Beware of PowerCranks

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jun 7, 6:35 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <[email protected]>,
> >>> Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> eucapnic
> >>> First use of this word in this group (rbr).
> >> Seriously? Man, that's sad.
> >
> > But isn't it correctly spelled "eucapneic?" There are at least
> > zero hits on Google for "eucapnic" and 309 hits for "eucapneic."
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eucapneic
>
> Not found here. Is this an intentional wild goose chase?

No. "--pnea" is a stem word related to breathing, coming from the Greek
word "pneuma" IIRC. Used mainly in medical parlance, such as "apnea"
(as in "sleep apnea) and "dyspnea." "Ecucapneic" or "dyspneic" would be
the state of eucapnia or dysnpea. In medical terms the prefix "eu--"
generally means "normal:" euthyroid, euthymic, etc. Eucapnea appears
to be having a PC02 in the normal range.

"Pneumonia" is a related word, as are "pneumatic tires."

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ST wrote:
>> On 6/6/07 11:02 PM, in article
>> [email protected], "Bill"
>> <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> "Ewoud Dronkert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 02:34:37 GMT, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> Like maybe those silly oval crank rings about 15-20 years back?
>>>>> They're back and called Q-Rings.
>>>> And the oval rings stuff started WAY back in the 20's I think. Every
>>>> couple
>>>> of decades someone reinvents things.
>>>>
>>>> But that is the way of the world. When researching an invention of my
>>>> uncle
>>>> back in the 60's, I discovered the identical invention every 20 years
>>>> since
>>>> the patent office opened.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Weren't they called Ergo rings or something like that? I had a set on my
>>> Schwinn Super Sport and they just felt strange to ride so I tossed them
>>> and use regular rings now.
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> BioPace
>>
> Bingo!
> Since they seem to pop up every what?..20 years or so can one safely say
> that if you don't know your history you are doomed to repeat it?
> I would be surprised if the Patent office actually has something like this
> every 20 years or so, unless the USPTO is really incompetent.
> Maybe I can patent the wheel?
> Bill Baka

Bill, you can't patent an invention - you patent the solution to a problem.
That means that you can simply put different claims on the SAME invention
and get another patent on it.

That's what my uncle did with his perpetual motion machine patents. I did
the research at the patent office over in Menlo Park myself and found all
sorts of prior patents that were the same device. But since he made
different (and BTW totally rediculous) claims, the patent office who isn't
in the business of judging your mental fitness simply assigns a new patent.

If your device has any worth, and if someone wants to use it, and they
realize that you don't know what you're talking abot they can simply work
around your patent by using your patent but claiming different science
behind it. Any court would stand behind the real thing and not most of the
stupid fake ******** that is written up in a large percentage of patent
claims.

BTW, there are a LOT of "ESP" machines patented. But I'm not aware of anyone
that's gotten rich building them.

 

[Davey Crockett]

* "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> a écrit
> "Davey Crockett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> * Bill <[email protected]> a écrit
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> "Ewoud Dronkert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 02:34:37 GMT, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> Like maybe those silly oval crank rings about 15-20 years back?
>>>>> They're back and called Q-Rings.
>>>>
>>>> And the oval rings stuff started WAY back in the 20's I think. Every
>>>> couple of decades someone reinvents things.
>>>>
>>>> But that is the way of the world. When researching an invention of
>>>> my uncle back in the 60's, I discovered the identical invention
>>>> every 20 years since the patent office opened.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Weren't they called Ergo rings or something like that? I had a set on
>>> my Schwinn Super Sport and they just felt strange to ride so I tossed
>>> them and use regular rings now.
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> Bio-Pace was the last incarnation of the non-round chainring I think
>>
>> JF-Bernard used to have bikes putatively equipped with them, but
>> closer inspection of his bike revealed that the only thing bio-pace
>> was the decal since Shimano sponsored the Look squad in those days
>>
>> His rings were round
>
> Interestingly - though the entire range of Shimano had Bio-Pace they didn't
> put it on Dura Ace except for one year I think and the egg shaping was
> almost non-existant on those rings.
>
>
I has a bike equipped with them, Tom.

Regarding their efficiency in helping you around TDC and BDC I know
nothing

In any case, I would think that with a good pedalling action, TDC/BDC
would cause such a minuscule power loss as to be discounted.

It was just another Gimmick as far as I was concerned!

