Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Patent updates
On 11/9/2019 1:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 9:16:26 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 11/9/2019 9:44 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/8/2019 3:28 PM, wrote: On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 7:57:07 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/8/2019 9:51 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 1:18:13 AM UTC-8, wrote: On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 12:41:37 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 2:44:57 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 11/7/2019 4:30 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:31:54 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: We all pause to slap our foreheads. WTF? These are patentable designs?? https://bikerumor.com/2019/11/04/pat...es-for-others/ I would wonder how you could ever thread a hose/outer cable through that much of a length of bike without an actual inside tube. Depends on the frame and how much impedimenta is hidden inside. On some, drop in wire or hose, catch it in one's fingers through the big hole in front of the BB. For many, neodymium magnets and a stiff poly wire are the quickest solution. Others need something to pierce the swarf inside like a 1/16" welding rod. Then there are the odd frames now and again which just resist cable/hose installation for no good reason and tick off the mechanic. Typical tool: https://jagwire.com/products/tools/i...l-routing-tool If you're doing a bare frame, it's a PITA but not horrible. It is horrible if you're trying to snake a Di2 wire or hose or cable through a crowded DT into a little passage under the BB with existing cables/hoses/wires. And let's see what's behind door number one! https://tinyurl.com/yy9xwxwb This is the great time suck with modern bikes -- along with hidden nipples in pre-fab wheels and a few other annoyances. -- Jay Beattie. -- Jay Beattie. Last week I replaced for the first time the inner cables of the front and rear derailleur of my internal routed Canyon frame. It was very easy. The frame has a big removable plastic cap on the bottom of the bottom bracket shell with the cable guides integrated. I removed the cranks and put a liner (a piece of the smallest shrink tube) from the RD side over the old cable to the BB shell in the horizontal chainstay. After that it is a piece of cake. Lou Changing a cable isn't terrible. On my Norco, for example, the RD cable is all in housing. Installing the housing is a PITA getting it through the chain stay, but once in, cable replacement is easy. The FD cable is in housing from the lever to the DT, but then it stops and runs bare through the frame. My technique for running the FD cable is to pull the old cable just a bit out of the lever, cut off the button, pull off the outer housing and then I cut off a cable end cap so it has a hole in both ends, put the new cable through the lever, through the housing and crimp it to old cable with the cable cap and then just pull it through the frame. The openings are big enough to accommodate the cable cap, and then I just clip it off since there is so much excess cable anyway. I suppose I could use shrink wrap to join the cable for the pull, but I've never tried that. Running a new hydraulic hose or cable housing can be a pain depending on the frame and circumstances. My worst experience was running a new hose through a Roubaix when I couldn't use the old hose to pull because the meth-heads who stole the bike (the police brought it back) had cut the rear tube and shoved the end in the stay. I don't doubt that there are many clever ways of fishing cables through frame tubes. But isn't it amazing what people will put up with for aesthetics? -- - Frank Krygowski Well, lets see this was the first time I changed the cables in 5 years and it went pretty easy even with the removal of the crankset which is also pretty easy with the modern cranksets. So I think I can live with this little inconvenience for a cleaner look. Personally I find touring bikes incredibly ugly with all that bolted on junk but I don't have to ride one so I won't make a remark when it pops up here. Tastes vary, of course. And they're greatly affected by one's personal interests. When I was young, just discovering bicycling and a bit interested in racing, I thought the most beautiful bikes were pared-to-the-minimum racing bikes. But after a while, those all began to look the same to me. (Yawn - another bike with spider web wheels and holes drilled in the shift levers.) These days I'm more likely to stop and inspect a well-used touring bike or cargo bike, especially if it has custom features. Modern racing bikes look so... well, so plastic! But I do think steel frame fixies look cool. Now _that's_ minimalist! When we were young, top racing bicycles were notable for having no brazed bits, unlike 'cheap' ten speeders. The popular theory was that brazing a bottle or shift mount 'weakened' the frame. So the popular aesthetic was a pile of sloppy steel clamps with crappy screws. That changed. Thank Buddha for that change. My PX10 was clamp-on everything except for the chain stay cable stop. I guess it was O.K. to heat up chain stays. The chroming was probably more destructive. I don't care about the aesthetics of cable runs, although I wasn't that excited about the cable slap on my Cannondales with the bare cable run along the top tube -- and the little rubber doughnuts that all seemed to migrate to one end of the run. Internal hoses can rattle too if you don't pad them. I guess I entered the game near the end of the braze-on "prohibition." I still remember the first time I saw a custom-built frame. I thought the brazed on guides were a great idea. Our tandem has a long, long bare cable run along its top tube. I used to get a little irritated by the quiet ringing sound when it slapped the frame. It doesn't seem to irritate me now, even though I have no "donuts" on it. I don't know if I'm more tolerant, or if my hearing is going. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Patent updates
