|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tescocar park
On 10/08/2020 15:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:18, JNugent wrote: On 10/08/2020 14:00, TMS320 wrote: I have enough technical knowledge to know it's not that simple. Why are you so ready to suck up to Nugent when he never backs up his claims? Don't *you* support the thesis that a higher centre of gravity reduces stability (ceteris paribus, of course)? Sigh. For a car or table that is stable when upright, yes, a lower CogG for a given base allows it to tip to a greater angle before it falls over. This is easy to calculate and demonstrate practically. For a compound inverted pendulum (ie, a person on foot, running, on a bike etc), it might, it might not. For the purposes of discussion we can make it simpler and consider a simple inverted pendulum having a point mass. If not, why not? You genuinely don't get it. You make a claim, it's your call. OK, let's try to make it simpler for you. Which is likely to be better - the rider down in a triathlon tuck or the rider on a sit up and beg? You can even do your own experiment. Get a pen and balance it vertically on your palm. Impossible, isn't it? Now get a broom and do the same. Try it head up and head down. Which is easier? That's fine and answer a question about your approach to this. There are only two possibilities. 1. You (correctly) do recognise that a raised centre of gravity reduces stability but for reasons of your own, daren't admit it. 2. You (quite incorrectly) don't accept that a raised centre of gravity reduces stability. There are no other relevant possibilities. |
Ads |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tescocar park
On 10/08/2020 16:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:55, TMS320 wrote: On 10/08/2020 15:18, JNugent wrote: On 10/08/2020 14:00, TMS320 wrote: I have enough technical knowledge to know it's not that simple. Why are you so ready to suck up to Nugent when he never backs up his claims? Don't *you* support the thesis that a higher centre of gravity reduces stability (ceteris paribus, of course)? Sigh. For a car or table that is stable when upright, yes, a lower CogG for a given base allows it to tip to a greater angle before it falls over. This is easy to calculate and demonstrate practically. For a compound inverted pendulum (ie, a person on foot, running, on a bike etc), it might, it might not. For the purposes of discussion we can make it simpler and consider a simple inverted pendulum having a point mass. If not, why not? You genuinely don't get it. You make a claim, it's your call. OK, let's try to make it simpler for you. Which is likely to be better - the rider down in a triathlon tuck or the rider on a sit up and beg? You can even do your own experiment. Get a pen and balance it vertically on your palm. Impossible, isn't it? Now get a broom and do the same. Try it head up and head down. Which is easier? That's fine and answer a question about your approach to this. Typo. That should have read: "That's fine and answers a question about your approach to this." Apologies. There are only two possibilities. 1. You (correctly) do recognise that a raised centre of gravity reduces stability but for reasons of your own, daren't admit it. 2. You (quite incorrectly) don't accept that a raised centre of gravity reduces stability. There are no other relevant possibilities. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tescocar park
On 10/08/2020 16:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:55, TMS320 wrote: On 10/08/2020 15:18, JNugent wrote: On 10/08/2020 14:00, TMS320 wrote: I have enough technical knowledge to know it's not that simple. Why are you so ready to suck up to Nugent when he never backs up his claims? Don't *you* support the thesis that a higher centre of gravity reduces stability (ceteris paribus, of course)? Sigh. For a car or table that is stable when upright, yes, a lower CogG for a given base allows it to tip to a greater angle before it falls over. This is easy to calculate and demonstrate practically. For a compound inverted pendulum (ie, a person on foot, running, on a bike etc), it might, it might not. For the purposes of discussion we can make it simpler and consider a simple inverted pendulum having a point mass. If not, why not? You genuinely don't get it. You make a claim, it's your call. OK, let's try to make it simpler for you. Which is likely to be better - the rider down in a triathlon tuck or the rider on a sit up and beg? You can even do your own experiment. Get a pen and balance it vertically on your palm. Impossible, isn't it? Now get a broom and do the same. Try it head up and head down. Which is easier? That's fine and answer a question about your approach to this. There are only two possibilities. 1. You (correctly) do recognise that a raised centre of gravity reduces stability but for reasons of your own, daren't admit it. 2. You (quite incorrectly) don't accept that a raised centre of gravity reduces stability. There are no other relevant possibilities. Then you are deaf, blind and stupid. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tescocar park