But they were annoying so I changed them - or it - since I don't
remember whether it was both rings or just the big one that had the
oblated spheroid appearance

--
Le vent à Dos
Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply]

 

[Troll Report]

On 25 May 2007 20:47:35 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>[snip]

Great advice. I'd add also that people should:

Beware of looking like an idiot by feeding a Crossposted Troll

 

[Bill]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> ST wrote:
>>> On 6/6/07 11:02 PM, in article
>>> [email protected], "Bill"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> "Ewoud Dronkert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 02:34:37 GMT, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>> Like maybe those silly oval crank rings about 15-20 years back?
>>>>>> They're back and called Q-Rings.
>>>>> And the oval rings stuff started WAY back in the 20's I think. Every
>>>>> couple
>>>>> of decades someone reinvents things.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that is the way of the world. When researching an invention of my
>>>>> uncle
>>>>> back in the 60's, I discovered the identical invention every 20 years
>>>>> since
>>>>> the patent office opened.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Weren't they called Ergo rings or something like that? I had a set on my
>>>> Schwinn Super Sport and they just felt strange to ride so I tossed them
>>>> and use regular rings now.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> BioPace
>>>
>> Bingo!
>> Since they seem to pop up every what?..20 years or so can one safely say
>> that if you don't know your history you are doomed to repeat it?
>> I would be surprised if the Patent office actually has something like this
>> every 20 years or so, unless the USPTO is really incompetent.
>> Maybe I can patent the wheel?
>> Bill Baka
>
> Bill, you can't patent an invention - you patent the solution to a problem.
> That means that you can simply put different claims on the SAME invention
> and get another patent on it.
>
> That's what my uncle did with his perpetual motion machine patents. I did
> the research at the patent office over in Menlo Park myself and found all
> sorts of prior patents that were the same device. But since he made
> different (and BTW totally rediculous) claims, the patent office who isn't
> in the business of judging your mental fitness simply assigns a new patent.
>
> If your device has any worth, and if someone wants to use it, and they
> realize that you don't know what you're talking abot they can simply work
> around your patent by using your patent but claiming different science
> behind it. Any court would stand behind the real thing and not most of the
> stupid fake ******** that is written up in a large percentage of patent
> claims.
>
> BTW, there are a LOT of "ESP" machines patented. But I'm not aware of anyone
> that's gotten rich building them.
>
>
I'm working first on a way to almost double the efficiency of air
conditioners, so that seems likely to go through and get the attention
of the EPA. If they like it and mandate it for new housing, then
'bingo', my first few millions of $$$$$$.
Then I can work on improved wind generators after I move to a windier
locale.
What I am working on seems like it should have been obvious, yet no
company has done it, so I think I have a good chance.
Perpetual motion machines, huh?
If there were a way to harness the moon's ever so slight gravitational
pull (which makes the tides) it could maybe be done, but not to the
point of useful power.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 7, 6:35 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <[email protected]>,
>>>>> Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> eucapnic
>>>>> First use of this word in this group (rbr).
>>>> Seriously? Man, that's sad.
>>> But isn't it correctly spelled "eucapneic?" There are at least
>>> zero hits on Google for "eucapnic" and 309 hits for "eucapneic."
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eucapneic
>>
>> Not found here. Is this an intentional wild goose chase?
>
> No. "--pnea" is a stem word related to breathing, coming from the Greek
> word "pneuma" IIRC. Used mainly in medical parlance, such as "apnea"
> (as in "sleep apnea) and "dyspnea." "Ecucapneic" or "dyspneic" would be
> the state of eucapnia or dysnpea. In medical terms the prefix "eu--"
> generally means "normal:" euthyroid, euthymic, etc. Eucapnea appears
> to be having a PC02 in the normal range.
>
> "Pneumonia" is a related word, as are "pneumatic tires."

