OT MV related:Gravity lesson

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:52:13 +0100, "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message .news:[email protected]...
.| Simon wrote: .| .| > | If you're taking F=MA and A is a constant (9.8 m/s), then surely force .|
> | is directionally proportional mass? .| > | .| > I am not talking that at all. Mike is and thats
why he is wrong and his .| > knowledge is flawed. He is trying to substitute incorrect sections
.within .| > standard equations. .| .| You've totally lost me. Are you now saying that A can not be
replaced .| with gravity? .| .| I haven't read any of Mike's posts on this subject, but your post
seems .| totally wrong, and justifies Mike's position. I can't see anything .| wrong with asserting
that extra weight leads to more force. It's a .| simplistic view, but it stands up to (my knowledge
of) the laws of .physics. .| .| . .Okay firstly if you have not read (reads been entertained) by
mikes posts .its difficult to follow i agree. .He has basically taken a standard equation and
revised it as and when the .argument changes. I am not trying to allay his claims or re-enforce
them. .Guess I am just rambling out loud.

Bingo.

.Simon.........loves the amusement side of newgroups.

I don't think even the retarded would be amused by you.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[John Harlow]

> .Shock Absorbers work by converting a high force short duration impact
into a
> .lower force long duration impact.
>
> BS. You can't "lower" the force of gravity. The bike may bounce, but
eventually
> it has to hit the ground, with the full force of gravity. PLUS its
momentum.

Sigh. Let me explain it to you in a different way (as if it will matter).

The purpose of a shock absorber is to *eliminate* bounce. If you did not have them on your car, your
wheels would bounce at the resonant frequency of the mass moment of your vehicle, rendering it
uncontrollable. Look at the ridiculous little "customized" trucks running around where people have
tied the shocks down - they bounce around all over the place.

The total energy exerted is equal to the area under the curve of time versus force (remember that
bit from calculus?)

Rather than a tall peak of energy for a sort duration, a shock absorber translates this into a much
more environmentally friendly short peak for a longer duration.

 

[Simon]

"Westie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
|
| "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
| >
| > In recent days many have had the fun of trying to educate MV on the
| effects
| > of gravity. His main argument is thus:
| >
| > Bikes with shock absorbers weigh more and hence cause more damage to
| trails.
| >
| > Anyone with a mere basic understanding of physics will say this is absolutely wrong. Some people
| > with a little more physics knowledge (Mike himself) will say this is true. Whilst those with a
| > firm understanding
of
| > physics will say its laughably incorrect.
| >
| > Here's why:
| >
| > Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s/s we all know this..There are
| slight
| > variations in this numerical value (to the second decimal place) which
are
| > dependent primarily upon altitude.
| >
| > Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a larger mass will create more
| > force. This is true in itself, its obvious.
| >
| > However mike then says that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is
where
| > he has shown no understanding of advanced physics.
| >
| > If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know that acceleration due to
| > gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other
words
| a
| > bike and a hiker both will accelerate at the same speed due to gravity
| when
| > in a free fall situation.
| >
| > Therefore it can be seen that mike is very confused with regards to
| physics
| > and has a tendency to change his argument when cornered.
| >
| > Its all good fun and yes the above is verifiable should anyone require
it.
| >
| > Simon.........I like mike, he makes me look good. We should market him
as
| an
| > accessory.
| >
| >
|
| As much as I don't want to agree with MV, I think that he was trying to
say
| that a heavier bike creates more damage when it hits the ground. Which on it's own is probably
| true. But as John explains in another thread posted here, the suspension spreads out that force.
| So while MV is right in his own way, he conveniently ignores other parts
of
| the debate that, when taken into consideration, make all the difference. And _that's_ a standard
| MV technique.
| --
| Westie --"Life is what happens while you're planning to do other things"--
|
I think you have hit the nail on the head so to speak. Common sense tells us suspension allows for
less damage. Mike will now argue that the extra weight does damage when at rest.......so lets all
just keep moving.

Simon.........my rather badly made point was just to get a response from mike to highlight his
changing arguments and tunnel vision.

