Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:00:25 GMT, Andy Coggan wrote:

Conveying precise concepts requires precise use of terminology. While I
agree with you that simple "pedal speed" might be sufficient should it be
used within context, it might not be if, for example, the plot was presented
out of context. Hence, "circumferential pedal velocity", i.e, the speed and
direction that the pedal travels.


http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/s...gthvspower.gif

Bull****. It's a simple 2D plot, only the magnitude of the velocity is
used. How can "pedal speed (m/s)" be misinterpreted?! If you want to
be more precise you could say "Pedal turning speed (m/s)" or "Pedal
speed wrt. axle (m/s)", but "Circumferential pedal velocity", please.
I think you were just afraid of the alternative abbreviation PTS.

Btw, thanks for your efforts in writing the article.

This is the kind of discussion that turns many people off from science
and engineering. (I haven't read the paper yet but maybe a conversion
to angular velocity would've created a more unassailable text?)

"You call THAT punctuation?"

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"