On 10/08/2020 17:14, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/08/2020 16:31, JNugent wrote: On 10/08/2020 15:55, TMS320 wrote: On 10/08/2020 15:18, JNugent wrote: On 10/08/2020 14:00, TMS320 wrote: I have enough technical knowledge to know it's not that simple. Why are you so ready to suck up to Nugent when he never backs up his claims? Don't *you* support the thesis that a higher centre of gravity reduces stability (ceteris paribus, of course)? Sigh. For a car or table that is stable when upright, yes, a lower CogG for a given base allows it to tip to a greater angle before it falls over. This is easy to calculate and demonstrate practically. For a compound inverted pendulum (ie, a person on foot, running, on a bike etc), it might, it might not. For the purposes of discussion we can make it simpler and consider a simple inverted pendulum having a point mass. If not, why not? You genuinely don't get it. You make a claim, it's your call. OK, let's try to make it simpler for you. Which is likely to be better - the rider down in a triathlon tuck or the rider on a sit up and beg? You can even do your own experiment. Get a pen and balance it vertically on your palm. Impossible, isn't it? Now get a broom and do the same. Try it head up and head down. Which is easier? That's fine and answer a question about your approach to this. There are only two possibilities. 1. You (correctly) do recognise that a raised centre of gravity reduces stability but for reasons of your own, daren't admit it. 2. You (quite incorrectly) don't accept that a raised centre of gravity reduces stability. There are no other relevant possibilities. Then you are deaf, blind and stupid. *You're* the one who didn't know that raising centre of gravity reduces stability, stupidly disputed it and is now floundering around, desperately, searching for something... anything... to deflect attention from those facts. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tescocar park
On 04/08/2020 13:02, Pamela wrote:
On 08:14 4 Aug 2020, TMS320 said: You claim a). Now show your working. You must have enough of a technical background to know full well Nugent is right but you're seeking to drag this out. Yup, you're trolling. Am I trolling? Do you think my reply to Nugent about pendulums (for the second time, both ignored), was not reasonable enough? |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tesco car park
On 14:24 10 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:
On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 12:42:04 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote: On 10:58 10 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said: On Sunday, August 9, 2020 at 11:28:56 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote: On 13:41 9 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said: On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:26:45 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote: On 14:11 7 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said: On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 1:26:32 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote: Maybe it follows that these lesser cyclists shouldn't be allowed to cycle on the road with a rucksack. How would you police a ban on rucksacks? If hypothetically rucksacks were banned then it would be easier to spot a cyclist with a rucksack than a driver using a mobile phone. https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/fashio...cling-backpack s?i mag e=5f20059067c4d52938b5914c Very nice for commuting to the office but we were talking about supermarket groceries. I thought you wanted to make *all* rucksacks illegal - even for schoolkids and office workers? Please cite where that was proposed. QUOTE: Maybe it follows that these lesser cyclists shouldn't be allowed to cycle on the road with a rucksack. What's the first word? |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tesco car park
On 17:14 10 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:
On 10/08/2020 16:31, JNugent wrote: On 10/08/2020 15:55, TMS320 wrote: On 10/08/2020 15:18, JNugent wrote: On 10/08/2020 14:00, TMS320 wrote: I have enough technical knowledge to know it's not that simple. Why are you so ready to suck up to Nugent when he never backs up his claims? Don't *you* support the thesis that a higher centre of gravity reduces stability (ceteris paribus, of course)? Sigh. For a car or table that is stable when upright, yes, a lower CogG for a given base allows it to tip to a greater angle before it falls over. This is easy to calculate and demonstrate practically. For a compound inverted pendulum (ie, a person on foot, running, on a bike etc), it might, it might not. For the purposes of discussion we can make it simpler and consider a simple inverted pendulum having a point mass. If not, why not? You genuinely don't get it. You make a claim, it's your call. OK, let's try to make it simpler for you. Which is likely to be better - the rider down in a triathlon tuck or the rider on a sit up and beg? You can even do your own experiment. Get a pen and balance it vertically on your palm. Impossible, isn't it? Now get a broom and do the same. Try it head up and head down. Which is easier? That's fine and answer a question about your approach to this. There are only two possibilities. 