Nice tires

Tom Sherman writes

For about $50K, one can get a nice gravity meter
to verify this.

...guess what my 2¢ nerd meter says...

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:03:07 -0600, Tom Sherman
wrote:

How much do they weigh?

To little information in the question to provide an answer, since the
local value of gravity was not specified.

To avoid this issue in the future, please ask what the mass of the tires is.

Hope this helps,

It may do, but only if I have Pedant Flakes (© Tim McNamara) for
breakfast tomorrow morning ...

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 12:30:44 -0800 (PST),
" wrote:

I don't know how much they weigh at your latitude, but at mine the
difference between weight and mass are well within the tolerance of my
cheap scale! 240g.

Thanks - I'll assume that for all practical purposes, the difference
between weight and mass in Paris is the same as in Oslo!

On Mar 8, 10:36*pm, Andrew Price wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 12:30:44 -0800 (PST),

" wrote:
I don't know how much they weigh at your latitude, but at mine the
difference between weight and mass are well within the tolerance of my
cheap scale! 240g.

Thanks - I'll assume that for all practical purposes, the difference
between weight and mass in Paris is the same as in Oslo!

That of course depends upon how fast you ride!

I think these would make great urban tires for anyone looking for a 23
(the come in 25 too it seems).

Joseph

aka Joseph Santaniello wrote:
On Mar 8, 10:36 pm, Andrew Price wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 12:30:44 -0800 (PST),

" wrote:
I don't know how much they weigh at your latitude, but at mine the
difference between weight and mass are well within the tolerance of my
cheap scale! 240g.
Thanks - I'll assume that for all practical purposes, the difference
between weight and mass in Paris is the same as in Oslo!

That of course depends upon how fast you ride!
[...]

Yes indeed, since mass increases with velocity.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:35:00 -0500, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Thanks - I'll assume that for all practical purposes, the difference
between weight and mass in Paris is the same as in Oslo!

That of course depends upon how fast you ride!
[...]

Yes indeed, since mass increases with velocity.

Looks like I need to borrow Michael Baldwin's 2¢ nerd meter ...

On Mar 9, 10:34*am, Andrew Price wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:35:00 -0500, Tom Sherman

wrote:
Thanks - I'll assume that for all practical purposes, the difference
between weight and mass in Paris is the same as in Oslo!

That of course depends upon how fast you ride!
[...]

Yes indeed, since mass increases with velocity.

Looks like I need to borrow Michael Baldwin's 2¢ nerd meter ...

Usenet, physics jokes, bicycles, Saturday night? You need equipment to
figure out we're nerds?

Joseph

In article ,
Andrew Price wrote:

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:35:00 -0500, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Thanks - I'll assume that for all practical purposes, the difference
between weight and mass in Paris is the same as in Oslo!

That of course depends upon how fast you ride!
[...]

Yes indeed, since mass increases with velocity.

Looks like I need to borrow Michael Baldwin's 2¢ nerd meter ...

Actually, mass does not increase with velocity.
Furthermore, velocity is a vector quantity,
so one should use the term `speed.'

One of the problems with relativistic mass increase
is that the derived inertial mass is no longer
equal to gravitational mass.

http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/startrek-relativity-FTL/1-5-1-Rest-Mass-versus-Observed-Mass-Special-Relativity.html

The observed mass concept doesn't really work here, and
we see that it's better to simply argue that the mass
isn't really increasing, but rather the equations for
energy and momentum are different than expressed by
Newtonian physics.

So, "observed mass" has its uses, but physicists today
rarely use the concept in practice. Rather, an object
is said to have a rest mass (which truly is its
inherent internal energy) as well as an energy due to
its motion with respect to an observer (kinetic energy)
which come together to produce its total energy, E.

--
Michael Press

On Mar 9, 2:34 pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Price wrote:

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:35:00 -0500, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Thanks - I'll assume that for all practical purposes, the difference
between weight and mass in Paris is the same as in Oslo!

That of course depends upon how fast you ride!
[...]

Yes indeed, since mass increases with velocity.

Looks like I need to borrow Michael Baldwin's 2¢ nerd meter ...

Actually, mass does not increase with velocity.
Furthermore, velocity is a vector quantity,
so one should use the term `speed.'

One of the problems with relativistic mass increase
is that the derived inertial mass is no longer
equal to gravitational mass.

http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/startrek-relativity-FTL/1-5-...

The observed mass concept doesn't really work here, and
we see that it's better to simply argue that the mass
isn't really increasing, but rather the equations for
energy and momentum are different than expressed by
Newtonian physics.

So, "observed mass" has its uses, but physicists today
rarely use the concept in practice. Rather, an object
is said to have a rest mass (which truly is its
inherent internal energy) as well as an energy due to
its motion with respect to an observer (kinetic energy)
which come together to produce its total energy, E.

--
Michael Press

Pegged it!