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 10:51:19 +1100, James
wrote: On 8/11/19 6:31 am, AMuzi wrote: We all pause to slap our foreheads. WTF? These are patentable designs?? https://bikerumor.com/2019/11/04/pat...es-for-others/ Oh how I long for all electric wireless brakes and gears. Yep. However, the problem is not how you control the brakes and gears. It's how you supply power to run the electronics, servos, solenoids, sensors, and motors. If you run a power bus through the frame (inside or outside the tubes), you still end up with a rats nest of wires. You can power each device with a built in battery for each device, but that creates multiple potential points of failure. Let's say you have 18650 LiIon rechargeable cells in each brake lever (2), shifter (1), front derailleur (1), rear derailleur (1), and rear brakes (1). Total batteries = 6. Charging or replacing all 6 batteries before a ride can be an interesting exercise. On the other foot, assume you have a power bus (2 wires) running all over the bicycle. That's smaller and flatter than a hydraulic hose or mechanical cable. That reduces 6 batteries to one, which could also run the headlight, tail light, cell phone, etc. One battery is easier to manage than 6 or more. For control, wireless is possible, but methinks un-necessary. Any of the bipolar two wire industrial buses or automotive CAN bus (ISO 11898-3 at 1Mbit/sec) can be used to control the brakes and gears. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieldbus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus Some variations can multiplex the data onto the power wires, but I don't like that because it's unipolar, not bipolar. Anyway, if you're going to go electronic, you might as well go all electronic. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Patent updates
On 11/9/2019 2:52 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 10:51:19 +1100, James wrote: On 8/11/19 6:31 am, AMuzi wrote: We all pause to slap our foreheads. WTF? These are patentable designs?? https://bikerumor.com/2019/11/04/pat...es-for-others/ Oh how I long for all electric wireless brakes and gears. Yep. However, the problem is not how you control the brakes and gears. It's how you supply power to run the electronics, servos, solenoids, sensors, and motors. If you run a power bus through the frame (inside or outside the tubes), you still end up with a rats nest of wires. You can power each device with a built in battery for each device, but that creates multiple potential points of failure. Let's say you have 18650 LiIon rechargeable cells in each brake lever (2), shifter (1), front derailleur (1), rear derailleur (1), and rear brakes (1). Total batteries = 6. Charging or replacing all 6 batteries before a ride can be an interesting exercise. On the other foot, assume you have a power bus (2 wires) running all over the bicycle. That's smaller and flatter than a hydraulic hose or mechanical cable. That reduces 6 batteries to one, which could also run the headlight, tail light, cell phone, etc. One battery is easier to manage than 6 or more. For control, wireless is possible, but methinks un-necessary. Any of the bipolar two wire industrial buses or automotive CAN bus (ISO 11898-3 at 1Mbit/sec) can be used to control the brakes and gears. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieldbus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus Some variations can multiplex the data onto the power wires, but I don't like that because it's unipolar, not bipolar. Anyway, if you're going to go electronic, you might as well go all electronic. You electrical guys ought to get busy on sending power without wires. I mean, come on, didn't Tesla talk about that over 100 years ago? What have you been doing? Let's stage a contest. Mechanicals vs. Electricals. Flying cars vs. wireless power. (And don't brag about charging a cell phone with a little pad. Even the Dukes of Hazzard could fly a car way farther than that!) -- - Frank Krygowski |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Patent updates
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 15:08:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: You electrical guys ought to get busy on sending power without wires. I mean, come on, didn't Tesla talk about that over 100 years ago? Yep. Telsa talked about it, but never produced anything practical. What have you been doing? Well, on the electrical front, we have: - More efficient batteries (LiIon). - More efficient lighting (LED). - Smarter devices (computahs). - Fly by wire and drive by wire to replace cable driven controls. - Human strength augmentation (eBikes). - Bicycle sensor arrays for performance logging and optimization. - Trainers and rollers with electrically adjustable loads. - Rear view and "dashboard" type cameras. - Bicycle doping with hidden motors. - Credit cards (don't leave home without one). - Whatever else I forgot. Wireless power is currently (pun intended) in the realm of science fiction. Using RF (radio frequencies) to power something is not practical. Using a laser might be, but would probably be unsuitable for powering a bicycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion As I've ranted a few times in the past, once you have an onboard computah and power system on the bicycle, the opportunities to add electronic gizmos and gadgets are endless. Conversion of the existing mechanical devices will probably be the first to be electrified. Let's stage a contest. Mechanicals vs. Electricals. Flying cars vs. wireless power. I plead nolo contendere (no contest). You're comparing apples and oranges, which will likely turn out badly. (And don't brag about charging a cell phone with a little pad. Even the Dukes of Hazzard could fly a car way farther than that!) Inverse square law. Double the distance and you deliver only half the power. What works in the near field (very close), fails in the far field (far away). The RF power levels needed to make a cell phone charger work at a distance is about the same as what it would take to barbeque the user. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Patent updates
