|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 12:52:01 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/3/2019 1:05 PM, wrote: On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 8:53:34 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/2/2019 7:52 PM, wrote: On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: Would you accept answers from guys (or gals) that have taught physics? After the crap you've been slinging around here the next thing I expect is for you to tell us all you're pregnant. And no, I wouldn't believe a single word out of your disabled brain. I'm not surprised. You adamantly choose ignorance. -- - Frank Krygowski And you adamantly chose to ignore evidence that the world may not operate the way you think it should. ... as if F=m*a is my own daydream! Tom, I'm wondering if there's any limit to the nonsense you'll believe. -- - Frank Krygowski This is E = 1/2MV^2 that you're thinking of I believe. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL
On 3/4/2019 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 12:52:01 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/3/2019 1:05 PM, wrote: On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 8:53:34 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/2/2019 7:52 PM, wrote: On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: Would you accept answers from guys (or gals) that have taught physics? After the crap you've been slinging around here the next thing I expect is for you to tell us all you're pregnant. And no, I wouldn't believe a single word out of your disabled brain. I'm not surprised. You adamantly choose ignorance. -- - Frank Krygowski And you adamantly chose to ignore evidence that the world may not operate the way you think it should. ... as if F=m*a is my own daydream! Tom, I'm wondering if there's any limit to the nonsense you'll believe. -- - Frank Krygowski This is E = 1/2MV^2 that you're thinking of I believe. sigh No, Tom. If you want to discuss this phenomenon of your in terms of kinetic energy (therefore work done on the system), I suppose we can do that. The result is the same: what you claim is simply not possible. But especially since you claimed you experienced an acceleration, it's far simpler to discuss this in terms of forces and resulting accelerations. Acceleration is net force divided by mass, and is in the same direction as the net force. If you're claiming a forward acceleration, you need an applied force in the forward direction that's greater than the retarding forces of air resistance and rolling resistance. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL
On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 11:38:49 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 12:52:01 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/3/2019 1:05 PM, wrote: On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 8:53:34 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/2/2019 7:52 PM, wrote: On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:45:12 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: Would you accept answers from guys (or gals) that have taught physics? After the crap you've been slinging around here the next thing I expect is for you to tell us all you're pregnant. And no, I wouldn't believe a single word out of your disabled brain. I'm not surprised. You adamantly choose ignorance. -- - Frank Krygowski And you adamantly chose to ignore evidence that the world may not operate the way you think it should. ... as if F=m*a is my own daydream! Tom, I'm wondering if there's any limit to the nonsense you'll believe. -- - Frank Krygowski This is E = 1/2MV^2 that you're thinking of I believe. Tom what energy is converted in kinetic energy so the speed increases? Lou |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 10:25:54 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 19:45:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/2/2019 11:53 AM, wrote: On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:11:48 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 3/1/2019 3:55 PM, wrote: On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 9:32:15 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/1/2019 11:15 AM, wrote: On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/22/2019 1:39 PM, wrote: On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 6:31:09 PM UTC+1, wrote: On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:46:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/21/2019 4:27 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:10:42 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/21/2019 12:52 PM, wrote: Remember that I was describing the coast down test I had up in Cull Canyon where I would coast down a really rough section of road and then it would flatten out and when I hit a 100 yard long patch of new and very smooth pavement the bike would actually accelerate? Everyone wanted to argue that wasn't possible but I did it again and again. As the summer wore on the asphalt aged and got rougher and though it was still pretty smooth the effect had disappeared. When you say the road "would flatten out" do you mean it was horizontal, instead of downhill? Or do you mean the bumps went away and it remained downhill? -- - Frank Krygowski It went downhill on a very rough road, flattened to horizontal or