I kind of was suspicious of the apne part of it since I have insomnia
and my doctor had me do a sleep study where they checked for apnea,
which I told him I did NOT have. He said I had to do it or be put down
as refusing treatment. Pneu is familiar since I have a lot of air
powered tools and a compressor. Putting the eu before the rest
definitely took me on a mental detour.
Your explanation does make sense, even if it is not in the Webster's
dictionary.
Bill Baka

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Davey Crockett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I had a bike equipped with them, Tom.
>
> Regarding their efficiency in helping you around TDC and BDC I know
> nothing
>
> In any case, I would think that with a good pedalling action, TDC/BDC
> would cause such a minuscule power loss as to be discounted.
>
> It was just another Gimmick as far as I was concerned!
>
> But they were annoying so I changed them - or it - since I don't
> remember whether it was both rings or just the big one that had the
> oblated spheroid appearance

After I became more adept at riding I found that those egg shaped rings were
very irritating. Most cyclists can feel and actually prefer the rest spots
in the pedal cycle. With those funny rings you have a more or less
continuous pressure all the way around instead of max pressure at the best
part of the pedal cycle - 2 o'clock till 5 - followed by resting parts of
the cycle.

 

[Colin Nelson]

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> ST wrote:
> >>> On 6/6/07 11:02 PM, in article
> >>> [email protected], "Bill"
> >>> <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>> "Ewoud Dronkert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 02:34:37 GMT, Bill wrote:
> >>>>>>> Like maybe those silly oval crank rings about 15-20 years back?
> >>>>>> They're back and called Q-Rings.
> >>>>> And the oval rings stuff started WAY back in the 20's I think. Every
> >>>>> couple
> >>>>> of decades someone reinvents things.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But that is the way of the world. When researching an invention of
my
> >>>>> uncle
> >>>>> back in the 60's, I discovered the identical invention every 20
years
> >>>>> since
> >>>>> the patent office opened.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Weren't they called Ergo rings or something like that? I had a set on
my
> >>>> Schwinn Super Sport and they just felt strange to ride so I tossed
them
> >>>> and use regular rings now.
> >>>> Bill Baka
> >>> BioPace
> >>>
> >> Bingo!
> >> Since they seem to pop up every what?..20 years or so can one safely
say
> >> that if you don't know your history you are doomed to repeat it?
> >> I would be surprised if the Patent office actually has something like
this
> >> every 20 years or so, unless the USPTO is really incompetent.
> >> Maybe I can patent the wheel?
> >> Bill Baka
> >
> > Bill, you can't patent an invention - you patent the solution to a
problem.
> > That means that you can simply put different claims on the SAME
invention
> > and get another patent on it.
> >
> > That's what my uncle did with his perpetual motion machine patents. I
did
> > the research at the patent office over in Menlo Park myself and found
all
> > sorts of prior patents that were the same device. But since he made
> > different (and BTW totally rediculous) claims, the patent office who
isn't
> > in the business of judging your mental fitness simply assigns a new
patent.
> >
> > If your device has any worth, and if someone wants to use it, and they
> > realize that you don't know what you're talking abot they can simply
work
> > around your patent by using your patent but claiming different science
> > behind it. Any court would stand behind the real thing and not most of
the
> > stupid fake ******** that is written up in a large percentage of patent
> > claims.
> >
> > BTW, there are a LOT of "ESP" machines patented. But I'm not aware of
anyone
> > that's gotten rich building them.
> >
> >
> I'm working first on a way to almost double the efficiency of air
> conditioners, so that seems likely to go through and get the attention
> of the EPA. If they like it and mandate it for new housing, then
> 'bingo', my first few millions of $$$$$$.
> Then I can work on improved wind generators after I move to a windier
> locale.
> What I am working on seems like it should have been obvious, yet no
> company has done it, so I think I have a good chance.
> Perpetual motion machines, huh?
> If there were a way to harness the moon's ever so slight gravitational
> pull (which makes the tides) it could maybe be done, but not to the
> point of useful power.
> Bill Baka

Hydro-electric Tidal Barrage ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropower#Tidal_power


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <[email protected]>,
> >>> Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Jun 7, 6:35 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <[email protected]>,
> >>>>> Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> eucapnic
> >>>>> First use of this word in this group (rbr).
> >>>> Seriously? Man, that's sad.
> >>> But isn't it correctly spelled "eucapneic?" There are at least
> >>> zero hits on Google for "eucapnic" and 309 hits for "eucapneic."
> >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eucapneic
> >>
> >> Not found here. Is this an intentional wild goose chase?
> >
> > No. "--pnea" is a stem word related to breathing, coming from the
> > Greek word "pneuma" IIRC. Used mainly in medical parlance, such as
> > "apnea" (as in "sleep apnea) and "dyspnea." "Ecucapneic" or
> > "dyspneic" would be the state of eucapnia or dysnpea. In medical
> > terms the prefix "eu--" generally means "normal:" euthyroid,
> > euthymic, etc. Eucapnea appears to be having a PC02 in the normal
> > range.
> >
> > "Pneumonia" is a related word, as are "pneumatic tires."
>
> I kind of was suspicious of the apne part of it since I have insomnia
> and my doctor had me do a sleep study where they checked for apnea,
> which I told him I did NOT have. He said I had to do it or be put
> down as refusing treatment.

