Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[CORed]

I'd love to see a brief description of what you think the "different results" might be. It could provide an illuminating insight.

In the humberverse, the earth exerts not only gravity, but some sort of drag against objects moving relative to it. However, humber can find no textbook reference supporting this belief, nor any mathematical forumula describing how it works.

 

[humber]

Humber- you are still good for a chuckle- carry on jumping!

On aircraft carriers, as well as to (the wrong) conclusions.

Please explain exactly how your brain differentiates between the three aircraft carrier options; by the way, its foggy, so you cannot see the sea.

Take a look through the past posts.
You really took that "can't tell" idea as physics.
The simple case of the accelerometer in the ground, says it is nonsense.

Again, the conversations with Dr Camp, must have been like him trying to help a struggling student.

You see, Tobermoryphil, all the latest ideas of air mass and so forth, came from Smith, because Spork still believes that the ground drives the wheels, and Smith is wrong. But assumed NASA approval is worth keeping that quiet, and avoids directly claiming PM.

 

[quarky]

Nope, I had no knowledge about that part. The following actually seemed to be a thoughtful comment:

Humber: "The Tour de France is about human effort, and opening up the definition of bikes would lead to it being a battle of technology. Drugs are now the problem instead, I suppose."

I'm not sure I 100% agree but the sentence is constructed so that it is interesting and arguable (albeit off topic). And on the surface, not completely, obviously wrong. A rare pleasure!

I'll settle for this much with Humber.

WindGrins

Thanks for tornado concern.
As per my (off-topic) Tour de France rant, its always been somewhat a tech battle, not only with the bikes, but the training of the jocks.
Carbon fiber is ok; super high pressure tires; etc. For me, it gets nit-picky on the bike definitions, because they have always evolved anyway. Shame is, high-end bikes are now held back in their evolution because ambitious riders feel the need to comply with the big race rules.
On a flat course, or track race, for instance, state of the art recumbents would simply crush all up-right, diamond frame bikes. It wouldn't be close, yet its all about human power. Oddly enough, the blazing fast recumbent s actually weigh quite a lot more than the legal bikes...which says a lot about aerodynamics...which brings me slightly back on topic. Whew!

Notice that the blackbird's riders are using basic recumbent positioning.

 

[humber]

In the humberverse, the earth exerts not only gravity, but some sort of drag against objects moving relative to it. However, humber can find no textbook reference supporting this belief, nor any mathematical forumula describing how it works.

Cored can't make up his mind if motion is relative or not, because TAD have fed him both, because they need the ground to drive the prop, and to make the TM even remotely plausible. Be assured that Spork still thinks the ground drives the wheels, as the ground moves backwards, when the cart is at windspeed. Don't you, Spork?

 

[quarky]

You need more counterweight!

[qimg]http://www.gcsdblogs.org/hofer/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/trebuchet.gif[/qimg]

My device would instantly topple without the counter weight, which is why, in the video, I emplored that my s.o. stay on the swing when the whiskey bottle fell off.

 

[humber]

Thanks for tornado concern.
As per my (off-topic) Tour de France rant, its always been somewhat a tech battle, not only with the bikes, but the training of the jocks.
Carbon fiber is ok; super high pressure tires; etc. For me, it gets nit-picky on the bike definitions, because they have always evolved anyway. Shame is, high-end bikes are now held back in their evolution because ambitious riders feel the need to comply with the big race rules.
On a flat course, or track race, for instance, state of the art recumbents would simply crush all up-right, diamond frame bikes. It wouldn't be close, yet its all about human power. Oddly enough, the blazing fast recumbent s actually weigh quite a lot more than the legal bikes...which says a lot about aerodynamics...which brings me slightly back on topic. Whew!

Notice that the blackbird's riders are using basic recumbent positioning.

Did you miss the mountain bike fad, Quarky? I have seen bikes with full front fork suspension and coupled rear swing arms, that keep the wheel base constant with vertical motion. It's all been done. Carbon fibre, gas suspension...all aping motor bikes.