 

[Simon]

"John Harlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:GQMla.421699$L1.120264@sccrnsc02...
| > .Shock Absorbers work by converting a high force short duration impact
| into a
| > .lower force long duration impact.
| >
| > BS. You can't "lower" the force of gravity. The bike may bounce, but
| eventually
| > it has to hit the ground, with the full force of gravity. PLUS its
| momentum.
|
| Sigh. Let me explain it to you in a different way (as if it will matter).
|
| The purpose of a shock absorber is to *eliminate* bounce. If you did not have them on your car,
| your wheels would bounce at the resonant frequency
of
| the mass moment of your vehicle, rendering it uncontrollable. Look at the ridiculous little
| "customized" trucks running around where people have
tied
| the shocks down - they bounce around all over the place.
|
| The total energy exerted is equal to the area under the curve of time
versus
| force (remember that bit from calculus?)
|
| Rather than a tall peak of energy for a sort duration, a shock absorber translates this into a
| much more environmentally friendly short peak for a longer duration.
|
Maybe now you will see some of what I was attempting to highlight. MV is replying with
stunning results.

Simon......Ma,Beng,Phd,abc,fbi,cia,........anyone can make up letters mike

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 15:51:01 +1200, "Westie" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Simon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> .> In recent days many have had the fun
of trying to educate MV on the .effects .> of gravity. His main argument is thus: .> .> Bikes with
shock absorbers weigh more and hence cause more damage to .trails. .> .> Anyone with a mere basic
understanding of physics will say this is .> absolutely wrong. Some people with a little more
physics knowledge (Mike .> himself) will say this is true. Whilst those with a firm understanding of
.> physics will say its laughably incorrect. .> .> Here's why: .> .> Acceleration due to gravity is
9.8 m/s/s we all know this..There are .slight .> variations in this numerical value (to the second
decimal place) which are .> dependent primarily upon altitude. .> .> Mike argues that since "force
(f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a larger .> mass will create more force. This is true in itself,
its obvious. .> .> However mike then says that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is where .> he
has shown no understanding of advanced physics. .> .> If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed
gravity we all know that .> acceleration due to gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other
words .a .> bike and a hiker both will accelerate at the same speed due to gravity .when .> in a
free fall situation. .> .> Therefore it can be seen that mike is very confused with regards to
.physics .> and has a tendency to change his argument when cornered. .> .> Its all good fun and yes
the above is verifiable should anyone require it. .> .> Simon.........I like mike, he makes me look
good. We should market him as .an .> accessory. .> .> . .As much as I don't want to agree with MV, I
think that he was trying to say .that a heavier bike creates more damage when it hits the ground.
Which on .it's own is probably true. .But as John explains in another thread posted here, the
suspension spreads .out that force.

BS. It changes it over time. But when the spring bottoms out, you still get the full impact of
weight + momentum applied to the ground. Nothing a suspension system can do will ever change that!

.So while MV is right in his own way, he conveniently ignores other parts of .the debate that, when
taken into consideration, make all the difference. .And _that's_ a standard MV technique.

You continue to ignore the fact that I am RIGHT!
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 11:56:10 +0100, "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Westie" <[email protected]> wrote in message .news:[email protected]... .|
.| "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote in message .|
news:[email protected]... .| > .| > In recent days many have had the
fun of trying to educate MV on the .| effects .| > of gravity. His main argument is thus: .| > .| >
Bikes with shock absorbers weigh more and hence cause more damage to .| trails. .| > .| > Anyone
with a mere basic understanding of physics will say this is .| > absolutely wrong. Some people with
a little more physics knowledge (Mike .| > himself) will say this is true. Whilst those with a firm
understanding .of .| > physics will say its laughably incorrect. .| > .| > Here's why: .| > .| >
Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s/s we all know this..There are .| slight .| > variations in
this numerical value (to the second decimal place) which .are .| > dependent primarily upon
altitude. .| > .| > Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x acceleration (a)" a larger .| >
mass will create more force. This is true in itself, its obvious. .| > .| > However mike then says
that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is .where .| > he has shown no understanding of advanced
physics. .| > .| > If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know that .| >
acceleration due to gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other .words .| a .| > bike and a
hiker both will accelerate at the same speed due to gravity .| when .| > in a free fall situation.
.| > .| > Therefore it can be seen that mike is very confused with regards to .| physics .| > and
has a tendency to change his argument when cornered. .| > .| > Its all good fun and yes the above is
verifiable should anyone require .it. .| > .| > Simon.........I like mike, he makes me look good. We
should market him .as .| an .| > accessory. .| > .| > .| .| As much as I don't want to agree with
MV, I think that he was trying to .say .| that a heavier bike creates more damage when it hits the
ground. Which on .| it's own is probably true. .| But as John explains in another thread posted
here, the suspension spreads .| out that force. .| So while MV is right in his own way, he
conveniently ignores other parts .of .| the debate that, when taken into consideration, make all the
difference. .| And _that's_ a standard MV technique. .| -- .| Westie .| --"Life is what happens
while you're planning to do other things"-- .| .I think you have hit the nail on the head so to
speak. Common sense tells us .suspension allows for less damage.

