Buy that wheelbuilder a drink!

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 3:35:29 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/9/2018 5:25 PM, wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 7:08:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/8/2018 5:40 PM, wrote:

Consider Andrew, there is no possible way a bicycle tire has sufficient traction to do this. The total amount of traction of the tire has to be measure in ft/lbs of energy.

Tom, those units of measurement don't make sense.

"Traction" usually refers to a force. Depending on context, I suppose it
could possibly refer to a coefficient of friction. Neither of those is
"energy." And neither force, coefficient of friction nor energy have
units ft/lbs.

--
- Frank Krygowski

ft/lbs/sec if you have to have your hand held.

Nope, wrong again. Sorry!


--
- Frank Krygowski

It has gotten so that anything you post is no surprise any mo

Foot-pound per second is a power measurement unit. A foot-pound per second (ft-lb/sec) is a non-SI (non-System International) measurement unit of power.ORT? TT?1 foot-pound per second = 1.818×10-3 horsepower.

I absolutely LOVE to see your claim that a tire has more power in its traction than the bumper of a moving vehicle.

Have you considered moving into that old folks home now that your Alzheimer's is getting out of control?

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 6:26:15 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:35:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/9/2018 5:25 PM, wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 7:08:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/8/2018 5:40 PM, wrote:

Consider Andrew, there is no possible way a bicycle tire has sufficient traction to do this. The total amount of traction of the tire has to be measure in ft/lbs of energy.

Tom, those units of measurement don't make sense.

"Traction" usually refers to a force. Depending on context, I suppose it
could possibly refer to a coefficient of friction. Neither of those is
"energy." And neither force, coefficient of friction nor energy have
units ft/lbs.

--
- Frank Krygowski

ft/lbs/sec if you have to have your hand held.

Nope, wrong again. Sorry!


Braking force is measured in different ways, but the easiest to
visualize is kinetic energy in kj and braking time which equals
kilowatts .

kj (kilo joules) is usually calculated as half the product of the
mass times the square of the speed.

Or perhaps mass (in Kilograms) times deceleration (meters per second)
equals Force (in Newtons).

See http://www.adilca.com/BRAKING_FORCE.pdf

Where were we speaking about braking power? We were talking about traction of a bicycle tire at rest. This is completely aside from the fact that a bike that was stopped would have the rider with his own feet on the ground and the traction of the tires small.

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 7:17:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If Tom's use of "traction" was intended to mean a force, then as the
example on page 5 of that PDF says, an appropriate unit would be Newtons
(or kiloNewtons). In the U.S., the appropriate unit would be pounds.

Again, depending on context, someone might use the word "traction" to
refer to the coefficient of friction. In that case, it would be
unitless, since coefficient of friction is a ratio of one force to
another. Newtons/Newtons = unitless.

I can't think of another possible meaning for the word "traction," but
I"m willing to listen to ideas.

The last units Tom gave would simplify to ft*sec/lb which would be
something like velocity/force. It makes no sense in relation to "traction."

There's that Alzheimer's again. We were talking about the FORCE it would take to crush the front of a car using the traction of a bicycle wheel. Why don't you now start talking about how much energy it would take to fly a spaceship to the nearest star?

On 10/10/2018 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 7:17:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If Tom's use of "traction" was intended to mean a force, then as the
example on page 5 of that PDF says, an appropriate unit would be Newtons
(or kiloNewtons). In the U.S., the appropriate unit would be pounds.

Again, depending on context, someone might use the word "traction" to
refer to the coefficient of friction. In that case, it would be
unitless, since coefficient of friction is a ratio of one force to
another. Newtons/Newtons = unitless.

I can't think of another possible meaning for the word "traction," but
I"m willing to listen to ideas.

The last units Tom gave would simplify to ft*sec/lb which would be
something like velocity/force. It makes no sense in relation to "traction."

(BTW, that's not really velocity/force. The units he gave actually make
less sense than that.)


There's that Alzheimer's again. We were talking about the FORCE it would take to crush the front of a car using the traction of a bicycle wheel. Why don't you now start talking about how much energy it would take to fly a spaceship to the nearest star?

Tom: What are the units on force? Look it up, please!

It's easiest if you stick with the SI system, where the clear answer is
Newtons.

The U.S. or Imperial system got itself in a tangle by using pounds to
represent both weight (the force of gravity) and mass (the amount of
matter). That eventually led to weirdnesses like "pounds force" and
"pounds mass" and "poundals" etc.

But even the weird U.S. system has never measured force as the ft/lb you
claimed. Nor the ft/lb/sec you later claimed. And it clearly
differentiates between force and energy, which you seem to have confused.

This is all basic physics.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:05:00 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped

The U.S. or Imperial system got itself in a tangle by using pounds to
represent both weight (the force of gravity) and mass (the amount of
matter). That eventually led to weirdnesses like "pounds force" and
"pounds mass" and "poundals" etc.

Snipped
- Frank Krygowski

Rather like the metric system with grams etcetera? LOL

Cheers

On 10/10/2018 10:42 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 3:35:29 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/9/2018 5:25 PM, wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 7:08:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/8/2018 5:40 PM, wrote:

Consider Andrew, there is no possible way a bicycle tire has sufficient traction to do this. The total amount of traction of the tire has to be measure in ft/lbs of energy.

Tom, those units of measurement don't make sense.

"Traction" usually refers to a force. Depending on context, I suppose it
could possibly refer to a coefficient of friction. Neither of those is
"energy." And neither force, coefficient of friction nor energy have
units ft/lbs.

--
- Frank Krygowski

ft/lbs/sec if you have to have your hand held.

Nope, wrong again. Sorry!


--
- Frank Krygowski

It has gotten so that anything you post is no surprise any mo

Foot-pound per second is a power measurement unit.

Right. Although that's not what you wrote earlier. And in any case,
power is not the same as traction.

A foot-pound per second (ft-lb/sec) is a non-SI (non-System International) measurement unit of power.

Right again. You did a much better job with the unit abbreviations that
time.

ORT? TT?

That's a bit hard to understand.

1 foot-pound per second = 1.818×10-3 horsepower.

Now you're diving into irrelevance.

I absolutely LOVE to see your claim that a tire has more power in its traction than the bumper of a moving vehicle.

I don't know what to say to a person who implies that power equals
traction, or that a moving vehicle's bumper has power.

Except, perhaps, PLEASE enroll in Physics 101. There's so much you could
learn!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:05:00 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/10/2018 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 7:17:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If Tom's use of "traction" was intended to mean a force, then as the
example on page 5 of that PDF says, an appropriate unit would be Newtons
(or kiloNewtons). In the U.S., the appropriate unit would be pounds.

Again, depending on context, someone might use the word "traction" to
refer to the coefficient of friction. In that case, it would be
unitless, since coefficient of friction is a ratio of one force to
another. Newtons/Newtons = unitless.

I can't think of another possible meaning for the word "traction," but
I"m willing to listen to ideas.

The last units Tom gave would simplify to ft*sec/lb which would be
something like velocity/force. It makes no sense in relation to "traction."

(BTW, that's not really velocity/force. The units he gave actually make
less sense than that.)


There's that Alzheimer's again. We were talking about the FORCE it would take to crush the front of a car using the traction of a bicycle wheel. Why don't you now start talking about how much energy it would take to fly a spaceship to the nearest star?

Tom: What are the units on force? Look it up, please!

It's easiest if you stick with the SI system, where the clear answer is
Newtons.

The U.S. or Imperial system got itself in a tangle by using pounds to
represent both weight (the force of gravity) and mass (the amount of
matter). That eventually led to weirdnesses like "pounds force" and
"pounds mass" and "poundals" etc.

But even the weird U.S. system has never measured force as the ft/lb you
claimed. Nor the ft/lb/sec you later claimed. And it clearly
differentiates between force and energy, which you seem to have confused.

This is all basic physics.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Why are you continuing to claim that a bicycle tire has more force in its traction than a moving vehicle does in its bodywork? Please don't tell me about "basic physics" since I have worked with it for 40 years and you haven't.

On 10/10/2018 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:05:00 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Tom: What are the units on force? Look it up, please!

It's easiest if you stick with the SI system, where the clear answer is
Newtons.

The U.S. or Imperial system got itself in a tangle by using pounds to
represent both weight (the force of gravity) and mass (the amount of
matter). That eventually led to weirdnesses like "pounds force" and
"pounds mass" and "poundals" etc.

But even the weird U.S. system has never measured force as the ft/lb you
claimed. Nor the ft/lb/sec you later claimed. And it clearly
differentiates between force and energy, which you seem to have confused.

This is all basic physics.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Why are you continuing to claim that a bicycle tire has more force in its traction than a moving vehicle does in its bodywork? Please don't tell me about "basic physics" since I have worked with it for 40 years and you haven't.

Tom, I entered this sub-thread primarily to correct your units of
measurement, partly because they demonstrate ignorance of fundamental
physics. Statements like "... the force... a moving vehicle [has] in its
bodywork..." show conclusively that you are still ignorant of these
concepts.

I don't know what work you did with basic physics. I suppose a major
league batter can be said to "work with basic physics" when he whacks
out a double. But that doesn't mean he knows anything about force, mass,
acceleration, energy, power or strength of materials.

Time for a little tale:

Many years ago, some young entrepreneurs fleeced money out of some local
investors with a weird scheme to gather power out of the air. IIRC,
their statement was something like "Our machine extracts power from the
enthalpy of the air." (I know the term "enthalpy" was prominent in their
claims.)

Well! They put on a little lecture in our building to supposedly explain
their technology. I was too busy to attend, but my colleagues who did
attend came back shaking their heads. The one who was my best friend
there (and who had a PhD in thermodynamics) said "They couldn't even
keep their units of measurement straight!"

To him, that alone was a sure sign the kids were blowing smoke. And sure
enough, after getting a few hundred thousand dollars from local people
with more money than... well, than physics knowledge, the dudes left
town and probably left the country.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:54:37 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/10/2018 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:05:00 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Tom: What are the units on force? Look it up, please!

It's easiest if you stick with the SI system, where the clear answer is
Newtons.

The U.S. or Imperial system got itself in a tangle by using pounds to
represent both weight (the force of gravity) and mass (the amount of
matter). That eventually led to weirdnesses like "pounds force" and
"pounds mass" and "poundals" etc.

But even the weird U.S. system has never measured force as the ft/lb you
claimed. Nor the ft/lb/sec you later claimed. And it clearly
differentiates between force and energy, which you seem to have confused.

This is all basic physics.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Why are you continuing to claim that a bicycle tire has more force in its traction than a moving vehicle does in its bodywork? Please don't tell me about "basic physics" since I have worked with it for 40 years and you haven't.

Tom, I entered this sub-thread primarily to correct your units of
measurement, partly because they demonstrate ignorance of fundamental
physics. Statements like "... the force... a moving vehicle [has] in its
bodywork..." show conclusively that you are still ignorant of these
concepts.

I don't know what work you did with basic physics. I suppose a major
league batter can be said to "work with basic physics" when he whacks
out a double. But that doesn't mean he knows anything about force, mass,
acceleration, energy, power or strength of materials.

Time for a little tale:

Many years ago, some young entrepreneurs fleeced money out of some local
investors with a weird scheme to gather power out of the air. IIRC,
their statement was something like "Our machine extracts power from the
enthalpy of the air." (I know the term "enthalpy" was prominent in their
claims.)

Well! They put on a little lecture in our building to supposedly explain
their technology. I was too busy to attend, but my colleagues who did
attend came back shaking their heads. The one who was my best friend
there (and who had a PhD in thermodynamics) said "They couldn't even
keep their units of measurement straight!"

To him, that alone was a sure sign the kids were blowing smoke. And sure
enough, after getting a few hundred thousand dollars from local people
with more money than... well, than physics knowledge, the dudes left
town and probably left the country.

Frank, If you attempt to stop a moving car you HAVE TO convert the potential energy to force to calculate what sort of FORCE it would take to absorb that potential energy. I find it odd that you don't know that or that when speaking of ft/lbs you would not assume ft/lb/secs but require someone to hold your hand and give you SI units and perhaps even calculate it out for you when it is common sense that a BICYCLE DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH TRACTION TO DAMAGE A MOVING CAR.

For Christ's sake - I was hit by a car at 15 mph and knocked over the hood. It damaged every single component on the bike and some personal damage and there wasn't so much as a SCRATCH on the paint of that car.

In what world do you live?

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:54:37 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Well! They put on a little lecture in our building to supposedly explain
their technology. I was too busy to attend, but my colleagues who did
attend came back shaking their heads. The one who was my best friend
there (and who had a PhD in thermodynamics) said "They couldn't even
keep their units of measurement straight!"

To him, that alone was a sure sign the kids were blowing smoke. And sure
enough, after getting a few hundred thousand dollars from local people
with more money than... well, than physics knowledge, the dudes left
town and probably left the country.

And your entire company didn't even know the laws of thermodynamics?