Recumbents have many disadvantages. Resricted vision, poor low speed stability, large turning circle, wide, and so take up a lot of rack space, a right bastard to get on a train while leaving no room for anyone else, and are death traps on the road. It's only because only a few ride them, that the morality rate of bicyclists does not skyrocket.

 

[tobermoryphil]

Humber- you are still good for a chuckle- carry on jumping!

On aircraft carriers, as well as to (the wrong) conclusions.

Please explain exactly how your brain differentiates between the three aircraft carrier options; by the way, its foggy, so you cannot see the sea.

Thanks for the reply with the usual obfuscating flannel! How about a simple strait answer to the above question?
You claim it is possible, so tell us exactly how, please.

 

[humber]

My device would instantly topple without the counter weight, which is why, in the video, I emplored that my s.o. stay on the swing when the whiskey bottle fell off.

Have you seen this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wVADKznOhY

 

[3point14]

Sure, Show me you can analyze a simple circuit first.

Assuming a Beta of 100 for the following transistor, derive the gain of the amp (blue input/red output) as a function of the circuit elements (R1, R2, c1,c2, q1).

Show your work and give me a reasonable gain of the circuit given the components listed.

Also show me the frequency response as a function of the parameters and compute the freq where the amp has half normal amplification.



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_488654dbc29f22ef9a.png[/qimg]

EEGRins AKA WindGrins

Hey, have we seen Humber's maths yet?

 

[humber]

Hey, have we seen Humber's maths yet?

I take it you don't know how a transistor works, and how Re is related to beta.
All you need to know is that the transistor works at all, the rest, follows.

A plodder may do it this way, but within the current state of the art, redundant.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=22020&stc=1&d=1304277920

 

[3point14]

I take it you don't know how a transistor works, and how Re is related to beta.
All you need to know is that the transistor works at all, the rest, follows.

A plodder may do it this way, but within the current state of the art, redundant.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=22020&stc=1&d=1304277920

Nooooo!


I wanted to see the maths. The squiggly lines and the letter representing numbers and the '=' sign in the middle indicating that the left side matches the right.

You know, the equationy bits that constitute loads of the mark in any maths based exam.

That stuff.



(ETA - I never get what I want. Harumph)

 

[humber]

(ETA - I never get what I want. Harumph)

Then you will have to see if you can find S parameters for a 2N3904, or settle for Ft.
Spending real working time on that trivia, will leave you decades behind.
You go ahead and work that sucker, as it is obviously too late for anything else.

 

[zooterkin]

Recumbents have many disadvantages. Resricted vision, poor low speed stability, large turning circle, wide, and so take up a lot of rack space, a right bastard to get on a train while leaving no room for anyone else, and are death traps on the road. It's only because only a few ride them, that the morality rate of bicyclists does not skyrocket.

Oh, dear, yet more nonsense. Vision is generally much better than on an upright bike, because you are looking straight ahead without having to crane your neck. Low speed stability isn't much worse, and anyway, how much time do you spend going slowly? Turning circle depends on whether it's a long or short wheelbase. Again, getting the bike on a train depends on what model, but I'll grant it probably is a bit harder, and they don't tend to pack as well as uprights. As for safety on the road, I always felt much safer on my recumbent; my head was at the same level as car drivers, and I was always noticed, whereas on an upright bike I've had car drivers look through me and pull out as if I wasn't there. You may be onto something with the morality, though, I was happily married while riding a recumbent, but after I switched to a folding bike I ran off with a scarlet woman.

 

[humber]

Oh, dear, yet more nonsense. Vision is generally much better than on an upright bike, because you are looking straight ahead without having to crane your neck.
Low speed stability isn't much worse, and anyway, how much time do you spend going slowly?
Turning circle depends on whether it's a long or short wheelbase.

Same for all bikes an recumbents are longer and offer little opportunity for folding bikes.

Again, getting the bike on a train depends on what model, but I'll grant it probably is a bit harder, and they don't tend to pack as well as uprights.

