Re: Bicycle physics question

On 6/24/2024 11:00 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/24/2024 9:28 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Sat Jun 22 08:47:25 2024 zen cycle  wrote:

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri Jun 21 05:16:11 2024 zen cycle  wrote:

On 6/20/2024 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/20/2024 4:48 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

>
When you are riding a bike you are gaining and losing energy via the
motion of the CG of the bike in the depth of the gravity field. You
are also losing more energy in a turn from tire forces. Because the
depth of the gravity field is so deep and the change of the CG change
of the bike is so slight you can only talk about the gains and loses
theoretically. The loses from the tire shape into and out of a turn
are more significant. But under normal conditions those are so slight
that only racers can detect them because of the speed required to make
signficant scrubbing actions detectable.
>
With a motorcycle it is easier to detect because of the much larger
speed differentials and the much wider tires with consequen5tial
inccrease in scrubbing energy.

>
Gravity field?
Is that like a corn field or more of a force field?

>
no, the gravity field is what causes the tire sealant to stay at the
bottom of the tire when the bike is moving, causes dents to pop out of
bike tubes while riding the bike and renders aluminum oxide flammable.
Different laws of physics in tommyworld, dontchaknow....

>
Why do you continue to show that you haven't even a passing understanding
of physics.

>
I understand the physics of this planet quite well. What I (as well of
the rest of us here) don't understand is what the physics on your planet
are like.
>

Toyota is about to release a motor that runs on WATER. It
separates the hydrogen fromn the oxygen and then recombines them for
energy.

>
And? what does that have to do with anything we're discussing? Attempt
at distraction duly noted and summarily dismissed as an attempt at
distraction.
>

I realize that with your very elementary understanding of physics
that you will say that isn't possible but perhaps you can address that to
Toyota,

>
No, shit-fer-brains, I wouldn't. Because unlike you, I actually do
understand the physics of this planet.
>

I won't even try to explain how you can get aluminum oxide to
burn and create energy

>
Because you can't. Provide just one reference showing the inherent
flammability of aluminum oxide. Here, I'll start:
>
https://www.chemicalbook.com/msds/aluminum-oxide.htm
Page 9 - "Flammability (solid, gas): The product is not flammable."
>
Would you like another?
https://www.buehler.com/assets/SDS/US/1339775_A_Aluminum-Oxide-Powder_EN.PDF
Page ten "NFPA  Health hazards 1   flammability 0"
>
Just so ya know, "flammability 0" means the National Fire Prevention
Association considers Al2O3 not flammable.
>
https://gstresult.com/is-aluminum-oxide-flammable/
"Is aluminum oxide flammable?
No, aluminum oxide is not flammable. It is a non-combustible material,
meaning it does not catch fire or support combustion."
>

since you can't even explain how a wire length
could be measure with a PWM signal.

>
I could describe a method, but you failed miserably. Your lame
explanation of some how using a single channel on an oscilloscope and
manually aligning a a reflected signal by altering pulse width is
complete nonsense. You weren't describing PWM, you were attempting to
describe TDR, and got it horribly wrong (as usual). And no, PWM is not
required for generating a TDR pulse.
>

Your absolute ignirance is breaqqthtaking considering that you have a job
as an engineer.

>
"ignirance is breaqqthtaking"....I'll just leave that there.
>

Good thing that it isn't any more complex than signing
off on the QC of a batch of devices.

>
Which is all we need to know about your level of understanding about
HazLoc engineering.
>
>

>
>
>
>
Flunky, do you actually think that you're going to fool people into thinking that you are smart by using seldom used terms

It's not a seldom used term in my industry. It's a way of life.

which are completely covered in the Underwriters Laboratories rules that insurance companies demand adherance to?

For the US, UL had little to do with it. They're simply a Notified Body in the US HazLoc scheme. They and the other Notified Body players (Intertek, Bureau Veritas, QPS. etc.)  will use either  the ANSI IEC 67000 series for the Zone scheme or the NFPA/NEC series for class/division scheme depending on the customer requirements. Factory Mutual (aka FM) has their version: FM 3600 series, but are qualified to issue HazLoc certifications for the Class/Div scheme.
The US is the only country that doesn't require HAzLoc certification for equipment used in HazLoc areas by law - In an RBT shocker, you're finally right about something, in the US it's driven by insurance company requirements. Every other 1st/2nd world country in the world all require hazloc areas to use hazloc certified equipment by law.
Some day in the far distant

future you are going to grow up. Or not.

And become like you? gawd I hope not.
It's laughable to hear you blather on as if you have any useful experience here. You've never designed anything that required any sort of regulatory review - and no, you never designed any medical equipment. If you had, you'd be able to quote chapter and verse of FDA requirements. It's the one thing we never heard you comment about, and that's how we know you're completely full of shit - If you ever did have to deal with it, you would have bitched incessantly about it.
Go back to fucking up bikes, little man.