
John B.

So your "race" was in ghosting wind conditions huh? that's good to know. Those are the conditions in which tacking downwind with a balloon jib is much faster than riding a spinaker.

Every time you post you must have to force yourself to find something you know even less about to say.

[John B.]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by John B.

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

All this hoopla about navigation seem rather over whelming. Tom has
mentioned sailing only in the bay where you can see where you want to
get to and "navigation" is, in any event, a sometimes thing in
sailing boats where you can only go where the wind sends you.
And, I might add, Yes, I have crewed on a yacht sailing in the King's
Cup Regatta. one of the more famous yacht races in the world, and I do
know what I'm talking about. (Unlike Tom)

A sailboat can sail (close hauled) 45 degrees or so away from directly
into the wind, and thus can travel in the exact opposite direction of
the wind by tacking.

Close hauled to the wind you can get to 30 degree or so but the speed of the boat pulls the wind forward so it is usually faster not to go that close and not tighten the jib in much and ease off of the main. Going downwind you can only go the speed of the wind. But there are conditions where tacking can allow you to exceed the windspeed.

Yawn... Just what I said above.
--
Cheers,
John B.

What makes you think that you have proven anything? Conditions

have to be JUST right for downwind tacking to make a boat faster than
simply setting a spinnaker and traveling at hull speed! Will you stop
your bulls hitting when you don't know anything about it?
More proof of Tom's of lack of knowledge.
A Spinnaker is a light wind sail and simply using one doesn't mean you
will be traveling at "hull speed"
In fact very few cruising boats carry a spinnaker as they, depending
on the location, are used so seldom used as they are a pain in the
arse to tack with.
But down wind tacking? Boats "tack" to sail on a specific course so
simply setting a larger sail doesn't change the need to tack.
--
Cheers,
John B.

So your "race" was in ghosting wind conditions huh? that's good to know. Those are the conditions in which tacking downwind with a balloon jib is much faster than riding a spinaker.

No the King's Cup is sailed in whatever wind conditions exist on the
days of the race.

Your scheme of tacking down wind with a jig doesn't sound like you
know what you are talking about. If "down wind" is blowing in the
direction you want to go then why would you tack? Do you think that
sailing back and forth across is faster the sailing in a straight
line?

Post by Tom Kunich
Every time you post you must have to force yourself to find something you know even less about to say.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

All this hoopla about navigation seem rather over whelming. Tom has
mentioned sailing only in the bay where you can see where you want to
get to and "navigation" is, in any event, a sometimes thing in
sailing boats where you can only go where the wind sends you.
And, I might add, Yes, I have crewed on a yacht sailing in the King's
Cup Regatta. one of the more famous yacht races in the world, and I do
know what I'm talking about. (Unlike Tom)
--
Cheers,
John B.

John, will you please stop trying to impress people that you "crewed" on a round the bouys race put on by a fucking hotel in Thailand where you were chosen for no other reason than you were white! I was chosen to be watch captain and navigator because a friend entered one of the Golden Gate races series that occurs under the Golden Gate bridge and the City Front. The wind was blowing at 30 knots and there were 6 foot seas blowing under the bridge, That is a LOT since with an outgoing tide the front side of the waves break about half of the time. Beating into it for the south GG buoy on a tack the masthead halyard for the jib jumped the pulley and locked the jib in place so that we couldn't change to a Spinnaker when we rounded the buoy. Everyone was so frightened of the conditions that they didn't know what to do so I went forward and climbed the mast and slipped it back on just in time to round the buoy and set the spinnaker. After the Race committee watched me do that everyone at the GGYC wanted me for crew.

What difficult job did you do? Tail a wench? Terribly difficult job. These days they wouldn't need you because wenches are self tailing. Sometimes your bullshit just gets too deep. NO Air Force personnel EVER won any award in inter-military service shooting competition. Very, very rarely an Army competitor does well. The Marines can shoot the spots off of a leopard at 1,000 yards wuth a rifle on open sighte and put EVERYTHING in the X ring at 100 yards with a pistol. So just stop with your attempt to impress people with your vast knowledge of absolutely nothing. First it was that you were a crew chief on a bomber and then after I pointed out that it was nothing more than shuffling paperwork on a never active aircraft, you tell us that you were in Vietnam. The ONLY way that you were in Vietnam is if you were transfered to the Tactical Air Command. And the Strategic Air Command (SAC) NEVER transfers compentent people. You retired at E6 meaning you were two steps below topping out. There was a reason you weren't promoted.

So stop pushing all of this moronic bullshit trying to prove to us what a great guy you are. Stop bullshitting and you'll discover that people might even like you for what you are.

[John B.]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

All this hoopla about navigation seem rather over whelming. Tom has
mentioned sailing only in the bay where you can see where you want to
get to and "navigation" is, in any event, a sometimes thing in
sailing boats where you can only go where the wind sends you.
And, I might add, Yes, I have crewed on a yacht sailing in the King's
Cup Regatta. one of the more famous yacht races in the world, and I do
know what I'm talking about. (Unlike Tom)
--
Cheers,
John B.

John, will you please stop trying to impress people that you "crewed" on a round the bouys race put on by a fucking hotel in Thailand where you were chosen for no other reason than you were white! I was chosen to be watch captain and navigator because a friend entered one of the Golden Gate races series that occurs under the Golden Gate bridge and the City Front. The wind was blowing at 30 knots and there were 6 foot seas blowing under the bridge, That is a LOT since with an outgoing tide the front side of the waves break about half of the time. Beating into it for the south GG buoy on a tack the masthead halyard for the jib jumped the pulley and locked the jib in place so that we couldn't change to a Spinnaker when we rounded the buoy. Everyone was so frightened of the conditions that they didn't know what to do so I went forward and climbed the mast and slipped it back on just in time to round the buoy and set the spinnaker. After the Race committee watched me do that everyone at
the GGYC wanted me for crew.

The King's Cup Regatta is the largest "boat Race" in Asia with some
140 yachts entered.
https://insailing.com/event/kings-cup-regatta-2

Post by Tom Kunich
What difficult job did you do? Tail a wench? Terribly difficult job. These days they wouldn't need you because wenches are self tailing. Sometimes your bullshit just gets too deep. NO Air Force personnel EVER won any award in inter-military service shooting competition. Very, very rarely an Army competitor does well. The Marines can shoot the spots off of a leopard at 1,000 yards wuth a rifle on open sighte and put EVERYTHING in the X ring at 100 yards with a pistol. So just stop with your attempt to impress people with your vast knowledge of absolutely nothing. First it was that you were a crew chief on a bomber and then after I pointed out that it was nothing more than shuffling paperwork on a never active aircraft, you tell us that you were in Vietnam. The ONLY way that you were in Vietnam is if you were transfered to the Tactical Air Command. And the Strategic Air Command (SAC) NEVER transfers compentent people. You retired at E6 meaning you were two steps below topping out.
There was a reason you weren't promoted.

Do you mean my Air force service? If so I managed welding and machine
shops and was a U.S. government certified welder on aluminum,
stainless and carbon steel :-)

If my subsequent civilian jobs I retired as the manager of a company
who's largest contract was billing $1,000,000 a month.

Post by Tom Kunich
So stop pushing all of this moronic bullshit trying to prove to us what a great guy you are. Stop bullshitting and you'll discover that people might even like you for what you are.

A Tommy, I'm not proving what a great guy I am Demonstrating what a
lying piece of shit you are.

Did

[Tom Kunich]

Post by John B.

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

All this hoopla about navigation seem rather over whelming. Tom has
mentioned sailing only in the bay where you can see where you want to
get to and "navigation" is, in any event, a sometimes thing in
sailing boats where you can only go where the wind sends you.
And, I might add, Yes, I have crewed on a yacht sailing in the King's
Cup Regatta. one of the more famous yacht races in the world, and I do
know what I'm talking about. (Unlike Tom)
--
Cheers,
John B.

John, will you please stop trying to impress people that you "crewed" on a round the bouys race put on by a fucking hotel in Thailand where you were chosen for no other reason than you were white! I was chosen to be watch captain and navigator because a friend entered one of the Golden Gate races series that occurs under the Golden Gate bridge and the City Front. The wind was blowing at 30 knots and there were 6 foot seas blowing under the bridge, That is a LOT since with an outgoing tide the front side of the waves break about half of the time. Beating into it for the south GG buoy on a tack the masthead halyard for the jib jumped the pulley and locked the jib in place so that we couldn't change to a Spinnaker when we rounded the buoy. Everyone was so frightened of the conditions that they didn't know what to do so I went forward and climbed the mast and slipped it back on just in time to round the buoy and set the spinnaker. After the Race committee watched me do that everyone at
the GGYC wanted me for crew.