You wouldn't know whether you have sleep apnea (there are two types:
obstructive sleep apnea which is caused mechanically by closing of the
airway; and central sleep apnea which is neurologically caused) as
you're asleep at the time. Anyone you sleep with would probably know,
however. If you're awake and aware of being awake, however, that's
usually not sleep apnea.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003997.htm

A friend of mine was diagnosed about 10 years ago with OSA. He had been
chronically tired with low energy and thought he was depressed. The OSA
was diagnosed and he was given a CPAP machine- it was amazing from the
very first night he used it. He was energetic and happy and about 50
times more active than he was. His motivation was so much better than
he got a new job that just about doubled his income. I was just
astonished at the difference. Basically he operated with a serious
sleep deficit for years.

There are many causes of insomnia: depression, anxiety, bipolar
disorder, substance abuse, breathing disorders, pain, etc. etc. When
all those are ruled out then there is "primary insomnia:"

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3128.htm

> Pneu is familiar since I have a lot of air powered tools and a
> compressor. Putting the eu before the rest definitely took me on a
> mental detour. Your explanation does make sense, even if it is not in
> the Webster's dictionary.

I find "acapnia" in the NIH online medical dictionary but not "eucapnea"
or "eucapnia." That's despite the fact that the term is found in
literature searches. Odd. Obviously not a commonly used word even in
medicine.

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Kunich writes:

>> I had a bike equipped with them, Tom.

>> Regarding their efficiency in helping you around TDC and BDC I know
>> nothing.

>> In any case, I would think that with a good pedalling action,
>> TDC/BDC would cause such a minuscule power loss as to be
>> discounted.

>> It was just another Gimmick as far as I was concerned!

>> But they were annoying so I changed them - or it - since I don't
>> remember whether it was both rings or just the big one that had the
>> oblated spheroid appearance.

Nice jargon! 10 points there.

> After I became more adept at riding I found that those egg shaped
> rings were very irritating. Most cyclists can feel and actually
> prefer the rest spots in the pedal cycle. With those funny rings you
> have a more or less continuous pressure all the way around instead
> of max pressure at the best part of the pedal cycle - 2 o'clock till
> 5 - followed by resting parts of the cycle.

It isn't the "rest spot" but the non uniform velocity of the foot
during one rotation that makes such devices useless. The purpose of
cranks is to convert linear to circular motion as in any machine, be
that stream engine or motorcycle. The work expended to do so is force
time distance. There is no force and distance at the top and bottom
of the stroke so there is no loss.

The idea behind these mechanisms is that there is lost power lurking
somewhere in the machinery, when in fact it is ignorance of the
process by the inventor that lurks in the mechanism. The idea of foot
on pedal is that it is a circular constant speed motion while the knee
moved up and down, the lower leg being the connecting rod and shipper
leg the power generator.

Accelerating the foot, twice (or more) per revolution is work. F=Ma.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

[email protected] schreef:
> The idea behind these mechanisms is that there is lost power lurking
> somewhere in the machinery, when in fact it is ignorance of the
> process by the inventor that lurks in the mechanism. The idea of foot
> on pedal is that it is a circular constant speed motion while the knee
> moved up and down, the lower leg being the connecting rod and shipper
> leg the power generator.
>
> Accelerating the foot, twice (or more) per revolution is work. F=Ma.

What is easier; keeping force constant, or speed?


--
E. Dronkert

 

[[email protected]]

Ewoud Dronkert writes:

>> The idea behind these mechanisms is that there is lost power
>> lurking somewhere in the machinery, when in fact it is ignorance of
>> the process by the inventor that lurks in the mechanism. The idea
>> of foot on pedal is that it is a circular constant speed motion
>> while the knee moved up and down, the lower leg being the
>> connecting rod and shipper leg the power generator.

>> Accelerating the foot, twice (or more) per revolution is work.
>> F=Ma.

> What is easier; keeping force constant, or speed?

