Feed aggregator

Re: Casual cycle clothes

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 8:52pm
meic wrote:To the shops, to visit friends, Audax or an 1100 mile camping tour of France, I wear these.

http://www.rohan.co.uk/mens-bargain-tra ... e=03598730

I used some elastic cord threaded inside the hem to keep the bottoms from getting overly intimate with the chain.
Both legs (not because I have a tandem but because it would look silly otherwise).

They dry out very rapidly and are quite windproof, which are the important things.

Also worth a look, for an amazing price http://www.decathlon.co.uk/arpenaz-50-m ... 41486.html

Re: Panniers for weekend tours

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 8:33pm
Great minds think alike.


[emoji86][emoji85][emoji87]

Re: Appropriate words of advice ?

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 8:31pm
It's a while since I've had anything to do with the Metropolitan Police force, but I always found them very aggressive and'forthright'.
In this video the copper is unnecessarily aggressive, but I'm not sure that the cyclist is blameless either.
Anyone constantly calling me 'mate' would hack me off.
I think that the original sin here might have been the cyclist pulling out of the lane without indicating - we can't see this o the video, but if he did pull unexpectedly out in front of the police car (or another vehicle) then that was probable cause of the beep we hear.
The other possibly wider issue is the fast and furious nature of the cycling was seem to see in London where commuting is turning into a list of Strava segments to be beaten. Chill!
The way the police car was used to try to pull the cyclist over was just plain daft - I wouldn't have responded to the siren.

Sent from my P01W using Tapatalk

Re: Panniers for weekend tours

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 8:30pm
mjr wrote:ribblerouser wrote:I've used Carradry 2X10 litre panniers for years, and found them to be very tough and waterproof, seldom take them off the touring/utility bike now.
Do you secure them to the bike while stopped? How? Thanks in advance.
No I never bother, there is a strap on the top which I attach to the rack, sort of belt and braces in case I've forgotten to close the fasteners, which I did once when I was at work and the pannier parted company after a large pothole. If you want to secure panniers a cafe lock would be ideal, it could be looped through panniers and rack, and also helmet.

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 8:28pm
Manc33 wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:That is so absurdly unlikely to happen by chance that it is a confirmed discovery. Now since we have a theory of the universe which predicted these waves would exist - we're fairly confident that that is in fact what we have seen.

Its too easy to make all manner of other phenomena look like gravity is causing it. Gravity waves were debunked the day after they were announced, recently. A guy with the equipment showed what causes the effect and it doesn't need to be gravity.
I must have missed that press release from the teams involved - as did the rest of the world.

[XAP]Bob wrote:A rocket doesn't need air to push against...
It does.
Why would a rocket need air to work?
It's trivial to get a small rocket motor and put it in a vacuum chamber and demonstrate that it generates thrust in a vacuum. Ok, on earth the vacuum won't be very substantial for long - due to the rocket exhaust - but the thrust is demonstrably present in a vacuum.

[XAP]Bob wrote:...in your scenario we'd have no satellites, and I can see them quite easily.
If they are the size and distance claimed you shouldn't be able to see them.
Can you see something the size of a bus 200+ miles away?
Can you see something the size of a jumbo jet at only 7 miles up?
Yes but barely!
So with that in mind, why do you think you're looking at something far smaller (a satellite) that is more than 28 times further away than a plane?
Dude seriously!

There are such things as telescopes you know. Besides the visual acuity test doesn't require points of light against a dark background to have any defined angular size. I can't see them occlude the moon without a 'scope, but I can see them traverse the night sky quite easily - and in exactly the direction and time predicted by orbital mechanics...

[XAP]Bob wrote:A rocket pushes against it's own exhaust.
This isn't physically possible. This is like saying if I grab your collar and pick you up and you grab my collar, we can both rise up, magically lifting (floating) each other upwards. Of course that can't happen, it needs the ground to be there for anyone to lift anyone at all and you can't just "float" up.

Of course not - but If I pushed up and you pushed down then you would move up. If we were in water then you'd move up and I'd move down.
If we were on ice, or wheels or any low friction scenario, and I punched you in the face then we'd move away from each other - You being the exhaust and me being the rocket... The rocket doesn't push on the exhaust when it's exhaust, but to make it into exhaust.

[XAP]Bob wrote:What your scenario is losing isn't energy, but momentum.
No, all of the momentum is there but in the form of gas floating away into space with the rocket unable to propel anywhere.

So there is a net change in momentum. Hmm - I should probably have added the phrase "conservation of" to each of the properties mentioned. You can magically throw the gas backwards and not experience a reaction force...

[XAP]Bob wrote:The vacuum of space does have particles in it - The ISS orbits at about 220km, and there are single digits of particles per cc at that altitude.
There isn't any shielding material we know of that can tolerate this, nor is there any material known that can convent and conduct 2,500C heat away from these objects (like the ISS, satellites, rockets and so on).
No one ever answers any of this, they hate that it exists in fact, I mean its pretty obvious nothing can conduct or convect in such an environment but people will carry on pretending as though it is all possible.

Wait - what?
Shielding to tolerate single atom/molecule impacts at 17k mph - that's tiny energy...
And when did anyone mention convection/conduction - to dissipate heat in space you use radiators.

[XAP]Bob wrote:There is no "atmosphere edge", but the atmosphere peters out... the reason for this is gravity, and it's easily observed by taking a barometer and measuring the pressure difference between sea level and the top of a mountain, from that (and lots of points inbetween) you can predict the data for higher and higher altitudes...

All air pressure proves is the air is heavier nearer Earth, it certainly doesn't prove gravity or hint that it is there either. The only "hint" would be that Earth is a spinning ball, but this is also an unverifiable and unverified thing.

Didn't mention gravity - just look at the air pressure gradient - fairly soon as you go up (do you believe in up?) the air gets too thin to breath.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Actually - Mathematics exists in a pure form, the basic premise of maths are called Axioms - they are assumptions which are made. If you try to make an axiom which is incompatible then you choose which one to discard.

Here's a few axioms that are not proven:

1. Earth's "ball" shape.
2. Earth's rotation.
3. Gravity.

They aren't axioms. They're not mathematical constructs of any sort.

None of it has real answers, just "what if" answers with a load of maths purpose built around it, none of that maths makes it reality. After all what does maths do apart from measure, calculate and predict? Nothing, in a physical demonstrable way it "proves" not one single thing. It is a tool.
Saying maths proves anything in reality is like saying "Spanners proves nuts exist".

Maths, and theoretical physics, makes predictions. Those predictions are then tested, and if, as with gravitational waves, they are found to be accurate predictions then our confidence in the model that led to the prediction increases. If they don't then we look at the model and improve it.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Rockets works by pushing against their exhaust, not the air around them.
This isn't possible though. The "exhaust" is the rocket.

Only in the sense that the exhaust is the car. Rocket exhaust is a carefully controlled flow of gas, the rocket motor is carefully designed to extract the greatest possible exchange of momentum between rocket and fuel/exhaust.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Someone needs to educate you on the meaning of the word theory.
From an English dictionary or a scientific dictionary where meanings are purposely changed to confuse people just like with law dictionaries?

Erm - no, where definitions have been stable for centuries.

TPTB simply find something that works and stick with it. Science has its own dictionary so they can craftily call a theory a "fact", everyone knows it can never be, unless proven.

TPTB? The powers that be?
Who they hell are they meant to be?
There is a difference between a theory and a fact. I'll refer you to a dictionary again.
They have quite specific meanings.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Rockets work - relativity works - space works.
In people's minds yes, it works a treat, but verifying any of it is a problem... why is that?

Because we don't generally operate within situations where the effects deviate significantly from Newtonian physics.
You rely on orbital mechanics, rockets and the time dilation of relativity any time you get your location from GPS/Glonass/???/???


Re Tesla: I was wrong - Tesla was brilliant, but also unwilling to countenance the theories being developed at the time. He wasn't alone in that belief, but it doesn't make him right.

Re: Panniers for weekend tours

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 8:27pm
mjr wrote:ribblerouser wrote:I've used Carradry 2X10 litre panniers for years, and found them to be very tough and waterproof, seldom take them off the touring/utility bike now.
Do you secure them to the bike while stopped? How? Thanks in advance.String is good. In fact essential for when catches, brackets, straps fail. Very difficult to undo in a hurry if you are trying to steal something - add a wire bike lock so a knife would be no use.
The best string is that nice nylon stuff used for walking boot laces. Doesn't tangle. Always carry string.
.

Re: Groundeffect Bodybag. Any thoughts and where to buy

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 7:53pm
andymiller wrote:
The only problem with the Bodybag is the length - which isn't a problem for flying but could be an issue on trains. The Tardis is a better size for train travel.

True, but nothing to stop you further dismantling the bike (which is necessary with the Tardis anyway) and tying up the loose ends of the Bodybag with some straps or tape.

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 7:31pm
[XAP]Bob wrote:That is so absurdly unlikely to happen by chance that it is a confirmed discovery. Now since we have a theory of the universe which predicted these waves would exist - we're fairly confident that that is in fact what we have seen.

Its too easy to make all manner of other phenomena look like gravity is causing it. Gravity waves were debunked the day after they were announced, recently. A guy with the equipment showed what causes the effect and it doesn't need to be gravity.

[XAP]Bob wrote:A rocket doesn't need air to push against...

It does.

[XAP]Bob wrote:...in your scenario we'd have no satellites, and I can see them quite easily.

If they are the size and distance claimed you shouldn't be able to see them.

Can you see something the size of a bus 200+ miles away?

Can you see something the size of a jumbo jet at only 7 miles up?

Yes but barely!

So with that in mind, why do you think you're looking at something far smaller (a satellite) that is more than 28 times further away than a plane?

Dude seriously!

[XAP]Bob wrote:A rocket pushes against it's own exhaust.

This isn't physically possible. This is like saying if I grab your collar and pick you up and you grab my collar, we can both rise up, magically lifting (floating) each other upwards. Of course that can't happen, it needs the ground to be there for anyone to lift anyone at all and you can't just "float" up.

[XAP]Bob wrote:What your scenario is losing isn't energy, but momentum.

No, all of the momentum is there but in the form of gas floating away into space with the rocket unable to propel anywhere.

[XAP]Bob wrote:The vacuum of space does have particles in it - The ISS orbits at about 220km, and there are single digits of particles per cc at that altitude.

There isn't any shielding material we know of that can tolerate this, nor is there any material known that can convent and conduct 2,500C heat away from these objects (like the ISS, satellites, rockets and so on).

No one ever answers any of this, they hate that it exists in fact, I mean its pretty obvious nothing can conduct or convect in such an environment but people will carry on pretending as though it is all possible.

[XAP]Bob wrote:There is no "atmosphere edge", but the atmosphere peters out... the reason for this is gravity, and it's easily observed by taking a barometer and measuring the pressure difference between sea level and the top of a mountain, from that (and lots of points inbetween) you can predict the data for higher and higher altitudes...

All air pressure proves is the air is heavier nearer Earth, it certainly doesn't prove gravity or hint that it is there either. The only "hint" would be that Earth is a spinning ball, but this is also an unverifiable and unverified thing.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Actually - Mathematics exists in a pure form, the basic premise of maths are called Axioms - they are assumptions which are made. If you try to make an axiom which is incompatible then you choose which one to discard.

Here's a few axioms that are not proven:

1. Earth's "ball" shape.
2. Earth's rotation.
3. Gravity.

None of it has real answers, just "what if" answers with a load of maths purpose built around it, none of that maths makes it reality. After all what does maths do apart from measure, calculate and predict? Nothing, in a physical demonstrable way it "proves" not one single thing. It is a tool.

Saying maths proves anything in reality is like saying "Spanners proves nuts exist".

[XAP]Bob wrote:Rockets works by pushing against their exhaust, not the air around them.

This isn't possible though. The "exhaust" is the rocket.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Someone needs to educate you on the meaning of the word theory.

From an English dictionary or a scientific dictionary where meanings are purposely changed to confuse people just like with law dictionaries?

TPTB simply find something that works and stick with it. Science has its own dictionary so they can craftily call a theory a "fact", everyone knows it can never be, unless proven.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Tesla was referring to a specific group of people who were building things that didn't work.

You can't just "fit" an answer to it like that and accept it, surely?

Aren't you only saying this to cover it? I mean its what you'd have to say and is typical.

He said "today's scientists" and he meant Einstein, among others.

No offence but you're just sort of fitting the right answer to it there, even if some book claims Tesla was only referring to idiot scientists or whatever it is, why do you believe what that book says? We get told this crap endlessly and encouraged to believe it without question. I am amazed really that you'd make an answer up like that and if you have read in a book somewhere that Tesla didn't mean Einstein, this is the problem, Einstein simply got promoted - it was his wife that wrote the theory of relativity, he is a fraud, a complete and utter fraud, put on a pedestal because he was promoting all the right ideas, whether he knew it or not.

Copernicus is a similar thing where the guy dies before his book gets published!

In that case:

1. How do we know he even took it seriously himself?!

It could have just been mathematical grandstanding to show 'this is the maths for an Earth if it was a ball orbiting the sun, for the sake of doing it'.

2. How do we even know it was Copernicus that wrote it, if he isn't alive to talk about it, follow up on it, or tell us if it is supposed to be taken seriously?

That is a problem to me, that this guy wasn't around afterwards to update people with anything on it, he could have done it as a JOKE for all we know, a demonstration, this is the maths IF Earth were a spinning ball sort of thing.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Rockets work - relativity works - space works.

In people's minds yes, it works a treat, but verifying any of it is a problem... why is that?

I would move this to fun and games myself if I knew how to, or could.

Re: What camera?

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 6:47pm
Vantage wrote:Basically an audiot overtaking me by driving in excess of 30mph on the footpath just to beat me to the lights. I was taking the lane to prevent close passes on a short stretch of road where one lane was closed due to canal works....reinforcing the canal banking.
A very heated argument developed between the driver and I when I caught up with him.
Fuming isn't the word.

Reminds me of an encounter when we were cycling along with a car waiting patiently to overtake. We heard a squeal of brakes, burning rubber, next thing a car undertakes us and the following car by driving along the inside grass verge which fortunately was quite wide. He grins at us and gives a sheepish wave as he goes past. Clearly he was distracted and almost ran into the back of the following car and took to the grass verge to avoid a collision.

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 6:35pm
Flinders wrote:I'm female, actually


Ooops. So sorry! (I mean, sorry to have made assumptions, rather than sorry you're female... natch.)

My "friend's bike" turns into 6 year ban

Cycling UK Forum - Racing - 26 April 2016 - 6:35pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/36142963

First of many no doubt. It amazes me how the teams apparently never seem to know about this kind of thing * or doping etc .

*

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 6:34pm
Err - yet again where to begin.

Maybe with a request to a mod to cut these posts to the "games and fun" forum where they belong.

Manc33 wrote:Even rocket science "isn't rocket science" when you think about it, its just that this is an "imposed belief" on everyone to make them assume it is too difficult to understand, so people don't bother looking into it and leave it all down to the "experts" - that in a lot of cases are just playing the system and lying to get more grant money. For example the people that claimed to have discovered a gravity wave didn't, but if they can convince everyone they discovered gravity waves (with the added convenience of having every single educational academy agree with you due to confirmation bias and wanting gravity waves to be there) it is a cakewalk for the brainy people getting that grant money.
So what have they discovered. They have set out to observe the stretching of the fabric of space itself. A couple of groups have built similar, but not identical machines at different places on the planet.
Those machines use well known properties of light to measure space along two axes, and they measure quite alot of space (5km or so I think) to a very high degree of accuracy - but the real accuracy comes in the interferometry - despite not knowing exactly how many wavelengths of light fit along each arm, they can tell to very small fractions of a wavelength if those arms change length relative to one another - they are measuring nanometres of change in kilometres of distance (that's 12 orders of magnitude!)

Multiple experiments picked up a signal - the same signal - at the same time.

That is so absurdly unlikely to happen by chance that it is a confirmed discovery. Now since we have a theory of the universe which predicted these waves would exist - we're fairly confident that that is in fact what we have seen.

I think that the noise I can hear at the moment is caused by people in the bar downstairs. If I go downstairs (which I will in a bit) and find an empty bar I shall have to revisit the theory - if I find lots of noisy people, then I'll not.

Why be an actual physicist if you can be a "theoretical physicist" and never actually contribute anything real to the field or need to? I bet the "theoretical" physicists get paid more than the physicists that deal with known facts, its a sick world, where conjecture, confirmation bias and fantasy passes for "facts".

Erm - these guys were experimental physicists. Although they only know what to look for as a result of the work done by theoretical physicists.

You can't propel a rocket in a weightless vacuum the way we get told, the rocket has no air to push against to propel it and it would remain fixed, internally stressing itself, pumping all of the force out in the form of a gas cloud, which indeed, would be moving and yes, with 100% of the force. Don't worry, energy isn't being "lost" here! All of the force is all still there, but it wouldn't move the rocket anywhere, it would effortlessly pump the gas out into the vacuum, where it would float away in "space" for "billions" of years.

A rocket doesn't need air to push against - in your scenario we'd have no satellites, and I can see them quite easily. A rocket pushes against it's own exhaust. What your scenario is losing isn't energy, but momentum.

Space isn't even up there lol, nothing is "floating" and it isn't a vacuum, more of an airless void, but thats technically not a vacuum because lower down there is air and there isn't a barrier to it, I mean you can't have a vacuum connected to a non-vacuum and have it maintain itself, so then what's above us isn't a vacuum, it isn't weightless. Where's the proof apart from stuff shown to us on TV screens? If it is that easy then I guess George Clooney and Sandra Bullock really went into space? They must have because we have the footage on video.

The vacuum of space does have particles in it - The ISS orbits at about 220km, and there are single digits of particles per cc at that altitude. There is no "atmosphere edge", but the atmosphere peters out... the reason for this is gravity, and it's easily observed by taking a barometer and measuring the pressure difference between sea level and the top of a mountain, from that (and lots of points inbetween) you can predict the data for higher and higher altitudes...

It is rocket science but it isn't hard to understand what I just said (in a nutshell it needs air to push on and air isn't there in a vacuum) and this certainly doesn't need maths, it needs understanding - something that is unfortunately completely lacking from the world of mathematics for some reason, I mean when did you ever hear a mathematician admit hey, this entire premise could be wrong?

Actually - Mathematics exists in a pure form, the basic premise of maths are called Axioms - they are assumptions which are made. If you try to make an axiom which is incompatible then you choose which one to discard.
Rockets works by pushing against their exhaust, not the air around them. This is as true for model rockets as it is for Falcon, Soyuz, Saturn 5 etc etc etc. It's also true for ion drives and other low thrust devices. Then you have solar sails, using the momentum of photons, although there is a weird new drive which has some people rather interested. It's not an obvious mechanism - but tests have shown some thrust (although very low levels, virtually within error bars of zero )

Never.

Naive mathematicians that insist on their equations matching reality when they actually don't. Someone needs to tell these people that theories aren't facts because I think they are getting a little bit too carried away with it.

Someone needs to educate you on the meaning of the word theory. And since you didn't listen last time...

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla
Amen to that.
Tesla was referring to a specific group of people who were building things that didn't work.


Rockets work - relativity works - space works.

Re: banned for having an electric motor and blue tooth swit

Cycling UK Forum - Racing - 26 April 2016 - 6:26pm
Putting aside the "cheating" aspect of whats been done here. The tech benefits for motor integration and smaller batteries etc will flow through to road bikes for mere mortals offsetting say performance decline with age. Not for competition use clearly, just everyday cycling. We need to move to making any electrical assist as light and small as is practical for the amount of assist available. So not all negative.

Re: banned for having an electric motor and blue tooth swit

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 6:26pm
Putting aside the "cheating" aspect of whats been done here. The tech benefits for motor integration and smaller batteries etc will flow through to road bikes for mere mortals offsetting say performance decline with age. Not for competition use clearly, just everyday cycling. We need to move to making any electrical assist as light and small as is practical for the amount of assist available. So not all negative.

Re: Increasing restrictions on conveying cycles on trains

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 6:18pm
East Coast is mow Virgin. I don't know if they use the same ticketing system. I f not, there are other companies that use it: eg GWR and Chiltern.

Posted from my iPod defiantly WITHOUT Tapatalk.

Re: banned for having an electric motor and blue tooth swit

Cycling UK Forum - Racing - 26 April 2016 - 6:18pm
presumably it can be appealed? seems an aweful stupid thing to do, like having forbidden drug packets in ones pockets?

Re: banned for having an electric motor and blue tooth swit

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 6:18pm
presumably it can be appealed? seems an aweful stupid thing to do, like having forbidden drug packets in ones pockets?

Back to Winter weather here on Skye - 25th April

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 6:17pm
Hi folks, just to update any cycling folks with intended tours to Skye & the Western Isles - the weather has reverted back to WINTER.

Snow and hail showers today across Skye with snow and frost forecast over the next few days. Please wrap up and insulate if your camping. No real snow accumulations as such but brief white outs with hail which may scupper people with tight timescales.

Donnie

Re: Groundeffect Bodybag. Any thoughts and where to buy

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 6:11pm
I've been getting stuff from Ground Effect for years (currently wearing 7 items of their clothing). Delivery is always quick and efficient, but sometimes you get stiffed by Royal Mail/Parcelforce. But even if you have to stump up for customs charges their stuff is still good value.

The only problem with the Bodybag is the length - which isn't a problem for flying but could be an issue on trains. The Tardis is a better size for train travel.

Re: new(ish) Ortliebs

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 6:10pm
Thanks for the post doodah
Syndicate content
 
  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cycling UK is a trading name of Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC) a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no: 25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales charity no: 1147607 and in Scotland charity no: SC042541. Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, Surrey GU2 9JX.

Copyright © CTC 2016

Terms and Conditions