Re: Extensive article on Rivendell and Grant Petersen

On 9/25/2024 5:25 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:

On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 22:05:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near
the background needed to judge technical proficiency.

 Riding a bicycle is not a technical thing, Dummy.

Which is why physicists and mechanical engineers have been analyzing and attempting to perfect the bicycle and cycling technique for decades - because there's nothing technical about it, right, dumbass?

 

Professional
Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with
you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those
institutions for whom I've worked.

 Education is not an achievement, it's a tool.

Tell that to someone who graduated medical school

What you do with your
tools is what counts.

In your judgement. Who the fuck are you to pass judgement?

You, apparently couldn't make it in the real
world where you get judged on your performance every day. You quit,
(or were you fired?) and had to come running back home to the halls of
education where all you had to be is not so terrible as to get too
many complaints from students and their parents. Then, safe in your
little tenured cocoon, you did nothing to improve yourself. You
performed the same monotonous job for the rest of your working life.

Nice strawman. Didja have to work on that for a while? Sounds more like butt-hurt whining to me.

You have a terrible need to be seen as better than you really are, but
all you have to brag about is riding your bicycle.

What a fragile ego you have! Ironically coming from someone who's sole purpose in this forum is to insult an denigrate someone else.
.

>
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet
from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2 or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect
application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute
limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose
wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit
of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible.
>
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and
besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
>
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term
gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.

 Sorry, your opinion on that matter is worthless.

And here's the proof in the pudding. You have no understanding of the difference between a fact and an opinion. A mathematical analysis is fact, not opinion, dumbass.

 

I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing
what you claim and posting video evidence.

 <chuckle> Do you really believe I care what you think?

Yes. If you didn't you wouldn't keep posting to _try_ to make yourself look less stupid (and failing miserably)

--
C'est bon
Soloman

--
Add xx to reply