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 15:08:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: You electrical guys ought to get busy on sending power without wires. I mean, come on, didn't Tesla talk about that over 100 years ago? Yep. Telsa talked about it, but never produced anything practical. What have you been doing? Well, on the electrical front, we have: - More efficient batteries (LiIon). - More efficient lighting (LED). - Smarter devices (computahs). - Fly by wire and drive by wire to replace cable driven controls. - Human strength augmentation (eBikes). - Bicycle sensor arrays for performance logging and optimization. - Trainers and rollers with electrically adjustable loads. - Rear view and "dashboard" type cameras. - Bicycle doping with hidden motors. - Credit cards (don't leave home without one). - Whatever else I forgot. Wireless power is currently (pun intended) in the realm of science fiction. Using RF (radio frequencies) to power something is not practical. Using a laser might be, but would probably be unsuitable for powering a bicycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion As I've ranted a few times in the past, once you have an onboard computah and power system on the bicycle, the opportunities to add electronic gizmos and gadgets are endless. Conversion of the existing mechanical devices will probably be the first to be electrified. Let's stage a contest. Mechanicals vs. Electricals. Flying cars vs. wireless power. I plead nolo contendere (no contest). You're comparing apples and oranges, which will likely turn out badly. (And don't brag about charging a cell phone with a little pad. Even the Dukes of Hazzard could fly a car way farther than that!) Inverse square law. Double the distance and you deliver only half the power. What works in the near field (very close), fails in the far field (far away). The RF power levels needed to make a cell phone charger work at a distance is about the same as what it would take to barbeque the user. If it’s an inverse square law you’re taking about, when you double the distance you only deliver one quarter of the power. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Patent updates
On 11/9/2019 11:52 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
snip Anyway, if you're going to go electronic, you might as well go all electronic. You can also get rid of the pedals, cranks, and spindle and just use the batteries to power a motor in one of the wheels. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Patent updates
On 11/10/2019 2:23 PM, sms wrote:
On 11/9/2019 11:52 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: snip Anyway, if you're going to go electronic, you might as well go all electronic. You can also get rid of the pedals, cranks, and spindle and just use the batteries to power a motor in one of the wheels. Right. Why, by 1910 our bicycles may be greatly 'advanced': https://tinyurl.com/txcgca7 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Patent updates
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 18:16:18 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote: Jeff Liebermann wrote: Inverse square law. Double the distance and you deliver only half the power. What works in the near field (very close), fails in the far field (far away). The RF power levels needed to make a cell phone charger work at a distance is about the same as what it would take to barbeque the user. If it’s an inverse square law you’re taking about, when you double the distance you only deliver one quarter of the power. Oops and thanks. I need a better proof reader. I've been using inverse square law for about 55 years, but somehow managed to screw it up today. Oddly, I can catch other peoples mistakes, but not my own. Thanks again for the correction. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Patent updates
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 1:01:14 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/10/2019 2:23 PM, sms wrote: On 11/9/2019 11:52 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: snip Anyway, if you're going to go electronic, you might as well go all electronic. You can also get rid of the pedals, cranks, and spindle and just use the batteries to power a motor in one of the wheels. Right. Why, by 1910 our bicycles may be greatly 'advanced': https://tinyurl.com/txcgca7 I like the minimalist seat. Cinelli? -- Jay Beattie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Patent News | AMuzi | Techniques | 3 | October 31st 19 06:23 PM |
Patent number: 528145 | [email protected] | Techniques | 10 | January 25th 08 05:25 AM |
A WORD FROM THE PATENT OFFICE | datakoll | Techniques | 0 | December 25th 07 01:55 AM |
Rolf patent misleading | Mike Reed | Techniques | 2 | June 2nd 06 07:22 AM |
10 collars patent | [email protected] | General | 0 | May 20th 05 09:17 AM |