They are heavier, and awkward to handle because if the chain. They take up the space of two standard bikes, and are general pain in the ass to passengers. I can put by standard bike on and off the platform with one hand, and with the folding bike, be able to carry stuff in the other. Recumbents are a nuisance on the escalators, and are difficult to maneuver up stairs. In the Netherlands, stairs often have a small channel against the wall, that allows a standard bike to be wheeled.

As for safety on the road, I always felt much safer on my recumbent; my head was at the same level as car drivers, and I was always noticed, whereas on an upright bike I've had car drivers look through me and pull out as if I wasn't there.

Bike helmets make the rider feel safe, but do no good at all. In Australia, an action group forced compulsory helmets. The accident rate increased, even though the number of cyclist fell because of the nuisance of the helmet. More cars on the road, and less general exercise to boot. Not wearing one, has cost me $60 fine, and will do again, I expect.

You may be onto something with the morality, though, I was happily married while riding a recumbent, but after I switched to a folding bike I ran off with a scarlet woman.

wiki
* Balance. Balance is generally more difficult on a recumbent bicycle due to the lower center of gravity. It is easier to balance with a higher center of gravity because of the "pendulum effect" (it is easier to minutely change the angle at which upright bicycles lean).[18] In addition, compared with riders of conventional bikes, two-wheeled recumbent riders have less scope for shifting their weight to steer or help balance the bicycle. As a consequence, riding at low speed and tight maneuvers can be more challenging on a recumbent.

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not copy and paste lengthy tracts from elsewhere. Instead, just quote a short snippet and post a link to the other source.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[3point14]

Then you will have to see if you can find S parameters for a 2N3904, or settle for Ft.
Spending real working time on that trivia, will leave you decades behind.
You go ahead and work that sucker, as it is obviously too late for anything else.

You know, I really don't have to. I can admit ignorance and ask someone who understands these things.

Not you, obviously.



ETA: Why so patronising? Really? I mean, it goes without saying that I'm cut to the quick, but why do it? It doesn't detract from the fact that there's still no sums on the screen, Humber...

 

[zooterkin]

Same for all bikes an recumbents are longer and offer little opportunity for folding bikes.

I have no idea which particular points you are trying to address. Would you like to try again?

They are heavier, and awkward to handle because if the chain. They take up the space of two standard bikes, and are general pain in the ass to passengers. I can put by standard bike on and off the platform with one hand, and with the folding bike, be able to carry stuff in the other. Recumbents are a nuisance on the escalators, and are difficult to maneuver up stairs. In the Netherlands, stairs often have a small channel against the wall, that allows a standard bike to be wheeled.

I thought I had conceded that point. I wouldn't choose a recumbent if I was going to be travelling often by train. So?

Bike helmets make the rider feel safe, but do no good at all.

Which has what to do with recumbents, exactly?

wiki

Yes, there are disadvantages. You may have notices that page also lists the advantages. However, what you're mainly doing is demonstrating that there's yet another topic you know little about.

Horrible bikes, for hippies and bearded sensitives

There you go again.

 

[humber]

You know, I really don't have to. I can admit ignorance and ask someone who understands these things.

It doesn't detract from the fact that there's still no sums on the screen, Humber...

Then the above suggests that I would need to teach you, but I am busy with the other seals at the moment.

 

[humber]

There you go again.

Horrid hippy bikes. "See how efficient I am, but have no regard for how much of a ******* pain in the ***, I am. Train or not, as passers-by snag their clothes on the meters of oily chain."

 

[CORed]

Cored can't make up his mind if motion is relative or not, because TAD have fed him both, because they need the ground to drive the prop, and to make the TM even remotely plausible. Be assured that Spork still thinks the ground drives the wheels, as the ground moves backwards, when the cart is at windspeed. Don't you, Spork?

Motion is relative. It is you who seems to be incapable of grasping that simple concept.

 

[CORed]

Then you will have to see if you can find S parameters for a 2N3904, or settle for Ft.
Spending real working time on that trivia, will leave you decades behind.
You go ahead and work that sucker, as it is obviously too late for anything else.

Translation: Humber has no clue how to solve the problem, so he's spewing nonsense again.