BS. If common sense were adequate, we wouldn't need science!

.Mike will now argue that the extra weight does damage when at rest.......so .lets all just keep
moving. . .Simon.........my rather badly made point was just to get a response from .mike to
highlight his changing arguments and tunnel vision. .

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 04:44:22 GMT, "John Harlow" <[email protected]> wrote:

.> .Shock Absorbers work by converting a high force short duration impact .into a .> .lower force
long duration impact. .> .> BS. You can't "lower" the force of gravity. The bike may bounce, but
.eventually .> it has to hit the ground, with the full force of gravity. PLUS its .momentum. .
.Sigh. Let me explain it to you in a different way (as if it will matter). . .The purpose of a shock
absorber is to *eliminate* bounce. If you did not .have them on your car, your wheels would bounce
at the resonant frequency of .the mass moment of your vehicle, rendering it uncontrollable. Look at
the .ridiculous little "customized" trucks running around where people have tied .the shocks down -
they bounce around all over the place.

That's irrelevant to the amount of damage it does.

.The total energy exerted

Energy doesn't get "exerted". Only force can be exerted. DUH!

is equal to the area under the curve of time versus .force (remember that bit from calculus?) .
.Rather than a tall peak of energy for a sort duration, a shock absorber .translates this into a
much more environmentally friendly short peak for a .longer duration.

You are deliberately vague, to hide the fact that suspension bikes do MORE damage.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[John Harlow]

> >BS. It changes it over time. But when the spring bottoms out, you still
get
> >the full impact of weight + momentum applied to the ground. Nothing a
suspension
> >system can do will ever change that!
>
> <sigh> The whole idea of a properly-designed suspension system is that the
"springs"
> do not bottom out. How many times have you bottomed out the springs in
your
> neighbour's car while doing what that suspension system was designed for? Thought not......

Stephen, unfortunately you're having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

 

[Peterh]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> But when the spring bottoms out, you still get the full impact of weight + momentum applied to the
> ground. Nothing a suspension system can do will ever change that!
>
You just repealed the second law of thermodynamics!.

As it is, there's sport of a few & ennui for most.

Yours in the north Maie woods, Pete Hilton aka The Ent

--
Half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at. anon.

 

[Peterh]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

>. .The purpose of a shock absorber is to *eliminate* bounce. If you did not .have them on your car,
>your wheels would bounce at the resonant frequency of .the mass moment of your vehicle, rendering
>it uncontrollable. .
>
>You are deliberately vague, to hide the fact that suspension bikes do MORE damage.
>
>
>
You have the unmitigated gall to call this "deliberately vague"? Where is the connection between a
verifiable description and your monomaniacle flaming? Any sixth-grader with a slide rule (remember
those?) can prove you false in an instant yet on and on you flame, reality notwithstanding.....

You really otta take some lithium. It's been known to do wonders for those such as you.

Yours in the north Maine woods, Pete Hilton aka The Ent

--
Half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at. anon.

 

[Simon]

|
| BS. If common sense were adequate, we wouldn't need science!
|
Is that not a relative statement? Just because some areas of science are common sense to me does not
mean it is to you.

Mike you attempt to stereotype and categorise people and their views. This is not possible.