at least the 0% grade indication on my altimeter and then it climbed a bit before descending a bike. The increase in speed was immediate upon entering the smooth section and not a slow build up of speed as would come from a declining road. OK, if you were coasting and you had no tailwind that exceeded your speed, you had nobody pushing you forward (which I've done for people many times), and you had no rope towing you or some other weird situation... And your bike actually accelerated when the road was horizontal? Yes, that's impossible. Sorry, Tom, this is basic physics. (And I had to include the rope tow because that was Jute's "deus ex machina" on his first weird braggart tale here.) Your story does, however, indicate the power of suggestion and how it can mess with our perceptions. -- - Frank Krygowski Frank, if this is against physics why haven't you actually explained this to us? To my way of thinking if E = 1/2M*V^2 and you reduce the rolling resistance you coast for a longer distance to expend the energy. But that isn't what happened. As I said - when I hit the smooth pavement the bike increased its speed. This was not a single case but multiple experiments and as the smooth pavement degraded over the summer and grew rougher the increasing speed disappeared at least to the level where it wasn't detectable. I think what Frank tries to say is that to be able to accelerate there must be a driving force, one of Newtons laws. If you are coasting on flat terrain without a tailwind there is no driving force. Exactly. In fact, there are retarding forces, those being air resistance and rolling resistance, at a minimum. And as to Tom's question, why haven't I explained it? I guess I foolishly persist in believing that some things are obvious to educated people. -- - Frank Krygowski So when faced by experimental fact you simply deny it. Seem like most teachers. "That ain't what I believe so it didn't happen." Real education there alright. The reason that I mentioned this in the first place is because it did not meet my understanding of physics. I tried this multiple times with the same results. I expected that someone here would have some explanation for it and instead some jackasses said that it was impossible and my personal experience wasn't just incorrect but a lie. This is the sort of people that inhabit this site. Freaks like Slocumb that tell us what it is like in the US after living most of his life in foreign countries and Frank who was used to dictating "the truth" to students and thinks that the whole world is now as stupid as his students were for not punching his lights out. A week ago I did the same route. The asphalt has now degraded to the same consistency as that of the surrounding area and it acts just as you would expect it to. Yes, Tom, we foolishly persist in believing that F=m*a just because Newton demonstrated it hundreds of years ago and it's been confirmed by millions of measurements ever since. We foolishly doubt a guy who claims he felt his bike accelerate when no force was available to accelerate it, and when there had to be forces decelerating it. And who has many times attested to his own bad memory. Oh, and who now says the phenomenon has stopped, so his world has returned to normal physics. So we believe fundamental 10th grade science instead of your daydreams. We are an odd bunch, all right! -- - Frank Krygowski Make another moronic statement. It makes you look so smart. I actually measured that speed increase on the speedo. Initially I was 2 mph when I entered that section at 20. And it didn't increase as if the flat was a little downhill but very rapidly. And as I said - after the asphalt aged to the same roughness of the approach that speed increase disappeared. Which is why on really smooth surfaces, bicyclists never have to pedal? You're spouting an entirely new level of nonsense. There are spots at which it's hard to tell by eye whether the road is ascending or descending, some sort of optical illusion. -- I agree with you there but the acceleration was too rapid to be from gravity. I have asked a question over on the physics forum. Let's see if they have any answers. Would you accept answers from guys (or gals) that have taught physics? Would that be folks that are expert in the use of physic? I'm just begging for tom to post the link to the forum where he asked the question. Make your popcorn before you click the link, ladies and gentlemen..... |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 1:43:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/3/2019 12:02 PM, wrote: On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 7:02:56 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: writes: On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:11:48 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 3/1/2019 3:55 PM, wrote: On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 9:32:15 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/1/2019 11:15 AM, wrote: On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/22/2019 1:39 PM, wrote: On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 6:31:09 PM UTC+1, wrote: On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:46:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/21/2019 4:27 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:10:42 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/21/2019 