You'll need to offer more than a quip to support your perception of
pedaling. I'll try to guess where you are hinting with this as
follows:

First, force cannot be kept constant. Of course you didn't say what
force, but I assume you mean torque throughout the pedal cycle. I
think you too are thinking of a human as a machine rather than a body
of muscles and bones fed by an aerobic carburetor. Work is work and
trying to get more of it out of the same source is like seeking the
perpetual motion machine.

Let me propose once more the intermittent pedaling exercise. Count
1-2-3-1-2-3...cadence with the downward stroke of each pedal while
riding at speed on a level road. Then switch to pedaling forcefully
only on the count of "1" and notice that neither effort nor speed
changes. The only thing that changes is that it is tedious to keeping
track do so. There is no power hidden in the strokes even if you
reduce them by 3.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Phil Holman]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ewoud Dronkert writes:
>
>>> The idea behind these mechanisms is that there is lost power
>>> lurking somewhere in the machinery, when in fact it is ignorance of
>>> the process by the inventor that lurks in the mechanism. The idea
>>> of foot on pedal is that it is a circular constant speed motion
>>> while the knee moved up and down, the lower leg being the
>>> connecting rod and shipper leg the power generator.
>
>>> Accelerating the foot, twice (or more) per revolution is work.
>>> F=Ma.
>
>> What is easier; keeping force constant, or speed?
>
> You'll need to offer more than a quip to support your perception of
> pedaling. I'll try to guess where you are hinting with this as
> follows:
>
> First, force cannot be kept constant. Of course you didn't say what
> force, but I assume you mean torque throughout the pedal cycle. I
> think you too are thinking of a human as a machine rather than a body
> of muscles and bones fed by an aerobic carburetor. Work is work and
> trying to get more of it out of the same source is like seeking the
> perpetual motion machine.
>
> Let me propose once more the intermittent pedaling exercise. Count
> 1-2-3-1-2-3...cadence with the downward stroke of each pedal while
> riding at speed on a level road. Then switch to pedaling forcefully
> only on the count of "1" and notice that neither effort nor speed
> changes. The only thing that changes is that it is tedious to keeping
> track do so. There is no power hidden in the strokes even if you
> reduce them by 3.

How about reducing by a factor of 5 or maybe 7. If we follow your logic,
we should manage to maintain the same speed. I don't think so. I
hypothesize there is a relationship between frequency of input and the
ability to maintain speed. You say the body is not a machine. Why do you
propose it should act like one?

Phil H

 

[[email protected]]

Phil Holman writes:

>>>> The idea behind these mechanisms is that there is lost power
>>>> lurking somewhere in the machinery, when in fact it is ignorance of
>>>> the process by the inventor that lurks in the mechanism. The idea
>>>> of foot on pedal is that it is a circular constant speed motion
>>>> while the knee moved up and down, the lower leg being the
>>>> connecting rod and shipper leg the power generator.

>>>> Accelerating the foot, twice (or more) per revolution is work.
>>>> F=Ma.

>>> What is easier; keeping force constant, or speed?

>> You'll need to offer more than a quip to support your perception of
>> pedaling. I'll try to guess where you are hinting with this as
>> follows:

>> First, force cannot be kept constant. Of course you didn't say what
>> force, but I assume you mean torque throughout the pedal cycle. I
>> think you too are thinking of a human as a machine rather than a body
>> of muscles and bones fed by an aerobic carburetor. Work is work and
>> trying to get more of it out of the same source is like seeking the
>> perpetual motion machine.

>> Let me propose once more the intermittent pedaling exercise. Count
>> 1-2-3-1-2-3...cadence with the downward stroke of each pedal while
>> riding at speed on a level road. Then switch to pedaling forcefully
>> only on the count of "1" and notice that neither effort nor speed
>> changes. The only thing that changes is that it is tedious to keeping
>> track do so. There is no power hidden in the strokes even if you
>> reduce them by 3.

> How about reducing by a factor of 5 or maybe 7. If we follow your
> logic, we should manage to maintain the same speed. I don't think
> so. hypothesize there is a relationship between frequency of input
> and the ability to maintain speed. You say the body is not a
> machine. Why do you propose it should act like one?