Simon

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:35:55 +0100, "Simon"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> . .In recent days many have had the fun of trying to educate MV on the
effects
> .of gravity. His main argument is thus: . .Bikes with shock absorbers weigh more and hence cause
> more damage to
trails.
> . .Anyone with a mere basic understanding of physics will say this is .absolutely wrong. Some
> people with a little more physics knowledge (Mike .himself) will say this is true. Whilst those
> with a firm understanding of .physics will say its laughably incorrect. . .Here's why: .
> .Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s/s we all know this..There are
slight
> .variations in this numerical value (to the second decimal place) which
are
> .dependent primarily upon altitude. . .Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x acceleration
> (a)" a larger .mass will create more force. This is true in itself, its obvious. . .However mike
> then says that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is
where
> .he has shown no understanding of advanced physics.
>
> You are LYING. I said that gravity is an acceleration, not the reverse.
>
> .If we let him have the fact that (a) is indeed gravity we all know that .acceleration due to
> gravity is constant regardless of mass. In other
words a
> .bike and a hiker both will accelerate at the same speed due to gravity
when
> .in a free fall situation.
>
> Right, but the FORCE applied to the ground will be greater, from the
greater
> mass. DUH!
>

If the added weight, we haven't established that a bike with a shock will always weigh more than a
bike without a shock, was dead weight that didn't contribute to causing a softer landing, then you
might be right. But, the fact is that shock absorbers reduce the impact of the bike coming back to
earth due to gravitational forces.

 

[Joemandoo]

Physics/Gravity... My education and understanding(or lack there of.) Last summer one of my riding
buddies and I were told of a new "badass"downhill. Hidden away and seldom traveled we found it to be
everything that it was boasted to be. High speed smoothies, intricate rock sections, and steep
puckers. It was at the last of these steeps (over a period of two consecutive courses) that I
received my "lasting" although basic education in applied physics. As we approached this section of
yet unknown terrain with me in the lead, and at a respectable (v) velocity, the very thin trail
banked inward on both sides and directed my front tire into a like sized rut which subsequently and
abruptly ended . With my "body" (m) mass in motion, and my bike rapidly decelerating, the shock
absorbers fully compressed, could do no more. The "full impact of weight" was not "fully" applied to
the ground as my mass, although somewhat slowed, stayed in motion, i.e. over the bars I went. After
my mass came to rest, my friend standing over me exclaimed "Dude, check out the groove your head
made!" With no real lasting "physical" effects, we made our way home. The next weekend, even with
the mishap, we decided to give the same trail another go. Again with the fun meter pegged, and yes
with me in the lead again, we approached the same section. Unlike before, this time my (m) mass was
traveling at a substantially and understandably slower (v) velocity. And again my tire entered the
same rut. However this time the spring compressed slower and decelerated both myself and the bike at
"almost" similar rates. Instead of the more linear trajectory my mass took during the previous
event, I was projected in a more bell shaped pattern. My understanding is that the "impact of
weight" was applied even more to the ground causing the unloading of the spring to propel me in a
more vertical plane. The result...this time my head made a divot, instead of a groove. While your
debate may continue about damage to the trail from the weight of the bike. I can tell you absolutely
that the damage to the trail from my head changed significantly due to the mass vs. velocity
equation. How the compressibility of the spring fit into it is best left to someone more educated
than me. So as you can see,I still have questions concerning all of the physical forces that were
present on those days. Not the least of which is why I didn't break my neck! But I think that has to
do with tensile strength, which is not part of this discussion. Thanks for listening....Joe