12:52 PM, wrote: Remember that I was describing the coast down test I had up in Cull Canyon where I would coast down a really rough section of road and then it would flatten out and when I hit a 100 yard long patch of new and very smooth pavement the bike would actually accelerate? Everyone wanted to argue that wasn't possible but I did it again and again. As the summer wore on the asphalt aged and got rougher and though it was still pretty smooth the effect had disappeared. When you say the road "would flatten out" do you mean it was horizontal, instead of downhill? Or do you mean the bumps went away and it remained downhill? -- - Frank Krygowski It went downhill on a very rough road, flattened to horizontal or at least the 0% grade indication on my altimeter and then it climbed a bit before descending a bike. The increase in speed was immediate upon entering the smooth section and not a slow build up of speed as would come from a declining road. OK, if you were coasting and you had no tailwind that exceeded your speed, you had nobody pushing you forward (which I've done for people many times), and you had no rope towing you or some other weird situation... And your bike actually accelerated when the road was horizontal? Yes, that's impossible. Sorry, Tom, this is basic physics. (And I had to include the rope tow because that was Jute's "deus ex machina" on his first weird braggart tale here.) Your story does, however, indicate the power of suggestion and how it can mess with our perceptions. -- - Frank Krygowski Frank, if this is against physics why haven't you actually explained this to us? To my way of thinking if E = 1/2M*V^2 and you reduce the rolling resistance you coast for a longer distance to expend the energy. But that isn't what happened. As I said - when I hit the smooth pavement the bike increased its speed. This was not a single case but multiple experiments and as the smooth pavement degraded over the summer and grew rougher the increasing speed disappeared at least to the level where it wasn't detectable. I think what Frank tries to say is that to be able to accelerate there must be a driving force, one of Newtons laws. If you are coasting on flat terrain without a tailwind there is no driving force. Exactly. In fact, there are retarding forces, those being air resistance and rolling resistance, at a minimum. And as to Tom's question, why haven't I explained it? I guess I foolishly persist in believing that some things are obvious to educated people. -- - Frank Krygowski So when faced by experimental fact you simply deny it. Seem like most teachers. "That ain't what I believe so it didn't happen." Real education there alright. The reason that I mentioned this in the first place is because it did not meet my understanding of physics. I tried this multiple times with the same results. I expected that someone here would have some explanation for it and instead some jackasses said that it was impossible and my personal experience wasn't just incorrect but a lie. This is the sort of people that inhabit this site. Freaks like Slocumb that tell us what it is like in the US after living most of his life in foreign countries and Frank who was used to dictating "the truth" to students and thinks that the whole world is now as stupid as his students were for not punching his lights out. A week ago I did the same route. The asphalt has now degraded to the same consistency as that of the surrounding area and it acts just as you would expect it to. Yes, Tom, we foolishly persist in believing that F=m*a just because Newton demonstrated it hundreds of years ago and it's been confirmed by millions of measurements ever since. We foolishly doubt a guy who claims he felt his bike accelerate when no force was available to accelerate it, and when there had to be forces decelerating it. And who has many times attested to his own bad memory. Oh, and who now says the phenomenon has stopped, so his world has returned to normal physics. So we believe fundamental 10th grade science instead of your daydreams. We are an odd bunch, all right! -- - Frank Krygowski Make another moronic statement. It makes you look so smart. I actually measured that speed increase on the speedo. Initially I was 2 mph when I entered that section at 20. And it didn't increase as if the flat was a little downhill but very rapidly. And as I said - after the asphalt aged to the same roughness of the approach that speed increase disappeared. Which is why on really smooth surfaces, bicyclists never have to pedal? You're spouting an entirely new level of nonsense. There are spots at which it's hard to tell by eye whether the road is ascending or descending, some sort of optical illusion. -- I agree with you there but the acceleration was too rapid to be from gravity. I have asked a question over on the physics forum. Let's see if they have any answers. Faster than even a significant grade would cause? It is hard to imagine an explanation for that. -- I put that out on the physics forum. No one had any answers but neither did they take the Frank line and say that I was crazy. Maybe ask at alt.metaphysics ? alt.tinfoilhat ? |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 10:43:58 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/3/2019 12:02 PM, wrote: On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 7:02:56 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: writes: On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:11:48 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 3/1/2019 3:55 PM, wrote: On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 9:32:15 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/1/2019 11:15 AM, wrote: On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/22/2019 1:39 PM, wrote: On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 6:31:09 PM UTC+1, wrote: On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:46:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/21/2019 4:27 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:10:42 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/21/2019 12:52 PM, wrote: Remember that I was describing the coast down test I had up in Cull Canyon where I would coast down a really rough section of road and then it would flatten out and when I hit a 100 yard long patch of new and very smooth pavement the bike would actually accelerate? Everyone wanted to argue that wasn't possible but I did it again and again. As the summer wore on the asphalt aged and got rougher and though it was still pretty smooth the effect had disappeared. When you say the road "would flatten out" do you mean it was horizontal, instead of downhill? Or do you mean the bumps went away and it remained downhill? -- - Frank Krygowski It went downhill on a very rough road, flattened to horizontal or at least the 0% grade indication on my altimeter and then it climbed a bit before descending a bike. The increase in speed was immediate upon entering the smooth section and not a slow build up of speed as would come from a declining road. OK, if you were coasting and you had no tailwind that exceeded your speed, you had nobody pushing you forward (which I've done for people many times), and you had no rope towing you or some other weird situation... And your bike actually accelerated when the road was horizontal? Yes, that's impossible. Sorry, Tom, this is basic physics. (And I had to include the rope tow because that was Jute's "deus ex machina" on his first weird braggart tale here.) Your story does, however, indicate the power of suggestion and how it can mess with our perceptions. -- - Frank Krygowski Frank, if this is against physics why haven't you actually explained this to us? To my way of thinking if E = 1/2M*V^2 and you reduce the rolling resistance you coast for a longer distance to expend the energy. But that isn't what happened. As I said - when I hit the smooth pavement the bike increased its speed. This was not a single case but multiple experiments and as the smooth pavement degraded over the summer and grew rougher the increasing speed disappeared at least to the level where it wasn't detectable. I think what Frank tries to say is that to be able to accelerate there must be a driving force, one of Newtons laws. If you are coasting on flat terrain without a tailwind there is no driving force. Exactly. In fact, there are retarding forces, those being air resistance and rolling resistance, at a minimum. And as to Tom's question, why haven't I explained it? I guess I foolishly persist in believing that some things are obvious to educated people. -- - Frank Krygowski So when faced by experimental fact you simply deny it. Seem like most teachers. "That ain't what I believe so it didn't happen." Real education there alright. The reason that I mentioned this in the first place is because it did not meet my understanding of physics. I tried this multiple times with the same results. I expected that someone here would have some explanation for it and instead some jackasses said that it was impossible and my personal experience wasn't just incorrect but a lie. This is the sort of people that inhabit this site. Freaks like Slocumb that tell us what it is like in the US after living most of his life in foreign countries and Frank who was used to dictating "the truth" to students and thinks that the whole world is now as stupid as his students were for not punching his lights out. A week ago I did the same route. The asphalt has now degraded to the same consistency as that of the surrounding area and it acts just as you would expect it to. Yes, Tom, we foolishly persist in believing that F=m*a just because Newton demonstrated it hundreds of years ago and it's been confirmed by millions of measurements ever since. We foolishly doubt a guy who claims he felt his bike accelerate when no force was available to accelerate it, and when there had to be forces decelerating it. And who has many times attested to his own bad memory. Oh, and who now says the phenomenon has stopped, so his world has returned to normal physics. So we believe fundamental 10th grade science instead of your daydreams. We are an odd bunch, all right! -- - Frank Krygowski Make another moronic statement. It makes you look so smart. I actually measured that speed increase on the speedo. Initially I was 2 mph when I entered that section at 20. And it didn't increase as if the flat was a little downhill but very rapidly. And as I said - after the asphalt aged to the same roughness of the approach that speed increase disappeared. Which is why on really smooth surfaces, bicyclists never have to pedal? You're spouting an entirely new level of nonsense. There are spots at which it's hard to tell by eye whether the road is ascending or descending, some sort of optical illusion. -- I agree with you there but the acceleration was too rapid to be from gravity. I have asked a question over on the physics forum. Let's see if they have any answers. Faster than even a significant grade would cause? It is hard to imagine an explanation for that. -- I put that out on the physics forum. No one had any answers but neither did they take the Frank line and say that I was crazy. Maybe ask at alt.metaphysics ? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 I went over to another physics forum and we discussed it and there turns out to be a very simple explanation - the speedo has a fairly long delay time showing accelerations. It is difficult to see elsewhere but accelerating down that descent under the forces of gravity and then in a relatively short period of time going on onto a smooth pavement makes it noticeable. So what was happening is that when the pavement was new and smooth on the flats it was normal to look down at the speedo and see it "catching up". Then after that as the pavement aged the rolling resistance became higher and higher until the speed lost before very far onto the "smooth" section was high enough that the speed actually came down to the speed shown at the bottom of the descent. Had even one of the morons here even wanted to discover what was going on we could have worked it out but Frank was being his a-hole self, Slocumb is an idiot simply writing to see his name in print and others are sucking Frank off. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL
On 3/5/2019 10:35 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 10:43:58 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 3/3/2019 12:02 PM, wrote: On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 7:02:56 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: writes: On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:11:48 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 3/1/2019 3:55 PM, wrote: On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 9:32:15 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/1/2019 11:15 AM, wrote: On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/22/2019 1:39 PM, wrote: On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 6:31:09 PM UTC+1, wrote: On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:46:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/21/2019 4:27 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:10:42 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/21/2019 12:52 PM, wrote: Remember that I was describing the coast down test I had up in Cull Canyon where I would coast down a really rough section of road and then it would flatten out and when I hit a 100 yard long patch of new and very smooth pavement the bike would actually accelerate? Everyone wanted to argue that wasn't possible but I did it again and again. As the summer wore on the asphalt aged and got rougher and though it was still pretty smooth the effect had disappeared. When you say the road "would flatten out" do you mean it was horizontal, instead of downhill? Or do you mean the bumps went away and it remained downhill? -- - Frank Krygowski It went downhill on a very rough road, flattened to horizontal or at least the 0% grade indication on my altimeter and then it climbed a bit before descending a bike. The increase in speed was immediate upon entering the smooth section and not a slow build up of speed as would come from a declining road. OK, if you were coasting and you had no tailwind that exceeded your speed, you had nobody pushing you forward (which I've done for people many times), and you had no rope towing you or some other weird situation... And your bike actually accelerated when the road was horizontal? Yes, that's impossible. Sorry, Tom, this is basic physics. (And I had to include the rope tow because that was Jute's "deus ex machina" on his first weird braggart tale here.) Your story does, however, indicate the power of suggestion and how it can mess with our perceptions. -- - Frank Krygowski Frank, if this is against physics why haven't you actually explained this to us? To my way of thinking if E = 1/2M*V^2 and you reduce the rolling resistance you coast for a longer distance to expend the energy. But that isn't what happened. As I said - when I hit the smooth pavement the bike increased its speed. This was not a single case but multiple experiments and as the smooth pavement degraded over the summer and grew rougher the increasing speed disappeared at least to the level where it wasn't detectable. I think what Frank tries to say is that to be able to accelerate there must be a driving force, one of Newtons laws. If you are coasting on flat terrain without a tailwind there is no driving force. Exactly. In fact, there are retarding forces, those being air resistance and rolling resistance, at a minimum. And as to Tom's question, why haven't I explained it? I guess I foolishly persist in believing that some things are obvious to educated people. -- - Frank Krygowski So when faced by experimental fact you simply deny it. Seem like most teachers. "That ain't what I believe so it didn't happen." Real education there alright. The reason that I mentioned this in the first place is because it did not meet my understanding of physics. I tried this multiple times with the same results. I expected that someone here would have some explanation for it and instead some jackasses said that it was impossible and my personal experience wasn't just incorrect but a lie. This is the sort of people that inhabit this site. Freaks like Slocumb that tell us what it is like in the US after living most of his life in foreign countries and Frank who was used to dictating "the truth" to students and thinks that the whole world is now as stupid as his students were for not punching his lights out. A week ago I did the same route. The asphalt has now degraded to the same consistency as that of the surrounding area and it acts just as you would expect it to. Yes, Tom, we foolishly persist in believing that F=m*a just because Newton demonstrated it hundreds of years ago and it's been confirmed by millions of measurements ever since. We foolishly doubt a guy who claims he felt his bike accelerate when no force was available to accelerate it, and when there had to be forces decelerating it. And who has many times attested to his own bad memory. Oh, and who now says the phenomenon has stopped, so his world has returned to normal physics. So we believe fundamental 10th grade science instead of your daydreams. We are an odd bunch, all right! -- - Frank Krygowski Make another moronic statement. It makes you look so smart. I actually measured that speed increase on the speedo. Initially I was 2 mph when I entered that section at 20. And it didn't increase as if the flat was a little downhill but very rapidly. And as I said - after the asphalt aged to the same roughness of the approach that speed increase disappeared. Which is why on really smooth surfaces, bicyclists never have to pedal? You're spouting an entirely new level of nonsense. There are spots at which it's hard to tell by eye whether the road is ascending or descending, some sort of optical illusion. -- I agree with you there but the acceleration was too rapid to be from gravity. I have asked a question over on the physics forum. Let's see if they have any answers. Faster than even a significant grade would cause? It is hard to imagine an explanation for that. -- I put that out on the physics forum. No one had any answers but neither did they take the Frank line and say that I was crazy. Maybe ask at alt.metaphysics ? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 I went over to another physics forum and we discussed it and there turns out to be a very simple explanation - the speedo has a fairly long delay time showing accelerations. It is difficult to see elsewhere but accelerating down that descent under the forces of gravity and then in a relatively short period of time going on onto a smooth pavement makes it noticeable. So what was happening is that when the pavement was new and smooth on the flats it was normal to look down at the speedo and see it "catching up". Then after that as the pavement aged the rolling resistance became higher and higher until the speed lost before very far onto the "smooth" section was high enough that the speed actually came down to the speed shown at the bottom of the descent. So what brand of cyclometer are you using, that has a lag time measured in multiple seconds? And are you claiming your cyclometer actually displays an acceleration value on its screen? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Conbtinental has come out with a GP5000S and a GP5000TL
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 8:41:47 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/5/2019 10:35 AM, wrote: On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 10:43:58 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 3/3/2019 12:02 PM, wrote: On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 7:02:56 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: writes: On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:11:48 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 3/1/2019 3:55 PM, wrote: On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 9:32:15 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/1/2019 11:15 AM, wrote: On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/22/2019 1:39 PM, wrote: On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 6:31:09 PM UTC+1, wrote: On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:46:38 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/21/2019 4:27 PM, wrote: On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:10:42 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 2/21/2019 12:52 PM, wrote: Remember that I was describing the coast down test I had up in Cull Canyon where I would coast down a really rough section of road and then it would flatten out and when I hit a 100 yard long patch of new and very smooth pavement the bike would actually accelerate? Everyone wanted to argue that wasn't possible but I did it again and again.. As the summer wore on the asphalt aged and got rougher and though it was still pretty smooth the effect had disappeared. When you say the road "would flatten out" do you mean it was horizontal, instead of downhill? Or do you mean the bumps went away and it remained downhill? -- - Frank Krygowski It went downhill on a very rough road, flattened to horizontal or at least the 0% grade indication on my altimeter and then it climbed a bit before descending a bike. The increase in speed was immediate upon entering the smooth section and not a slow build up of speed as would come from a declining road. OK, if you were coasting and you had no tailwind that exceeded your speed, you had nobody pushing you forward (which I've done for people many times), and you had no rope towing you or some other weird situation... And your bike actually accelerated when the road was horizontal? Yes, that's impossible. Sorry, Tom, this is basic physics. (And I had to include the rope tow because that was Jute's "deus ex machina" on his first weird braggart tale here.) Your story does, however, indicate the power of suggestion and how it can mess with our perceptions. -- - Frank Krygowski Frank, if this is against physics why haven't you actually explained this to us? To my way of thinking if E = 1/2M*V^2 and you reduce the rolling resistance you coast for a longer distance to expend the energy. But that isn't what happened. As I said - when I hit the smooth pavement the bike increased its speed. This was not a single case but multiple experiments and as the smooth pavement degraded over the summer and grew rougher the increasing speed disappeared at least to the level where it wasn't detectable. I think what Frank tries to say is that to be able to accelerate there must be a driving force, one of Newtons laws. If you are coasting on flat terrain without a tailwind there is no driving force. Exactly. In fact, there are retarding forces, those being air resistance and rolling resistance, at a minimum. And as to Tom's question, why haven't I explained it? I guess I foolishly persist in believing that some things are obvious to educated people. -- - Frank Krygowski So when faced by experimental fact you simply deny it. Seem like most teachers. "That ain't what I believe so it didn't happen." Real education there alright. The reason that I mentioned this in the first place is because it did not meet my understanding of physics. I tried this multiple times with the same results. I expected that someone here would have some explanation for it and instead some jackasses said that it was impossible and my personal experience wasn't just incorrect but a lie. This is the sort of people that inhabit this site. Freaks like Slocumb that tell us what it is like in the US after living most of his life in foreign countries and Frank who was used to dictating "the truth" to students and thinks that the whole world is now as stupid as his students were for not punching his lights out. A week ago I did the same route. The asphalt has now degraded to the same consistency as that of the surrounding area and it acts just as you would expect it to. Yes, Tom, we foolishly persist in believing that F=m*a just because Newton demonstrated it hundreds of years ago and it's been confirmed by millions of measurements ever since. We foolishly doubt a guy who claims he felt his bike accelerate when no force was available to accelerate it, and when there had to be forces decelerating it. And who has many times attested to his own bad memory. Oh, and who now says the phenomenon has stopped, so his world has returned to normal physics. So we believe fundamental 10th grade science instead of your daydreams. We are an odd bunch, all right! -- - Frank Krygowski Make another moronic statement. It makes you look so smart. I actually measured that speed increase on the speedo. Initially I was 2 mph when I entered that section at 20. And it didn't increase as if the flat was a little downhill but very rapidly. And as I said - after the asphalt aged to the same roughness of the approach that speed increase disappeared. Which is why on really smooth surfaces, bicyclists never have to pedal? You're spouting an entirely new level of nonsense. There are spots at which it's hard to tell by eye whether the road is ascending or descending, some sort of optical illusion. -- I agree with you there but the acceleration was too rapid to be from gravity. I have asked a question over on the physics forum. Let's see if they have any answers. Faster than even a significant grade would cause? It is hard to imagine an explanation for that. -- I put that out on the physics forum. No one had any answers but neither did they take the Frank line and say that I was crazy. Maybe ask at alt.metaphysics ? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 I went over to another physics forum and we discussed it and there turns out to be a very simple explanation - the speedo has a fairly long delay time showing accelerations. It is difficult to see elsewhere but accelerating down that descent under the forces of gravity and then in a relatively short period of time going on onto a smooth pavement makes it noticeable. So what was happening is that when the pavement was new and smooth on the flats it was normal to look down at the speedo and see it "catching up". Then after that as the pavement aged the rolling resistance became higher and higher until the speed lost before very far onto the "smooth" section was high enough that the speed actually came down to the speed shown at the bottom of the descent. So what brand of cyclometer are you using, that has a lag time measured in multiple seconds? And are you claiming your cyclometer actually displays an acceleration value on its screen? -- - Frank Krygowski Pm the brightest day of your life you're could perhaps compete with a slug for intellectual capacity. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|