Oh, I see. Take it to the limit to prove a point. So why not stop
pedaling altogether? I see you haven't tried this or you wouldn't be
so smug about it. Besides, it isn't "logic", it's a practical test
that requires no special equipment nor a special outing to a test
site... that is, if you ride bike and can count.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Phil Holman]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Phil Holman writes:
>
>>>>> The idea behind these mechanisms is that there is lost power
>>>>> lurking somewhere in the machinery, when in fact it is ignorance
>>>>> of
>>>>> the process by the inventor that lurks in the mechanism. The idea
>>>>> of foot on pedal is that it is a circular constant speed motion
>>>>> while the knee moved up and down, the lower leg being the
>>>>> connecting rod and shipper leg the power generator.
>
>>>>> Accelerating the foot, twice (or more) per revolution is work.
>>>>> F=Ma.
>
>>>> What is easier; keeping force constant, or speed?
>
>>> You'll need to offer more than a quip to support your perception of
>>> pedaling. I'll try to guess where you are hinting with this as
>>> follows:
>
>>> First, force cannot be kept constant. Of course you didn't say what
>>> force, but I assume you mean torque throughout the pedal cycle. I
>>> think you too are thinking of a human as a machine rather than a
>>> body
>>> of muscles and bones fed by an aerobic carburetor. Work is work and
>>> trying to get more of it out of the same source is like seeking the
>>> perpetual motion machine.
>
>>> Let me propose once more the intermittent pedaling exercise. Count
>>> 1-2-3-1-2-3...cadence with the downward stroke of each pedal while
>>> riding at speed on a level road. Then switch to pedaling forcefully
>>> only on the count of "1" and notice that neither effort nor speed
>>> changes. The only thing that changes is that it is tedious to
>>> keeping
>>> track do so. There is no power hidden in the strokes even if you
>>> reduce them by 3.
>
>> How about reducing by a factor of 5 or maybe 7. If we follow your
>> logic, we should manage to maintain the same speed. I don't think
>> so. hypothesize there is a relationship between frequency of input
>> and the ability to maintain speed. You say the body is not a
>> machine. Why do you propose it should act like one?
>
> Oh, I see. Take it to the limit to prove a point. So why not stop
> pedaling altogether? I see you haven't tried this or you wouldn't be
> so smug about it.

The reason I say this is because I have tried it and while it is
possible to maintain a lower speed, it certainly doesn't work at maximum
sustainable speed.

Besides, it isn't "logic", it's a practical test
> that requires no special equipment nor a special outing to a test
> site... that is, if you ride bike and can count.

..........and chew gum.

Phil H

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Phil Holman writes:
>
>>>>> The idea behind these mechanisms is that there is lost power
>>>>> lurking somewhere in the machinery, when in fact it is ignorance of
>>>>> the process by the inventor that lurks in the mechanism. The idea
>>>>> of foot on pedal is that it is a circular constant speed motion
>>>>> while the knee moved up and down, the lower leg being the
>>>>> connecting rod and shipper leg the power generator.
>
>>>>> Accelerating the foot, twice (or more) per revolution is work.
>>>>> F=Ma.
>
>>>> What is easier; keeping force constant, or speed?
>
>>> You'll need to offer more than a quip to support your perception of
>>> pedaling. I'll try to guess where you are hinting with this as
>>> follows:
>
>>> First, force cannot be kept constant. Of course you didn't say what
>>> force, but I assume you mean torque throughout the pedal cycle. I
>>> think you too are thinking of a human as a machine rather than a body
>>> of muscles and bones fed by an aerobic carburetor. Work is work and
>>> trying to get more of it out of the same source is like seeking the
>>> perpetual motion machine.
>
>>> Let me propose once more the intermittent pedaling exercise. Count
>>> 1-2-3-1-2-3...cadence with the downward stroke of each pedal while
>>> riding at speed on a level road. Then switch to pedaling forcefully
>>> only on the count of "1" and notice that neither effort nor speed
>>> changes. The only thing that changes is that it is tedious to keeping
>>> track do so. There is no power hidden in the strokes even if you
>>> reduce them by 3.
>
>> How about reducing by a factor of 5 or maybe 7. If we follow your
>> logic, we should manage to maintain the same speed. I don't think
>> so. hypothesize there is a relationship between frequency of input
>> and the ability to maintain speed. You say the body is not a
>> machine. Why do you propose it should act like one?
>
> Oh, I see. Take it to the limit to prove a point. So why not stop
> pedaling altogether? I see you haven't tried this or you wouldn't be
> so smug about it. Besides, it isn't "logic", it's a practical test
> that requires no special equipment nor a special outing to a test
> site... that is, if you ride bike and can count.