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 15:51:01 +1200, "Westie" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . ."Simon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]... .> .> In recent days many have had the
> fun of trying to educate MV on the .effects .> of gravity. His main argument is thus: .> .> Bikes
> with shock absorbers weigh more and hence cause more damage to .trails. .> .> Anyone with a mere
> basic understanding of physics will say this is .> absolutely wrong. Some people with a little
> more physics knowledge
(Mike
> .> himself) will say this is true. Whilst those with a firm understanding
of
> .> physics will say its laughably incorrect. .> .> Here's why: .> .> Acceleration due to gravity
> is 9.8 m/s/s we all know this..There are .slight .> variations in this numerical value (to the
> second decimal place) which
are
> .> dependent primarily upon altitude. .> .> Mike argues that since "force (f)= mass (m) x
> acceleration (a)" a
larger
> .> mass will create more force. This is true in itself, its obvious. .> .> However mike then says
> that the acceleration (a) is gravity. This is
where
> .> he has shown no understanding of advanced physics. .> .> If we let him have the fact that (a)
> is indeed gravity we all know that .> acceleration due to gravity is constant regardless of mass.
> In other
words
> .a .> bike and a hiker both will accelerate at the same speed due to gravity .when .> in a free
> fall situation. .> .> Therefore it can be seen that mike is very confused with regards to .physics
> .> and has a tendency to change his argument when cornered. .> .> Its all good fun and yes the
> above is verifiable should anyone require
it.
> .> .> Simon.........I like mike, he makes me look good. We should market him
as
> .an .> accessory. .> .> . .As much as I don't want to agree with MV, I think that he was trying to
say
> .that a heavier bike creates more damage when it hits the ground. Which on .it's own is probably
> true. .But as John explains in another thread posted here, the suspension
spreads
> .out that force.
>
> BS. It changes it over time. But when the spring bottoms out, you still
get the
> full impact of weight + momentum applied to the ground. Nothing a
suspension
> system can do will ever change that!
>
> .So while MV is right in his own way, he conveniently ignores other parts
of
> .the debate that, when taken into consideration, make all the difference. .And _that's_ a standard
> MV technique.
>
> You continue to ignore the fact that I am RIGHT!
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
> help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Jeff Strickland]

I haven't seen is stupidity in a long time, and was just wondering ...

 

[Andy Chequer]

<cross post removed>

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I haven't seen is stupidity in a long time, and was just wondering ...

Why don't you go beat your meat somewhere else you sad and utterly pointless troll humping
wankstain.

Andy Chequer.

 

[Pete Hickey]

In article <[email protected]>, Jeff Strickland <[email protected]> wrote:
>I haven't seen is stupidity in a long time, and was just wondering ...

He seems to come and go all the time. Why don't you try this.

Over the course of a year, record the number of posts he makes per day. Now take this, and plot it
along with the phases of the moon, temperatures in the bay area, polution levels, etc. Look for
corolation. See if ou can predict when he will return.

If you are lucky, you may be able to win money by betting when he will appear/disapear.

He may not be totally useless.

-Pete

--
--
LITTLE KNOWN FACT: Did you know that 90% of North Americans cannot taste the difference between
fried dog and fried cat?

 

[Gary S .]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:51:15 GMT, [email protected] (Pete Hickey) wrote:

>If you are lucky, you may be able to win money by betting when he will appear/disapear.
>
>He may not be totally useless.
>
There's an optimist.

Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[Doc]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:51:15 GMT, [email protected] (Pete Hickey) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Jeff Strickland <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I haven't seen is stupidity in a long time, and was just wondering ...
>
>He seems to come and go all the time. Why don't you try this.
>
>Over the course of a year, record the number of posts he makes per day. Now take this, and plot it
>along with the phases of the moon, temperatures in the bay area, polution levels, etc. Look for
>corolation. See if ou can predict when he will return.
>
>If you are lucky, you may be able to win money by betting when he will appear/disapear.
>
>He may not be totally useless.
>
>-Pete
>
>--

ROFL

doc

 

[Drummakid]

> Over the course of a year, record the number of posts he makes per day. Now take this, and plot it
> along with the phases of the moon, temperatures in the bay area, polution levels, etc. Look for
> corolation. See if ou can predict when he will return.
>
> If you are lucky, you may be able to win money by betting when he will appear/disapear.

...YESSS! I *knew* there was a reason I saved all those old solunar tables...

--Jordan

btw, there's an old saying that goes 'ask and ye shall recieve'... so stop askin where mikey
went already

 

[Bomba]

DrummaKid wrote:

> btw, there's an old saying that goes 'ask and ye shall recieve'... so stop askin where mikey
> went already

Ahh, Jeff's just lonely. Arguing with Mike was the reason he got up in the morning, but now Mike's
not around, there's a big void in his life

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm