The problem of shimmy explained

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:04:30 +1000, jur
wrote:


Ahhh, I see. Someone promised something to you, but you can't wait for
it like a good boy, now you're smashing your toys.

Dear Jur,

How can anyone smash a toy that you're afraid to put in plain sight?

You said click on the link to have the problem of shimmy explained,
but you won't explain it.

You simply lied in your post to this newsgroup, so now you're in the
embarrassing position of having numerous people point it out. No
apology, no oops-that-was-dumb, not even enough brains to keep quiet.

It's unlikely that you could astonish anyone by actually providing
even the ghost of an explanation, but let's keep playing twenty
questions . . .

You failed to answer whether the secret of shimmy was bigger than a
breadbox.

Is the secret of shimmy in this room?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

'here' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_wobble) is my explanation in
words. Please don't throw any more of your toys out of the cot.

Sincerely,
Jur


--
jur

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:15:41 +1000, jur
wrote:


Dear Carl,

'here' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_wobble) is my explanation in
words. Please don't throw any more of your toys out of the cot.

I don't see anything new in the wikipedia entry, but you might have pointed to
it earlier, before becoming so committed to you little game of "I've got a
secret."

Ron

RonSonic Wrote:
I don't see anything new in the wikipedia entry, but you might have
pointed to it earlier, before becoming so committed to you little game
of "I've got a
secret."


You don't see anything new? How about the key word NUTATION????

And it wasn't me who got so obsessed about secrecy, dude. Others played
the childish game of "well if you can't say it, then you don't know it".


--
jur

jur wrote:
Wrote:

Dear Jur,

Is it bigger than a breadbox?

Do I get 19 more questions?

Er, I mean 18?

Drat! Seventeen.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
Dear Carl

Do you enjoy your infantile behaviour?

Did someone nick your lolly pop?

Sincerely,
Jur


Carl Fogel is RBTs self-appointed Sultan of Smarm. He loves to brown
nose people like Jobst Brandt and Sheldon Brown and he seems to think
his posting style is "clever". Rarely is there any worthwhile content
between the "Dear" and the "Cheers". You lose nothing by simply
ignoring him.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:01:04 +1000, jur
wrote:



RonSonic Wrote:
I don't see anything new in the wikipedia entry, but you might have
pointed to it earlier, before becoming so committed to you little game
of "I've got a
secret."

You don't see anything new? How about the key word NUTATION????

And it wasn't me who got so obsessed about secrecy, dude. Others played
the childish game of "well if you can't say it, then you don't know it".

You are expected to show your work.

It is not so much that if "you can't say it, you don't know it" it's more a case
of "if you can't say it, then why the hell are you talking about it." Or, "if
you can't say it, then it's useless to us."

Look, we get lots of guys who blow through with some new "discovery" that'll
change cycling forever that turns out to be either commonplace or just plain
silly, or an "invention" that was last seen in the late nineteenth century.
These usually come with vague, meaningless descriptions (not unlike your
original post) solicitations for financial support (not unlike your original
post) and promises of world changing improvement (not unlike your original post)
to what is the most elegant and efficient mechanical appliance developed by man.

We're a little jaded by now.

Ron

On 17 Jul 2006 06:47:14 -0700, wrote:


jur wrote:
Wrote:

Dear Jur,

Is it bigger than a breadbox?

Do I get 19 more questions?

Er, I mean 18?

Drat! Seventeen.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
Dear Carl

Do you enjoy your infantile behaviour?

Did someone nick your lolly pop?

Sincerely,
Jur


Carl Fogel is RBTs self-appointed Sultan of Smarm. He loves to brown
nose people like Jobst Brandt and Sheldon Brown and he seems to think
his posting style is "clever". Rarely is there any worthwhile content
between the "Dear" and the "Cheers". You lose nothing by simply
ignoring him.

Carl brown noses Jobst?!?!?!

Unless you consider pedantic badgering a form of sucking up...

Ron

jur wrote:
RonSonic Wrote:
I don't see anything new in the wikipedia entry, but you might have
pointed to it earlier, before becoming so committed to you little game
of "I've got a
secret."


You don't see anything new? How about the key word NUTATION????

Nope, sorry. That's an old word. ;-)

Honestly, from here, the nutation idea sounds like another flower on a
well-decorated cake. AFAICT, you haven't really proven it's a major
cause, and you haven't shown how knowing about it makes a critical
difference.


And it wasn't me who got so obsessed about secrecy, dude. Others played
the childish game of "well if you can't say it, then you don't know it".

Sorry, "dude," but you did start off in secrecy. And you haven't
convinced _anyone_ here that you've got anything significantly original
or practical. And, sorry to say, even if you have made the
mathematical breakthrough that would eliminate shimmy forever, I don't
think it's going to make you any money.

I don't think it's going to gain you any fame, either. The Nobel
committee is distracted by other things.

There are people here who could follow the math and check your ideas,
if you put them up in detail. I'd suggest you first add some graphics
to that Wiki entry to make your points easier to visualize. I'd also
suggest you concoct a definitive test to prove your ideas have value -
some sort of "anti-nutation" bike to banish the "death wobble"
phenomenon (um... which most of us never experience, anyway...).

Oh, and if you've got your math worked out and want all the glory and
fame that will bring, you need to submit it as a technical paper to,
perhaps, an ASME conference. Or to Human Power, the journal of the
HPVA.

Your glory and fame will consist of a nod during certain possible job
interviews, but it's something.

- Frank Krygowski

Wrote:
Honestly, from here, the nutation idea sounds like another flower on a
well-decorated cake. AFAICT, you haven't really proven it's a major
cause, and you haven't shown how knowing about it makes a critical
difference.In that case I havent' made it clear enough. The wiki entry is still
being developed and I will rectify that. Suffice it to say that the
existing FAQ case that attempts to explain shimmy fails because it
can't establish a _sustained_ oscillation, something I thought I made
very clear in bold text. You need a mechanism. I have provided it. The
FAQ hasn't. I can (and will soon in the wike entry) show it using
simulations. The FAQ hasn't.

'Nuff zed.


--
jur

RonSonic wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:01:04 +1000, jur
wrote:



RonSonic Wrote:
I don't see anything new in the wikipedia entry, but you might have
pointed to it earlier, before becoming so committed to you little
game of "I've got a
secret."

You don't see anything new? How about the key word NUTATION????

And it wasn't me who got so obsessed about secrecy, dude. Others
played the childish game of "well if you can't say it, then you
don't know it".

You are expected to show your work.

It is not so much that if "you can't say it, you don't know it" it's
more a case of "if you can't say it, then why the hell are you
talking about it." Or, "if you can't say it, then it's useless to us."

Look, we get lots of guys who blow through with some new "discovery"
that'll change cycling forever that turns out to be either
commonplace or just plain silly, or an "invention" that was last seen
in the late nineteenth century. These usually come with vague,
meaningless descriptions (not unlike your original post)
solicitations for financial support (not unlike your original post)
and promises of world changing improvement (not unlike your original
post) to what is the most elegant and efficient mechanical appliance
developed by man.

We're a little jaded by now.

Not to mention trolled? eg