The King's Cup Regatta is the largest "boat Race" in Asia with some
140 yachts entered.
https://insailing.com/event/kings-cup-regatta-2

Post by Tom Kunich
What difficult job did you do? Tail a wench? Terribly difficult job. These days they wouldn't need you because wenches are self tailing. Sometimes your bullshit just gets too deep. NO Air Force personnel EVER won any award in inter-military service shooting competition. Very, very rarely an Army competitor does well. The Marines can shoot the spots off of a leopard at 1,000 yards wuth a rifle on open sighte and put EVERYTHING in the X ring at 100 yards with a pistol. So just stop with your attempt to impress people with your vast knowledge of absolutely nothing. First it was that you were a crew chief on a bomber and then after I pointed out that it was nothing more than shuffling paperwork on a never active aircraft, you tell us that you were in Vietnam. The ONLY way that you were in Vietnam is if you were transfered to the Tactical Air Command. And the Strategic Air Command (SAC) NEVER transfers compentent people. You retired at E6 meaning you were two steps below topping out.
There was a reason you weren't promoted.

Do you mean my Air force service? If so I managed welding and machine
shops and was a U.S. government certified welder on aluminum,
stainless and carbon steel :-)
If my subsequent civilian jobs I retired as the manager of a company
who's largest contract was billing $1,000,000 a month.

Post by Tom Kunich
So stop pushing all of this moronic bullshit trying to prove to us what a great guy you are. Stop bullshitting and you'll discover that people might even like you for what you are.

A Tommy, I'm not proving what a great guy I am Demonstrating what a
lying piece of shit you are.
Did
--
Cheers,
John B.

You just proverd my point. But you aren't even aware of that are you?

[Zen Cycle]

Post by Tom Kunich
What difficult job did you do? Tail a wench? Terribly difficult job. These days they wouldn't need you because wenches are self tailing.

Tailing a wench will get you brought up on stalking charges in most
jurisdictions.

And, no, jackass, it wasn't a typo. You wrote it twice. You legitimately
think the device used to tension a sail is a 'wench'.

Post by Tom Kunich
So stop pushing all of this moronic bullshit trying to prove to us what a great guy you are. Stop bullshitting and you'll discover that people might even like you for what you are.

Too bad that won't work for you.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Zen Cycle

Post by Tom Kunich
What difficult job did you do? Tail a wench? Terribly difficult job. These days they wouldn't need you because wenches are self tailing.

Tailing a wench will get you brought up on stalking charges in most
jurisdictions.
And, no, jackass, it wasn't a typo. You wrote it twice. You legitimately
think the device used to tension a sail is a 'wench'.

Post by Tom Kunich
So stop pushing all of this moronic bullshit trying to prove to us what a great guy you are. Stop bullshitting and you'll discover that people might even like you for what you are.

Too bad that won't work for you.

Flunky, you've already shown yourself to be an incompetent engineer. Finding a misspelling doesn't improve your IQ. You know nothing about sailing and I've owned 4 boats up to and including a 35 footer and ocean raced on several boats over 50 feet LOA 600 miles as watch captain. You and that Slocom ought to get together and agree that he is an expert because he wss asked to race in a sailboat race because he was white so that makes him one of the leading sailing experts of your group. I've had whales breach less than 50 feet from the boat and 8 dophin riding the bow wave at once - 4 per side.

Or you can tell us how you don't look down or pause when riding downtube shifters. My wife told that one to our middle and youngest daughters that placed 3rd and 17th in the Jr. Nationals and they had a good laugh.

Or maybe you can make some other stupid remark because the use of PWM to measure line length is something you cznnot understand. What that tells me is that you've never used an oscilloscope. But you believe that you can talk a good story.

The only thing that I will give you is that you managed to earn a living as an engineer which is a hell of a lot more than Krygowski or Liebermann ever did. I wonder why you never grew up?

[John B.]

Post by Zen Cycle

Post by Tom Kunich
What difficult job did you do? Tail a wench? Terribly difficult job. These days they wouldn't need you because wenches are self tailing.

Tailing a wench will get you brought up on stalking charges in most
jurisdictions.
And, no, jackass, it wasn't a typo. You wrote it twice. You legitimately
think the device used to tension a sail is a 'wench'.

Post by Tom Kunich
So stop pushing all of this moronic bullshit trying to prove to us what a great guy you are. Stop bullshitting and you'll discover that people might even like you for what you are.

Too bad that won't work for you.

Flunky, you've already shown yourself to be an incompetent engineer. Finding a misspelling doesn't improve your IQ. You know nothing about sailing and I've owned 4 boats up to and including a 35 footer and ocean raced on several boats over 50 feet LOA 600 miles as watch captain. You and that Slocom ought to get together and agree that he is an expert because he wss asked to race in a sailboat race because he was white so that makes him one of the leading sailing experts of your group. I've had whales breach less than 50 feet from the boat and 8 dophin riding the bow wave at once - 4 per side.

So tell us Tommy, what was name 0f the yacht, and where were was
these 600 mile races held that you raced on. The name of the yacht
owner would be useful also, just to verify your story.

Or you can tell us how you don't look down or pause when riding downtube shifters. My wife told that one to our middle and youngest daughters that placed 3rd and 17th in the Jr. Nationals and they had a good laugh.

You must be joking. I rode nothing but down tube shifters all the time
I lived in Bangkok and there is no need to look down. Or pause, I
assume you mean pause in peddling, either.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by John B.

Post by Zen Cycle

Post by Tom Kunich
What difficult job did you do? Tail a wench? Terribly difficult job. These days they wouldn't need you because wenches are self tailing.

Tailing a wench will get you brought up on stalking charges in most
jurisdictions.
And, no, jackass, it wasn't a typo. You wrote it twice. You legitimately
think the device used to tension a sail is a 'wench'.

Post by Tom Kunich
So stop pushing all of this moronic bullshit trying to prove to us what a great guy you are. Stop bullshitting and you'll discover that people might even like you for what you are.

Too bad that won't work for you.

Flunky, you've already shown yourself to be an incompetent engineer. Finding a misspelling doesn't improve your IQ. You know nothing about sailing and I've owned 4 boats up to and including a 35 footer and ocean raced on several boats over 50 feet LOA 600 miles as watch captain. You and that Slocom ought to get together and agree that he is an expert because he wss asked to race in a sailboat race because he was white so that makes him one of the leading sailing experts of your group. I've had whales breach less than 50 feet from the boat and 8 dophin riding the bow wave at once - 4 per side.

So tell us Tommy, what was name 0f the yacht, and where were was
these 600 mile races held that you raced on. The name of the yacht
owner would be useful also, just to verify your story.

Or you can tell us how you don't look down or pause when riding downtube shifters. My wife told that one to our middle and youngest daughters that placed 3rd and 17th in the Jr. Nationals and they had a good laugh.

You must be joking. I rode nothing but down tube shifters all the time
I lived in Bangkok and there is no need to look down. Or pause, I
assume you mean pause in peddling, either.
--
Cheers,
John B.

John, you barely know how to ride so you don't know anything about racing conditions. You have a habit of continually speaking about things you don't understand. Dumbshit Flunky thinks that "pausing" on a shift with downtube shifters means that you stop pedalling. 5, 6 and 7 speed freewheels do not have cog steps and you cannot shift them cleanly with power on the pedals. Racers ALWAYS backed off for shifts and because of this the peleton left wider spaces between riders and not the wheel to wheel gaggle they have not that they believe that Aero advantages, stepped cogs, and brifters are offset by "better" braking with discs.

Being able to ride a bike does not make you an expert on them. Or hasn't Krygowski more than proven that by spreading his "expertise" since Jobst died and isn't here to laugh in his face? So stop with your entirely false opinions that do not address the conditions.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

Just one time I would like you to be able to actually understand what has been written instead of making up your own stories, to contradict.

Yes I found my degree in Navigation. And it was from a school of navigation that is used by shipping firms in Marin County. I actually know how to navigate and have no need to show pictures of a diploma. You do not know HOW to do electronics engineering so you feel the need to post a meaningless diploma that took you 6 years to earn a 4 year degree simply because you hadn't the least interest in electronics but were merely using the college to avoid the draft.

At Tality I was a project manager. I discovered that the team I was stuck with were almost as competent as you and while I accomplished the major design of the product three EE's could not figure out how to finish the design. They had NO idea of how design with microprocessors. The 3 programmers couldn't figure out how to actually program the device despite the fact that I wrote the operating system and half of the program in 3 weeks and outlined the application. I learned what today's "degreed engineers" are worth. As did Tality and its investors when Human Resources instead of giving me people with long histories of accomplishment were turned down for idiots with a degree. If you had applied for a job at Tality I have no doubt that Human Resources would have excitedly turned your long history of failures over to me as being worthy of hire because you have a degree.

By the way stupid - that citation of mine you referenced was about Covid-19. Yet another subject you don't have a passing acquaintance about but more opinions that Krygowski despite the fact that 10 states are presently suing Pfizer for false information and fake news - your specialty.

Is there AHYTHING you're capable of doing that requires more than basic understanding of electronics? And don't give me that BS that you can design analog radios. THAT engineering is 130 years old and I was working with it at 12 years old.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

Just one time I would like you to be able to actually understand what has been written instead of making up your own stories, to contradict.

It's interesting that you've recently begun accusing me of doing what
I've been accusing you of doing.

Post by Tom Kunich
Yes I found my degree in Navigation. And it was from a school of navigation that is used by shipping firms in Marin County. I actually know how to navigate and have no need to show pictures of a diploma.

What's the name of this "school of navigation"?

I don't believe you. That's why I would like to see a photo of your
degree in navigation as proof. Hopefully, it won't look something
like your life membership card from the Aeolian Yacht Club or whatever
this thing was suppose to prove:
<https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=996962251448524&set=pb.100034042758783.-2207520000&type=3>
By refusing to produce a photo, you're confirming my suspicion that
you don't have such a degree. You decide if it's not necessary to
prove it. It's your reputation.

Post by Tom Kunich
You do not know HOW to do electronics engineering...

You've recently demonstrated that you don't understand basic physics
and perform work, energy and power calculations. Worse, you also
demonstrated the you couldn't do the calculations after apparently
reading some web pages on the topic. One doesn't get very far in any
form of electric or electronic engineering without understanding such
basics. Apparently you skipped over basic physics when you "read out"
four libraries and proclaimed yourself to be an engineer. Show me the
knowledge you gained by reading and I might believe you:

06/07/2022
(https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/QNPNSofg064/m/Xaamy15iBQAJ)
"I would warrant that I've read more than 20 times more books than you
have. I read out three public libraries, the military library and all
of the books I used to gain the knowledge to become an engineer."

Now that I think about it, you claim to have read
"all of the books I used to gain the knowledge to become an engineer".
I presume you still have most of those books. Got a photo you can
post? Here's one of my bookshelves. There are four smaller
bookshelves and a few boxes of books that I can photograph for you
(after I remove the junk I have piled in front of them):
<Loading Image...>

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
Now that I think about it, you claim to have read
"all of the books I used to gain the knowledge to become an engineer".
I presume you still have most of those books. Got a photo you can
post? Here's one of my bookshelves. There are four smaller
bookshelves and a few boxes of books that I can photograph for you
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/home/bookshelf.jpg>

I forgot mention something about engineering books. Prior to the
release of Windows 95 in Aug, 1995, it was difficult (or impossible)
to do any kind of serious electronic engineering without a pile of
reference books and manufacturers catalogs. One could live and work
in a public library, but that gets old rather quickly.

When web browsers and PDF files arrived, it became possible to do
online research and obtain paperless datasheets and specifications. By
about 2010, the printed catalogs, reference books and datasheets had
almost totally disappeared because they were more easily distributed
online. If Tom had really done any serious electronic engineering
prior to maybe 2005, he would likely to have used printed books.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
Now that I think about it, you claim to have read
"all of the books I used to gain the knowledge to become an engineer".
I presume you still have most of those books. Got a photo you can
post? Here's one of my bookshelves. There are four smaller
bookshelves and a few boxes of books that I can photograph for you
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/home/bookshelf.jpg>

I forgot mention something about engineering books. Prior to the
release of Windows 95 in Aug, 1995, it was difficult (or impossible)
to do any kind of serious electronic engineering without a pile of
reference books and manufacturers catalogs. One could live and work
in a public library, but that gets old rather quickly.
When web browsers and PDF files arrived, it became possible to do
online research and obtain paperless datasheets and specifications. By
about 2010, the printed catalogs, reference books and datasheets had
almost totally disappeared because they were more easily distributed
online. If Tom had really done any serious electronic engineering
prior to maybe 2005, he would likely to have used printed books.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Why do you mention that when you CAN'T understand any of it? A NAND gate is beyond you let alone a microprocessor odf the most elementary capability. You don't even know what programming is let alone be able to use it.

Stop your shit. I am surprised that you could replace ink jet printer cartridges.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

Just one time I would like you to be able to actually understand what has been written instead of making up your own stories, to contradict.

It's interesting that you've recently begun accusing me of doing what
I've been accusing you of doing.

Post by Tom Kunich
Yes I found my degree in Navigation. And it was from a school of navigation that is used by shipping firms in Marin County. I actually know how to navigate and have no need to show pictures of a diploma.

What's the name of this "school of navigation"?
I don't believe you. That's why I would like to see a photo of your
degree in navigation as proof. Hopefully, it won't look something
like your life membership card from the Aeolian Yacht Club or whatever
<https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=996962251448524&set=pb.100034042758783.-2207520000&type=3>
By refusing to produce a photo, you're confirming my suspicion that
you don't have such a degree. You decide if it's not necessary to
prove it. It's your reputation.

Post by Tom Kunich
You do not know HOW to do electronics engineering...

You've recently demonstrated that you don't understand basic physics
and perform work, energy and power calculations. Worse, you also
demonstrated the you couldn't do the calculations after apparently
reading some web pages on the topic. One doesn't get very far in any
form of electric or electronic engineering without understanding such
basics. Apparently you skipped over basic physics when you "read out"
four libraries and proclaimed yourself to be an engineer. Show me the
06/07/2022
(https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/QNPNSofg064/m/Xaamy15iBQAJ)
"I would warrant that I've read more than 20 times more books than you
have. I read out three public libraries, the military library and all
of the books I used to gain the knowledge to become an engineer."
Now that I think about it, you claim to have read
"all of the books I used to gain the knowledge to become an engineer".
I presume you still have most of those books. Got a photo you can
post? Here's one of my bookshelves. There are four smaller
bookshelves and a few boxes of books that I can photograph for you
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/home/bookshelf.jpg>
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Are you under the impression that I give a shit WHAT you think? You're a big mouth lying fool who has a mispent life. I learned more from reading a dozen books in two weeks than you did in 6 years of college. Go call my yacht club and ask them for personal information on me. Look at Google Earth and pretend that you can tell people all about Cull Canyon or my house. You have a seriously corrupted personality and that is why no one likes you.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
(Youngstown is spending $17 million a year which represents
the attendance of more than 400 students completing a 4 year degree)

Geee... I wish I could magically pull numbers out of my hat just like
you can. It's so much easier than looking up the numbers and doing
the math. Anyway, all your numbers are wrong (as usual).
<https://ysu.edu/about-ysu>
About 1,800 students graduate each year.
<https://ysu.edu/news/student-feature-ysu-grads-reflecting-their-accomplishments-embarking-their-next-steps>
The annual budget is $171 million for 2023. 2024 is expected to be
$174.5 million.
<https://ysu.edu/sites/default/files/Budget_Planning/Budget_Planning_Home/Budget%20Doc_FY23.pdf>
Tom. Did you ever find your degree in "navigation"? I posted mine,
but you seem to have forgotten to reciprocate.
02/09/2021
Degree in navigation from Chabot College in Hayward, CA.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
general education - Degree in navigation
"Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager"

Just one time I would like you to be able to actually understand what has been written instead of making up your own stories, to contradict.

It's interesting that you've recently begun accusing me of doing what
I've been accusing you of doing.

Post by Tom Kunich
Yes I found my degree in Navigation. And it was from a school of navigation that is used by shipping firms in Marin County. I actually know how to navigate and have no need to show pictures of a diploma.

What's the name of this "school of navigation"?
I don't believe you. That's why I would like to see a photo of your
degree in navigation as proof. Hopefully, it won't look something
like your life membership card from the Aeolian Yacht Club or whatever
<https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=996962251448524&set=pb.100034042758783.-2207520000&type=3>
By refusing to produce a photo, you're confirming my suspicion that
you don't have such a degree. You decide if it's not necessary to
prove it. It's your reputation.

Post by Tom Kunich
You do not know HOW to do electronics engineering...

You've recently demonstrated that you don't understand basic physics
and perform work, energy and power calculations. Worse, you also
demonstrated the you couldn't do the calculations after apparently
reading some web pages on the topic. One doesn't get very far in any
form of electric or electronic engineering without understanding such
basics. Apparently you skipped over basic physics when you "read out"
four libraries and proclaimed yourself to be an engineer. Show me the
06/07/2022
(https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/QNPNSofg064/m/Xaamy15iBQAJ)
"I would warrant that I've read more than 20 times more books than you
have. I read out three public libraries, the military library and all
of the books I used to gain the knowledge to become an engineer."
Now that I think about it, you claim to have read
"all of the books I used to gain the knowledge to become an engineer".
I presume you still have most of those books. Got a photo you can
post? Here's one of my bookshelves. There are four smaller
bookshelves and a few boxes of books that I can photograph for you
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/home/bookshelf.jpg>

Are you under the impression that I give a shit WHAT you think? You're a big mouth lying fool who has a mispent life. I learned more from reading a dozen books in two weeks than you did in 6 years of college. Go call my yacht club and ask them for personal information on me. Look at Google Earth and pretend that you can tell people all about Cull Canyon or my house. You have a seriously corrupted personality and that is why no one likes you.

I take it that you don't intend to provide the name of the "school of
navigation that is used by shipping firms in Marin County", a photo of
your degree in navigation from this school, and a photo of your
library of books, which you used to do engineering after you were
finished "reading out" three libraries and a military library. It's
really difficult for me to believe that you could have done any kind
of technical work during the 20th century without a library full of
technical books. Since you claim to also have been a "top management
consultant", I would expect you to own an equal number of books on
everything from basic communication skills to biographies and
histories of your major clients. Before books were replaced by the
internet (in about 2000), I used to carefully inspect peoples
bookshelves, which told me quite a bit about that person. Yet, you
seem to have nothing in the way of books. Very odd and very telling.

Actually, I am under the impression that you give a shit what I think.
Nobody would spend the huge amount of time and effort lecturing
everyone reading RBT about your amazing accomplishments, knowledge and
friends in high places without giving a shit to determine if you've
succeeded. If you really didn't care about what I thought, you would
have given up long ago, gone elsewhere and tried again to convince a
more gullible audience.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

Tom, you are correct that potential energy is measured in Joules.
However, everything else you wrote is wrong:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule#Watt-second>
<https://www.studocu.com/en-us/messages/question/2856280/the-formula-for-potential-energy-is-pe-m-g-h-in-this-formula-pe-stands-for-potential-energy>

You wrongly declared:
"...a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you
prefer, watts."
Joules are equivalent to watt-seconds, not watts. Joules can also be
converted to ergs, eV (electronvolts), gram calories, food calories,
BTU (British Thermal Units), horsepower-hrs, tons of TNT, or
kilowatt-hrs, but not to watts. Your speculation which follows is
based on this misunderstanding and is also wrong. More:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conversion_factors#Energy>

There are a variety of "work, energy and power" cheat sheets
available. Pick one and study it:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=work+energy+power+cheat+sheet&tbm=isch>

You claim that if you lower and raise your bicycle, by tilting it from
upright to -45 degrees
"...a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy..."
Swell, where does energy go? Does the bicycle frame change from hot
to cold as it goes up and down? Where is this rather large amount of
potential energy stored, absorbed or dissipated? It's not stored in a
change in elevation as potential energy because that's what you just
used to raise and lower the bicycle. Think about it and check your
assumptions.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
Using Pogacar as an example let's say that normal upright riding puts his CG 1.5 meters abovr the ground. Simple Triganometry will tell us that the CG at 45 degrees lean is .707 that of his uptight position. (I have seen him lean more thn 45 degrees.) This makes a change in potential energy of 1.5 m x 0.707 = 1.06 m. Or about a change in CG of 0.44 meters.
As an estimation, Pogacar and bike weigh 166 lbs or 75 kg. The change in potential energy from upright to a 45 degree lean for a corner is 1100 joules upright and 780 leaned over or a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you prefer, watts. In a frictionless world this would cause the bicycle to accelerate as it leaned. But this is not a frictionless world and what happens is that much of this 320 watts is pushed into the tires and absorbed by the friction in the tires resisting the centrifugal force and holding the tires to the ground.
The physics are clear and well understood even though there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on the group. Andrew thinks that the change has something to do with the CG to the tire's contact patch. That is not the change in energy but the direction of the force resisting the cenptrifugal forces.
Since a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy simply by lowering the CG in a gravity field you can more understand why a bike in a turn may seem to slide out from under a rider so rapidly. Once the tires break traction there is no counter action against the increased energy. This should also give you a much greater appreciation of just how much traction to spare the sides of the best tires have over the use of it while upright and not braking.
Now to be correct we have to remember that in order to be able to corner at 45 degrees, you have to be going at such a speed that on flat ground you would be pouring 700 or 800 watts into the pedals and so the addition at this speed is some 40% of a small number since very little energy is absorbed into the tires if you are not accelerating or braking. But the tires absorb is all resisting the centrifugal forces. Under normal contitions the upright bike's tires only absorb a significant amount of energy while accelerating or braking. And pro-level riders can and do commonly apply 1400 or more watts into acceleration.
And since you are forced to stop pedalling at that angle of lean, the 700 or 800 watts are reduced to the 320 which are added through the change in potential energy.
Have fun thinking about that.

Tom, you are correct that potential energy is measured in Joules.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule#Watt-second>
<https://www.studocu.com/en-us/messages/question/2856280/the-formula-for-potential-energy-is-pe-m-g-h-in-this-formula-pe-stands-for-potential-energy>
"...a change in energy in the bike structure of 320 joules, or if you
prefer, watts."
Joules are equivalent to watt-seconds, not watts. Joules can also be
converted to ergs, eV (electronvolts), gram calories, food calories,
BTU (British Thermal Units), horsepower-hrs, tons of TNT, or
kilowatt-hrs, but not to watts. Your speculation which follows is
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conversion_factors#Energy>
There are a variety of "work, energy and power" cheat sheets
<https://www.google.com/search?q=work+energy+power+cheat+sheet&tbm=isch>
You claim that if you lower and raise your bicycle, by tilting it from
upright to -45 degrees
"...a rather hefty 320 watts are added to the energy..."
Swell, where does energy go? Does the bicycle frame change from hot
to cold as it goes up and down? Where is this rather large amount of
potential energy stored, absorbed or dissipated? It's not stored in a
change in elevation as potential energy because that's what you just
used to raise and lower the bicycle. Think about it and check your
assumptions.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

More pretemnse from the class idiot. WHAT is a watt/second?

As for your stupid remarks about where the power goes. If you could ride a bike you would know. It is absorbed by friction losses in the tires. But that as well as everything else in your poor helpless life went right over your head because you couldn't bother to read the entire posting. You and Krygowski make a good pair.

Tell me you POS - Do you know what PEg=mgh means? If you actually knew what it means, you would understand that dropping the CG in a turn increases the power of the moving body. If you were able to bend down on one knee and then stand up perhaps you'd be able to detect that it requires signifcant power to stand up again.

But rather than think, you prefer to blither. That is why you've lived your entire life at the expense of your inheritance.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 00:16:02 GMT, Tom Kunich <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Tom. I removed all the personal insults to make to make your
questions more readable.

Post by Tom Kunich
WHAT is a watt/second?

1 watt consumed for 1 second. However, you've fallen into a common
beginning physics trap. 1 watt-second does NOT equal 1 watt/second or
1 watt per second.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt>
"While a watt per hour is a unit of rate of change of power with time,
it is not correct to refer to a watt (or watt-hour) as a watt per
hour."

Post by Tom Kunich
Do you know what PEg=mgh means?

Gravitational_Potential_Energy
= mass * acceleration_of_gravity * height

The potential energy is in Joules or watt-seconds.
The mass is the weight in Kg.
The acceleration of gravity is 9.8 meters/second^2 at ground level.
The height is in meters.
<https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/7-3-gravitational-potential-energy/>

Is this a quiz? Why do you care if I know basic physics? You, not
me, are the one who is having problems understanding the basics. You
should have been introduced to the basic concepts in high school. Oh,
you didn't graduate high school, so you probably didn't have any
classes in basic physics.

I'm a fan of Khan Academy for teaching the basics. Unit 5 covers work
and energy. I suggest that you watch a few classes. Don't worry.
Nobody will know.

Post by Tom Kunich
...dropping the CG in a turn increases the power of the moving body.

Gosh. That's truly amazing. All I need to do is lay down on the
ground, which drops my center of mass to ground level, and I get a
free increase in "power". Somehow, that doesn't seem quite right. You
could replace "power" with potential energy, but then you have to
claim that a drop in my center of mass causes a decrease in potential
energy and not an increase. I think you could determine what you did
wrong with no additional assistance.

Please notice that I have replaced your "center of gravity" with
"center of mass". It's the mass that descends. Gravity doesn't move.

Post by Tom Kunich
If you were able to bend down on one knee and then stand up
perhaps you'd be able to detect that it requires signifcant
power to stand up again.

Mind if I lay down on the ground instead of bending the knee? If I
lay down on the ground, my center of gravity goes to ground level or
zero height. If I bend the knee, my center of mass descends a much
smaller distance than if I lay down on the ground.

I'm not sure exactly how you expect me to "detect" the "power" I need
to stand up. The energy required depends heavily on the speed at
which I stand up. If I do it slowly, I less energy. If I get up
quickly, it requires more energy.

Post by Tom Kunich
But rather than think, you prefer to blither. That is why
you've lived your entire life at the expense of your inheritance.

Thanks. You just made my day. Where did you ever get the idea that I
had an inheritance? When my father had a stroke in 1986 and spent 9.5
years mostly in a convalescent hospitals, the family managed to burn a
substantial amount of cash keeping him comfortable, supporting my
step-mother, and maintaining the business. At the time, his life
insurance payments were $20,000 per year. Too much, so we cashed out
that policy for only $30,000. Any income went to paying medical and
convalescent hospital bills. Because there was a conservatorship, I
had to sign away all my rights to his estate to avoid having to post
an expensive bond that supposedly insured that wouldn't steal money
from the estate:
<https://suretybondauthority.com/conservatorship-bond/>
Except for a few bonds that were held in my name, and the contents of
a safe deposit box (mostly my mothers jewelry), I received nothing
when he died. The house, its contents, 1/2 the business, etc went to
my step mother. When she died, that all went to her two worthless
sons.

Now, tell me again how I lived my entire life supported by my
non-existent inheritance? I want to hear how you imagine I lived in
opulent splendor, just like you are doing from your investments and
spectacular salaries.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
I'm a fan of Khan Academy for teaching the basics. Unit 5 covers work
and energy. I suggest that you watch a few classes. Don't worry.
Nobody will know.

I forgot to post the URL:
<https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics>

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
...dropping the CG in a turn increases the power of the moving body.

Gosh. That's truly amazing. All I need to do is lay down on the
ground, which drops my center of mass to ground level, and I get a
free increase in "power".

Who among us has not felt their bicycle accelerate briskly the instant
they change from standing tall on the pedals to sitting on the seat? The
drop in potential energy immediately converts to kinetic energy!

Heck, it's the easiest way to make a quick start across an intersection.
Don't even pedal! Just stand up while doing a track stand at a red
light. The instant the light turns green, sit down. Your bike will zoom
off the line even without pedaling!

(That's a joke, Tom. But feel free to try it.)

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 22:06:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
...dropping the CG in a turn increases the power of the moving body.

Gosh. That's truly amazing. All I need to do is lay down on the
ground, which drops my center of mass to ground level, and I get a
free increase in "power".

Who among us has not felt their bicycle accelerate briskly the instant
they change from standing tall on the pedals to sitting on the seat? The
drop in potential energy immediately converts to kinetic energy!
Heck, it's the easiest way to make a quick start across an intersection.
Don't even pedal! Just stand up while doing a track stand at a red
light. The instant the light turns green, sit down. Your bike will zoom
off the line even without pedaling!
(That's a joke, Tom. But feel free to try it.)

Instead of up and down, rock the bicycle +/- 45 degrees to the left
and right. By Tom's amazing physics, one should gain "a rather hefty
320 watts" to power the bicycle hopefully in the forward direction.

Far off topic drivel:
I went to the local smog station yesterday for a smog check. We had a
small problem moving my Subaru from the parking lot to the service
bay. The smog technician didn't know how to drive a stick shift. By
coincidence, neither did anyone else who was available. We had to
wait a few minutes until someone could be found. I wasn't allowed to
drive into the service area because I wasn't covered by their
insurance policy. It's problems like this that make me feel really
old and make me wonder if 20 years from now, bike shops will have
people available who know how to ride a bicycle without electric
assist.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
Tom. I removed all the personal insults to make to make your
questions more readable.

Post by Tom Kunich
WHAT is a watt/second?

1 watt consumed for 1 second. However, you've fallen into a common
beginning physics trap. 1 watt-second does NOT equal 1 watt/second or
1 watt per second.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt>
"While a watt per hour is a unit of rate of change of power with time,
it is not correct to refer to a watt (or watt-hour) as a watt per
hour."

Post by Tom Kunich
Do you know what PEg=mgh means?

Gravitational_Potential_Energy
= mass * acceleration_of_gravity * height
The potential energy is in Joules or watt-seconds.
The mass is the weight in Kg.
The acceleration of gravity is 9.8 meters/second^2 at ground level.
The height is in meters.
<https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/7-3-gravitational-potential-energy/>
Is this a quiz? Why do you care if I know basic physics? You, not
me, are the one who is having problems understanding the basics. You
should have been introduced to the basic concepts in high school. Oh,
you didn't graduate high school, so you probably didn't have any
classes in basic physics.
I'm a fan of Khan Academy for teaching the basics. Unit 5 covers work
and energy. I suggest that you watch a few classes. Don't worry.
Nobody will know.

Post by Tom Kunich
...dropping the CG in a turn increases the power of the moving body.

Gosh. That's truly amazing. All I need to do is lay down on the
ground, which drops my center of mass to ground level, and I get a
free increase in "power". Somehow, that doesn't seem quite right. You
could replace "power" with potential energy, but then you have to
claim that a drop in my center of mass causes a decrease in potential
energy and not an increase. I think you could determine what you did
wrong with no additional assistance.
Please notice that I have replaced your "center of gravity" with
"center of mass". It's the mass that descends. Gravity doesn't move.

Post by Tom Kunich
If you were able to bend down on one knee and then stand up
perhaps you'd be able to detect that it requires signifcant
power to stand up again.

Mind if I lay down on the ground instead of bending the knee? If I
lay down on the ground, my center of gravity goes to ground level or
zero height. If I bend the knee, my center of mass descends a much
smaller distance than if I lay down on the ground.
I'm not sure exactly how you expect me to "detect" the "power" I need
to stand up. The energy required depends heavily on the speed at
which I stand up. If I do it slowly, I less energy. If I get up
quickly, it requires more energy.

Post by Tom Kunich
But rather than think, you prefer to blither. That is why
you've lived your entire life at the expense of your inheritance.

Thanks. You just made my day. Where did you ever get the idea that I
had an inheritance? When my father had a stroke in 1986 and spent 9.5
years mostly in a convalescent hospitals, the family managed to burn a
substantial amount of cash keeping him comfortable, supporting my
step-mother, and maintaining the business. At the time, his life
insurance payments were $20,000 per year. Too much, so we cashed out
that policy for only $30,000. Any income went to paying medical and
convalescent hospital bills. Because there was a conservatorship, I
had to sign away all my rights to his estate to avoid having to post
an expensive bond that supposedly insured that wouldn't steal money
<https://suretybondauthority.com/conservatorship-bond/>
Except for a few bonds that were held in my name, and the contents of
a safe deposit box (mostly my mothers jewelry), I received nothing
when he died. The house, its contents, 1/2 the business, etc went to
my step mother. When she died, that all went to her two worthless
sons.
Now, tell me again how I lived my entire life supported by my
non-existent inheritance? I want to hear how you imagine I lived in
opulent splendor, just like you are doing from your investments and
spectacular salaries.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

One of these days you're going to learn that you cannot understand the bullshit you spray all over this group. A watt-second is NOT a fucking acceleration. It is a CHANGE in potential energy. It's easy to see why your step mother left you nothing. None of that means that you are not living off of the work ethic of your father who actually worked for a living and didn't run away fron it as you. You were no doubt a great disappointment to him. Your postings if you could even understand what you write would be a disappointment to you but you're not smart enough.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 23:10:24 GMT, Tom Kunich <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
(Chomp)

Post by Tom Kunich
A watt-second is NOT a fucking acceleration. It is a CHANGE in potential energy.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
Gravitational_Potential_Energy
= mass * acceleration_of_gravity * height
The acceleration of gravity is 9.8 meters/second^2 at ground level.

Neither have anything to do with watt-seconds. Also, acceleration is
not measured in units of watt-seconds.


Congratulations. Your prospective fearless leader is winning the
hearts of liars everywhere. Feel free to rejoice:

"Closing the Stanford Internet Observatory will edge the US towards
the end of democracy"
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/29/closing-the-stanford-internet-observatory-will-edge-the-us-towards-the-end-of-democracy>
"The organization responsible for monitoring digital falsehoods is
reportedly being wound down after pressure from Republicans and
conspiracy theorists"

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
(Chomp)

Post by Tom Kunich
A watt-second is NOT a fucking acceleration. It is a CHANGE in potential energy.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
Gravitational_Potential_Energy
= mass * acceleration_of_gravity * height
The acceleration of gravity is 9.8 meters/second^2 at ground level.

Neither have anything to do with watt-seconds. Also, acceleration is
not measured in units of watt-seconds.
Congratulations. Your prospective fearless leader is winning the
"Closing the Stanford Internet Observatory will edge the US towards
the end of democracy"
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/29/closing-the-stanford-internet-observatory-will-edge-the-us-towards-the-end-of-democracy>
"The organization responsible for monitoring digital falsehoods is
reportedly being wound down after pressure from Republicans and
conspiracy theorists"
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Poor little Liebermann wants everyone to believe that he knows what he is talking about. "Democracy will end" if the lies about Trump are stopped. I received an email from Facebook telling me that they were checking all entries via an "independent fact check site" and did I agree with them. ALL of the "fact check" claims that I checked where nothikng more than utter agreement with the Biden administration.

The Pfizer vaccine was fact checked as "safe and effective" when as I told you THEN it was completely ineffective and dangerous as hell. I am quite surprised that someone like you who is immune damaged hasn't contracted cancer yet. But there's still time.

Oh, wait, you think that chemotheropy doesn't damage your immune system. Another of the famous Liebermann "facts".

I told Facebook that it wasn't their job to tell people what to think so they canceled my account.

[AMuzi]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Jeff Liebermann
Tom. I removed all the personal insults to make to make your
questions more readable.

Post by Tom Kunich
WHAT is a watt/second?

1 watt consumed for 1 second. However, you've fallen into a common
beginning physics trap. 1 watt-second does NOT equal 1 watt/second or
1 watt per second.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt>
"While a watt per hour is a unit of rate of change of power with time,
it is not correct to refer to a watt (or watt-hour) as a watt per
hour."

Post by Tom Kunich
Do you know what PEg=mgh means?

Gravitational_Potential_Energy
= mass * acceleration_of_gravity * height
The potential energy is in Joules or watt-seconds.
The mass is the weight in Kg.
The acceleration of gravity is 9.8 meters/second^2 at ground level.
The height is in meters.
<https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/7-3-gravitational-potential-energy/>
Is this a quiz? Why do you care if I know basic physics? You, not
me, are the one who is having problems understanding the basics. You
should have been introduced to the basic concepts in high school. Oh,
you didn't graduate high school, so you probably didn't have any
classes in basic physics.
I'm a fan of Khan Academy for teaching the basics. Unit 5 covers work
and energy. I suggest that you watch a few classes. Don't worry.
Nobody will know.

Post by Tom Kunich
...dropping the CG in a turn increases the power of the moving body.

Gosh. That's truly amazing. All I need to do is lay down on the
ground, which drops my center of mass to ground level, and I get a
free increase in "power". Somehow, that doesn't seem quite right. You
could replace "power" with potential energy, but then you have to
claim that a drop in my center of mass causes a decrease in potential
energy and not an increase. I think you could determine what you did
wrong with no additional assistance.
Please notice that I have replaced your "center of gravity" with
"center of mass". It's the mass that descends. Gravity doesn't move.

Post by Tom Kunich
If you were able to bend down on one knee and then stand up
perhaps you'd be able to detect that it requires signifcant
power to stand up again.

Mind if I lay down on the ground instead of bending the knee? If I
lay down on the ground, my center of gravity goes to ground level or
zero height. If I bend the knee, my center of mass descends a much
smaller distance than if I lay down on the ground.
I'm not sure exactly how you expect me to "detect" the "power" I need
to stand up. The energy required depends heavily on the speed at
which I stand up. If I do it slowly, I less energy. If I get up
quickly, it requires more energy.

Post by Tom Kunich
But rather than think, you prefer to blither. That is why
you've lived your entire life at the expense of your inheritance.

Thanks. You just made my day. Where did you ever get the idea that I
had an inheritance? When my father had a stroke in 1986 and spent 9.5
years mostly in a convalescent hospitals, the family managed to burn a
substantial amount of cash keeping him comfortable, supporting my
step-mother, and maintaining the business. At the time, his life
insurance payments were $20,000 per year. Too much, so we cashed out
that policy for only $30,000. Any income went to paying medical and
convalescent hospital bills. Because there was a conservatorship, I
had to sign away all my rights to his estate to avoid having to post
an expensive bond that supposedly insured that wouldn't steal money
<https://suretybondauthority.com/conservatorship-bond/>
Except for a few bonds that were held in my name, and the contents of
a safe deposit box (mostly my mothers jewelry), I received nothing
when he died. The house, its contents, 1/2 the business, etc went to
my step mother. When she died, that all went to her two worthless
sons.
Now, tell me again how I lived my entire life supported by my
non-existent inheritance? I want to hear how you imagine I lived in
opulent splendor, just like you are doing from your investments and
spectacular salaries.

One of these days you're going to learn that you cannot understand the bullshit you spray all over this group. A watt-second is NOT a fucking acceleration. It is a CHANGE in potential energy. It's easy to see why your step mother left you nothing. None of that means that you are not living off of the work ethic of your father who actually worked for a living and didn't run away fron it as you. You were no doubt a great disappointment to him. Your postings if you could even understand what you write would be a disappointment to you but you're not smart enough.

'Potential energy' is not work:

[Tom Kunich]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Jeff Liebermann
Tom. I removed all the personal insults to make to make your
questions more readable.

Post by Tom Kunich
WHAT is a watt/second?

1 watt consumed for 1 second. However, you've fallen into a common
beginning physics trap. 1 watt-second does NOT equal 1 watt/second or
1 watt per second.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt>
"While a watt per hour is a unit of rate of change of power with time,
it is not correct to refer to a watt (or watt-hour) as a watt per
hour."

Post by Tom Kunich
Do you know what PEg=mgh means?

Gravitational_Potential_Energy
= mass * acceleration_of_gravity * height
The potential energy is in Joules or watt-seconds.
The mass is the weight in Kg.
The acceleration of gravity is 9.8 meters/second^2 at ground level.
The height is in meters.
<https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/7-3-gravitational-potential-energy/>
Is this a quiz? Why do you care if I know basic physics? You, not
me, are the one who is having problems understanding the basics. You
should have been introduced to the basic concepts in high school. Oh,
you didn't graduate high school, so you probably didn't have any
classes in basic physics.
I'm a fan of Khan Academy for teaching the basics. Unit 5 covers work
and energy. I suggest that you watch a few classes. Don't worry.
Nobody will know.

Post by Tom Kunich
...dropping the CG in a turn increases the power of the moving body.

Gosh. That's truly amazing. All I need to do is lay down on the
ground, which drops my center of mass to ground level, and I get a
free increase in "power". Somehow, that doesn't seem quite right. You
could replace "power" with potential energy, but then you have to
claim that a drop in my center of mass causes a decrease in potential
energy and not an increase. I think you could determine what you did
wrong with no additional assistance.
Please notice that I have replaced your "center of gravity" with
"center of mass". It's the mass that descends. Gravity doesn't move.

Post by Tom Kunich
If you were able to bend down on one knee and then stand up
perhaps you'd be able to detect that it requires signifcant
power to stand up again.

Mind if I lay down on the ground instead of bending the knee? If I
lay down on the ground, my center of gravity goes to ground level or
zero height. If I bend the knee, my center of mass descends a much
smaller distance than if I lay down on the ground.
I'm not sure exactly how you expect me to "detect" the "power" I need
to stand up. The energy required depends heavily on the speed at
which I stand up. If I do it slowly, I less energy. If I get up
quickly, it requires more energy.

Post by Tom Kunich
But rather than think, you prefer to blither. That is why
you've lived your entire life at the expense of your inheritance.

Thanks. You just made my day. Where did you ever get the idea that I
had an inheritance? When my father had a stroke in 1986 and spent 9.5
years mostly in a convalescent hospitals, the family managed to burn a
substantial amount of cash keeping him comfortable, supporting my
step-mother, and maintaining the business. At the time, his life
insurance payments were $20,000 per year. Too much, so we cashed out
that policy for only $30,000. Any income went to paying medical and
convalescent hospital bills. Because there was a conservatorship, I
had to sign away all my rights to his estate to avoid having to post
an expensive bond that supposedly insured that wouldn't steal money
<https://suretybondauthority.com/conservatorship-bond/>
Except for a few bonds that were held in my name, and the contents of
a safe deposit box (mostly my mothers jewelry), I received nothing
when he died. The house, its contents, 1/2 the business, etc went to
my step mother. When she died, that all went to her two worthless
sons.
Now, tell me again how I lived my entire life supported by my
non-existent inheritance? I want to hear how you imagine I lived in
opulent splendor, just like you are doing from your investments and
spectacular salaries.

One of these days you're going to learn that you cannot understand the bullshit you spray all over this group. A watt-second is NOT a fucking acceleration. It is a CHANGE in potential energy. It's easy to see why your step mother left you nothing. None of that means that you are not living off of the work ethic of your father who actually worked for a living and didn't run away fron it as you. You were no doubt a great disappointment to him. Your postings if you could even understand what you write would be a disappointment to you but you're not smart enough.

http://youtu.be/WeYsTmIzjkw
--
Andrew Muzi
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

If you lower the center of gravity of an object you release energy. It has to go somewhere. According to Krygowski it does nothing. If you stoop down, standing up again takes quite a bit of energy but Krygowski hasn't noticed that in his life. Do you suppose he was really a physics major?

In any case - srooping down releases a lot of energy that has to be abwsorbed by your muscles and skeletal structure. If you're corning a bike and really laying it down, IF it breaks traction it is highly unusual for it to regain traction because the fall again adds additional energy to the bike and overloads the ability of the tires traction.

Frank doesn't fall because he rides like a little old lady frightened to death of broken bones and abrazed skin. So despite his supposed training he doesn't understand potential energy and its conversion to kenetic energy.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Tom Kunich
If you lower the center of gravity of an object you release energy. It has to go somewhere. According to Krygowski it does nothing.

Wrong. According to me, it does not necessarily cause an increase in
kinetic energy, especially if we're talking about the height of the
center of gravity (or center of mass) for a bicycle+rider.

You were claiming more KE by lowering the center of gravity, were you
not? So did you try what I suggested, standing while balancing your bike
at zero speed, then sitting down? Did your bike start moving without
pedaling?

Post by Tom Kunich
Do you suppose he was really a physics major?

I was never a physics major. My degrees are in engineering. How about
yours? Did you ever complete even one physics class?

[Zen Cycle]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
If you lower the center of gravity of an object you release energy. It
has to go somewhere. According to Krygowski it does nothing.

Wrong. According to me, it does not necessarily cause an increase in
kinetic energy, especially if we're talking about the height of the
center of gravity (or center of mass) for a bicycle+rider.
You were claiming more KE by lowering the center of gravity, were you
not? So did you try what I suggested, standing while balancing your bike
at zero speed, then sitting down? Did your bike start moving without
pedaling?

Post by Tom Kunich
Do you suppose he was really a physics major?

I was never a physics major. My degrees are in engineering. How about
yours? Did you ever complete even one physics class?

OF course he did! It's the course where he learned you can ride a dent
out of a top tube, aluminum oxide is flammable, and tire sealant stays
at the bottom of the tire while the wheel is turning! Now, we aren't
sure which plane of reality those laws apply to - it certainly isn't the
one the rest of us are in - but things in tommy world certainly are
different!

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich
If you lower the center of gravity of an object you release energy. It has to go somewhere. According to Krygowski it does nothing.

Wrong. According to me, it does not necessarily cause an increase in
kinetic energy, especially if we're talking about the height of the
center of gravity (or center of mass) for a bicycle+rider.
You were claiming more KE by lowering the center of gravity, were you
not? So did you try what I suggested, standing while balancing your bike
at zero speed, then sitting down? Did your bike start moving without
pedaling?

Post by Tom Kunich
Do you suppose he was really a physics major?

I was never a physics major. My degrees are in engineering. How about
yours? Did you ever complete even one physics class?
--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I went to school in California when they still had real public schools and taught physics in the 7th, 8th and 9th grades. All it woulkd take to verify my claims would be for your to stoop down and see if it raquired any energy to stand up again. Instead you want to pretend that no energy is gained by lowering the CG in a gravity field. You could even look on the internet and find calculators that SHOW the differential energy were you to bother to look rather than believing your own endless bullshit.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski
I was never a physics major. My degrees are in engineering. How about
yours? Did you ever complete even one physics class?

Frank, I went to school in California when they still had real public schools and taught physics in the 7th, 8th and 9th grades.

No, Tom, you did not take a real physics course in 7th, 8th or 9th
grades. A genuine physics course has prerequisite courses - typically
algebra, geometry, trigonometry 1, trigonometry 2 and preferably two
calculus courses, but at least one of them.

Whatever you dimly remember taking in middle school was NOT physics.

[zen cycle]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Frank Krygowski
I was never a physics major. My degrees are in engineering. How about
yours? Did you ever complete even one physics class?

Frank, I went to school in California when they still had real public
schools and taught physics in the 7th, 8th and 9th grades.

No, Tom, you did not take a real physics course in 7th, 8th or 9th
grades. A genuine physics course has prerequisite courses - typically
algebra, geometry, trigonometry 1, trigonometry 2 and preferably two
calculus courses, but at least one of them.
Whatever you dimly remember taking in middle school was NOT physics.

musta been one of those school systems where they teach Critical Race
Theory in kindergarten.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Tom Kunich
I went to school in California when they still had real public schools and taught physics in the 7th, 8th and 9th grades.

That would be Jr High School. I was 4 years behind you and I don't
recall taking any physics classes. It's possible, but I doubt it.

These days, physics is taught in the 10th, 11th, and 12th grades:
<https://www.time4learning.com/homeschool-curriculum/high-school-physics.html>
"In high school, physics is usually taught in 11th grade, although
some students may take the course in 12th grade or as early as 10th
grade depending on their academic level."

How much of high school you attended before dropping out is not known.
"When Can You Drop Out of School in California?"
California students may drop out legally once they turn 18. Students
who are 16 or 17 may also leave school, but only if they:
- have their parents’ permission, and
- pass the California High School Proficiency Exam,
which leads to a certificate that’s equivalent to
a diploma..."

I really like the way you faked your high school graduation by
registering yourself as a 1962 graduating alumni:

Graduated(???) from Castlemont High School, Class of 1962:
<http://castlemonthighschool.org/alumni/3481231/tom-kunich.html>
- Registered as a CHS Class of 1962 alumni. 2012
- Added photos to their personal photo gallery. 2012
- Updated his profile picture. 2012

However, I'll assume that the 1962 graduating date was correct had you
actually graduated. Therefore, you would have been:
1962 - 1944 = 18
years old when you would have graduated.

<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/MyPJ4MA3e60/m/-TZfbH7xAQAJ>
"I was born in October of 1944. I joined at 17.5 Those with the
ability to add would assume that I joined the Air Force in May of
1961. 4 years of active duty and two years inactive liable to be
recalled would to most people mean that I got off of active duty in
1965 and finished my service of the Air Force in 1967."

Therefore, you probably graduated just before your last year in high
school when you were eligible to drop out of high school. If your
school offered physics in the 11th grade, when you were 17, you would
have had some physics education. However, if your school offered
physics in the 12the grade, you would have dropped out before the
classes were offered.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
I really like the way you faked your high school graduation by
<http://castlemonthighschool.org/alumni/3481231/tom-kunich.html>
- Registered as a CHS Class of 1962 alumni. 2012
- Added photos to their personal photo gallery. 2012
- Updated his profile picture. 2012

Incidentally, CHS means "College in High School". It's an advanced
placement and dual enrollment program where the student earns high
school and college credits while still in high school. Somehow, that
doesn't sound like our Tom, who dropped out before he graduated high
school, never attended college, and has the academic abilities of a
brick.

Degree in navigation and Chabot College in Hayward
02/09/2021
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/o6omSxsfAgAJ>
"general education - Degree in navigation
Tality requested I get a BA so that they could promote me to
department manager

09/18/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/H5UQas_9HLA/m/p9rFmANKBgAJ>
"I dropped out of the city college because it was adding absolutely
nothing to my career goals and wasn't that more important? Having a
piece of paper saying that I could read and write would have allowed
me to assume a VP position in my company. But I was perfectly
satisfied being an engineer and project leader."

08/28/2023
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/UlnAtHIZnTg/m/nFzXScJWAQAJ>
"I just pulled out a ring binder and there was my degree from the
College of Marin for ship's navigation. I took that course because I
was on yacht crews racing up and down the California coast. But it was
a recognized commercial degree so that I could have been a ship's
navigator if I wasn't making a ton of money as a electronics and
software engineer actually going things unlike Flunky"

Amazing. I didn't know you could obtain a college degree by taking
one course.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Tom Kunich
I went to school in California when they still had real public schools and taught physics in the 7th, 8th and 9th grades.

That would be Jr High School. I was 4 years behind you and I don't
recall taking any physics classes. It's possible, but I doubt it.
<https://www.time4learning.com/homeschool-curriculum/high-school-physics.html>
"In high school, physics is usually taught in 11th grade, although
some students may take the course in 12th grade or as early as 10th
grade depending on their academic level."
How much of high school you attended before dropping out is not known.
"When Can You Drop Out of School in California?"
California students may drop out legally once they turn 18. Students
- have their parents? permission, and
- pass the California High School Proficiency Exam,
which leads to a certificate that?s equivalent to
a diploma..."
I really like the way you faked your high school graduation by
<http://castlemonthighschool.org/alumni/3481231/tom-kunich.html>
- Registered as a CHS Class of 1962 alumni. 2012
- Added photos to their personal photo gallery. 2012
- Updated his profile picture. 2012
However, I'll assume that the 1962 graduating date was correct had you
1962 - 1944 = 18
years old when you would have graduated.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/MyPJ4MA3e60/m/-TZfbH7xAQAJ>
"I was born in October of 1944. I joined at 17.5 Those with the
ability to add would assume that I joined the Air Force in May of
1961. 4 years of active duty and two years inactive liable to be
recalled would to most people mean that I got off of active duty in
1965 and finished my service of the Air Force in 1967."
Therefore, you probably graduated just before your last year in high
school when you were eligible to drop out of high school. If your
school offered physics in the 11th grade, when you were 17, you would
have had some physics education. However, if your school offered
physics in the 12the grade, you would have dropped out before the
classes were offered.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

When schools had students interested in learning they taught them. Apparently by the time you got there it was your belief that actual knowledge is something you didn't need. Not to mention that in those days there was an entire section in the library dedicated to physics. And I read every book even when they were repetitive.

You and Flunky repeatedly show that you never had it in you to work deeply in electronics. Why do you continue to pretend that you know anything about it? As for your "believing" me. I couldn't care less. Or that ass Flunky's belief that if I really had money I would throw it around like it was water.

Actually earning a living in the business puts me rather above your silly claims. Try and find someone that needs their inkjet printer cartridges changed for them.

[AMuzi]

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by AMuzi

Post by Tom Kunich

Post by Jeff Liebermann
Tom. I removed all the personal insults to make to make your
questions more readable.

Post by Tom Kunich
WHAT is a watt/second?

1 watt consumed for 1 second. However, you've fallen into a common
beginning physics trap. 1 watt-second does NOT equal 1 watt/second or
1 watt per second.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt>
"While a watt per hour is a unit of rate of change of power with time,
it is not correct to refer to a watt (or watt-hour) as a watt per
hour."

Post by Tom Kunich
Do you know what PEg=mgh means?

Gravitational_Potential_Energy
= mass * acceleration_of_gravity * height
The potential energy is in Joules or watt-seconds.
The mass is the weight in Kg.
The acceleration of gravity is 9.8 meters/second^2 at ground level.
The height is in meters.
<https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/7-3-gravitational-potential-energy/>
Is this a quiz? Why do you care if I know basic physics? You, not
me, are the one who is having problems understanding the basics. You
should have been introduced to the basic concepts in high school. Oh,
you didn't graduate high school, so you probably didn't have any
classes in basic physics.
I'm a fan of Khan Academy for teaching the basics. Unit 5 covers work
and energy. I suggest that you watch a few classes. Don't worry.
Nobody will know.

Post by Tom Kunich
...dropping the CG in a turn increases the power of the moving body.

Gosh. That's truly amazing. All I need to do is lay down on the
ground, which drops my center of mass to ground level, and I get a
free increase in "power". Somehow, that doesn't seem quite right. You
could replace "power" with potential energy, but then you have to
claim that a drop in my center of mass causes a decrease in potential
energy and not an increase. I think you could determine what you did
wrong with no additional assistance.
Please notice that I have replaced your "center of gravity" with
"center of mass". It's the mass that descends. Gravity doesn't move.

Post by Tom Kunich
If you were able to bend down on one knee and then stand up
perhaps you'd be able to detect that it requires signifcant
power to stand up again.

Mind if I lay down on the ground instead of bending the knee? If I
lay down on the ground, my center of gravity goes to ground level or
zero height. If I bend the knee, my center of mass descends a much
smaller distance than if I lay down on the ground.
I'm not sure exactly how you expect me to "detect" the "power" I need
to stand up. The energy required depends heavily on the speed at
which I stand up. If I do it slowly, I less energy. If I get up
quickly, it requires more energy.

Post by Tom Kunich
But rather than think, you prefer to blither. That is why
you've lived your entire life at the expense of your inheritance.

Thanks. You just made my day. Where did you ever get the idea that I
had an inheritance? When my father had a stroke in 1986 and spent 9.5
years mostly in a convalescent hospitals, the family managed to burn a
substantial amount of cash keeping him comfortable, supporting my
step-mother, and maintaining the business. At the time, his life
insurance payments were $20,000 per year. Too much, so we cashed out
that policy for only $30,000. Any income went to paying medical and
convalescent hospital bills. Because there was a conservatorship, I
had to sign away all my rights to his estate to avoid having to post
an expensive bond that supposedly insured that wouldn't steal money
<https://suretybondauthority.com/conservatorship-bond/>
Except for a few bonds that were held in my name, and the contents of
a safe deposit box (mostly my mothers jewelry), I received nothing
when he died. The house, its contents, 1/2 the business, etc went to
my step mother. When she died, that all went to her two worthless
sons.
Now, tell me again how I lived my entire life supported by my
non-existent inheritance? I want to hear how you imagine I lived in
opulent splendor, just like you are doing from your investments and
spectacular salaries.

One of these days you're going to learn that you cannot understand the bullshit you spray all over this group. A watt-second is NOT a fucking acceleration. It is a CHANGE in potential energy. It's easy to see why your step mother left you nothing. None of that means that you are not living off of the work ethic of your father who actually worked for a living and didn't run away fron it as you. You were no doubt a great disappointment to him. Your postings if you could even understand what you write would be a disappointment to you but you're not smart enough.

http://youtu.be/WeYsTmIzjkw

If you lower the center of gravity of an object you release energy. It has to go somewhere. According to Krygowski it does nothing. If you stoop down, standing up again takes quite a bit of energy but Krygowski hasn't noticed that in his life. Do you suppose he was really a physics major?
In any case - srooping down releases a lot of energy that has to be abwsorbed by your muscles and skeletal structure. If you're corning a bike and really laying it down, IF it breaks traction it is highly unusual for it to regain traction because the fall again adds additional energy to the bike and overloads the ability of the tires traction.
Frank doesn't fall because he rides like a little old lady frightened to death of broken bones and abrazed skin. So despite his supposed training he doesn't understand potential energy and its conversion to kenetic energy.

Are you familiar with Afro Man in the link above?

'Potential energy' is not work. In Afro Man's phrasing, "I
was gonna sprint out of the pack, but then I got high" etc.