1. You (correctly) do recognise that a raised centre of gravity reduces stability but for reasons of your own, daren't admit it. 2. You (quite incorrectly) don't accept that a raised centre of gravity reduces stability. There are no other relevant possibilities. Then you are deaf, blind and stupid. A couple of interesting research articles on cyclist stability which make use of the inverted pendulum model are at pains to point out that constant correction is required by the cyclist. It is this dynamic rather than the static situation which gives rise to many of the problems from carrying a shifting load on your back. The raised CoG amplifies the problem. What Nugent has been saying seems correct. I wonder why you persist in refusing it. Are you so concerned about a loss of face that you won't admit the truth? |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tesco car park
On 19:22 10 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:
On 04/08/2020 13:02, Pamela wrote: On 08:14 4 Aug 2020, TMS320 said: You claim a). Now show your working. You must have enough of a technical background to know full well Nugent is right but you're seeking to drag this out. Yup, you're trolling. Am I trolling? Do you think my reply to Nugent about pendulums (for the second time, both ignored), was not reasonable enough? You are repeatedly deflecting from the issue Nugent is putting to you. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tescocar park
On 10/08/2020 19:37, Pamela wrote:
On 17:14 10 Aug 2020, TMS320 said: On 10/08/2020 16:31, JNugent wrote: On 10/08/2020 15:55, TMS320 wrote: On 10/08/2020 15:18, JNugent wrote: On 10/08/2020 14:00, TMS320 wrote: I have enough technical knowledge to know it's not that simple. Why are you so ready to suck up to Nugent when he never backs up his claims? Don't *you* support the thesis that a higher centre of gravity reduces stability (ceteris paribus, of course)? Sigh. For a car or table that is stable when upright, yes, a lower CogG for a given base allows it to tip to a greater angle before it falls over. This is easy to calculate and demonstrate practically. For a compound inverted pendulum (ie, a person on foot, running, on a bike etc), it might, it might not. For the purposes of discussion we can make it simpler and consider a simple inverted pendulum having a point mass. If not, why not? You genuinely don't get it. You make a claim, it's your call. OK, let's try to make it simpler for you. Which is likely to be better - the rider down in a triathlon tuck or the rider on a sit up and beg? You can even do your own experiment. Get a pen and balance it vertically on your palm. Impossible, isn't it? Now get a broom and do the same. Try it head up and head down. Which is easier? That's fine and answer a question about your approach to this. There are only two possibilities. 1. You (correctly) do recognise that a raised centre of gravity reduces stability but for reasons of your own, daren't admit it. 2. You (quite incorrectly) don't accept that a raised centre of gravity reduces stability. There are no other relevant possibilities. Then you are deaf, blind and stupid. A couple of interesting research articles on cyclist stability which make use of the inverted pendulum model are at pains to point out that constant correction is required by the cyclist. It is this dynamic rather than the static situation which gives rise to many of the problems from carrying a shifting load on your back. The raised CoG amplifies the problem. You take the view that shifting is inevitable. You might have have that problem but please don't reflect your inadequacy on others. Get a better bag. What Nugent has been saying seems correct. It "seems". Is that all? I wonder why you persist in refusing it. Are you so concerned about a loss of face that you won't admit the truth? Physics doesn't work by opinion poll. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tescocar park
On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 7:38:20 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
The raised CoG amplifies the problem. ROAD.CC: But humans are guided by perceived risk, not cold, hard statistics. It's why people buy SUVs because they are seen as 'safer' as they are higher up, but they are more dangerous not just to other people but to their own occupants because they are heavy with a higher centre of gravity, so crashes are worse. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Audi driver ‘deliberately aims car at cyclist at speed in road rage | Bod[_5_] | UK | 2 | August 6th 18 07:56 PM |
Video of cyclist attacking a driver with acid (not road rage) | MrCheerful | UK | 3 | September 6th 17 01:00 AM |
Driver threatens to break cyclist’s neck in bout of road rage near Richmond Park | Bod[_5_] | UK | 3 | August 25th 15 10:28 AM |
Police hunt road rage cyclist after attack on bus driver | Mrcheerful | UK | 1 | July 17th 14 06:44 PM |
Road rage bus driver faces jail for swerving in to cyclist | Simon Mason[_4_] | UK | 59 | January 28th 12 05:20 AM |