I might be prone to argue with Jobst if I wasn't privy to a couple of
things.

1) He rode by me on Kings Mountain Rd. This is a relatively long, relatively
steep climb outside of Woodside. While I was moving along with some friends
not too slow, Jobst rode by in an immense gear barely turning and just
cruising up that climb.

2) I severely bent a front derailleur when my fancy expensive high end chain
threw a loop in itself while pedaling and tried to pull this loop through
the front derailleur. The best I could do was to bent everything so that I
had available to me a 53-17. I rode this gear over several climbs and back
down home. I was rather surprised to discover that since I could generate
the power to climb in a lower gear I could generate the same power in a much
higher gear.

The problem has to do with a couple of things - power = torque * RPM. For
any required power you only need the ability to generate the necessary
torque to lower the RPM.

On the other side of the coin - I find that riding at higher RPM may be less
efficient as has been pointed out, but for any given output power your legs
are generating less torque and in my case at least, I find it a lot easier
to recover from higher lactate levels than from broken leg muscles.

 

[Bill]

Colin Nelson wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> If there were a way to harness the moon's ever so slight gravitational
>> pull (which makes the tides) it could maybe be done, but not to the
>> point of useful power.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Hydro-electric Tidal Barrage ?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropower#Tidal_power
>
>
I knew about that but it is very limited where you can do it. Just
imagine blocking the San Francisco bay for power and how much you could
get. One big problem though is all the shipping.
One enterprising guy thought of tying generators to the ocean floor and
having cables to floating multi-ton balls that would go up and down with
the swells, transferring their energy to the cable and thus the generator.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I kind of was suspicious of the apne part of it since I have insomnia
>> and my doctor had me do a sleep study where they checked for apnea,
>> which I told him I did NOT have. He said I had to do it or be put
>> down as refusing treatment.
>
> You wouldn't know whether you have sleep apnea (there are two types:
> obstructive sleep apnea which is caused mechanically by closing of the
> airway; and central sleep apnea which is neurologically caused) as
> you're asleep at the time. Anyone you sleep with would probably know,
> however. If you're awake and aware of being awake, however, that's
> usually not sleep apnea.
>
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003997.htm

I don't have apnea and knew it before going in for the test. I had an
arrogant doctor that insisted he knew more about my insomnia than I do.
He is no longer working in this area, so that tells me my opinion of him
must have been shared by other patients.
>
> A friend of mine was diagnosed about 10 years ago with OSA. He had been
> chronically tired with low energy and thought he was depressed. The OSA
> was diagnosed and he was given a CPAP machine- it was amazing from the
> very first night he used it. He was energetic and happy and about 50
> times more active than he was. His motivation was so much better than
> he got a new job that just about doubled his income. I was just
> astonished at the difference. Basically he operated with a serious
> sleep deficit for years.
>
> There are many causes of insomnia: depression, anxiety, bipolar
> disorder, substance abuse, breathing disorders, pain, etc. etc. When
> all those are ruled out then there is "primary insomnia:"
>
> http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3128.htm

Bingo!
Falling asleep at all is my problem but once I get to sleep I am out for
a good 4 hours at a time. Really deep sleep seems to be beyond me since
I am usually in REM, or I have marathon dreams in high speed. Even after
riding and hiking around 100 miles I am not tired enough to just drop
off like many people can do.
It's total frustration.
I missed a cycling event this year due to falling asleep about the time
I was supposed to be getting up.
>
>> Pneu is familiar since I have a lot of air powered tools and a
>> compressor. Putting the eu before the rest definitely took me on a
>> mental detour. Your explanation does make sense, even if it is not in
>> the Webster's dictionary.
>
> I find "acapnia" in the NIH online medical dictionary but not "eucapnea"
> or "eucapnia." That's despite the fact that the term is found in
> literature searches. Odd. Obviously not a commonly used word even in
> medicine.

Ummm, correct. There are very few words I have never heard of since my
mother was a poet and my father worked as a newspaper proofreader and
printer. My sister, older, always had fun nailing me with big words,
too. Reading the Dictionary was my best defense.
Bill Baka

 

[Doug Taylor]

On 09 Jun 2007 20:42:53 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>First, force cannot be kept constant. Of course you didn't say what
>force, but I assume you mean torque throughout the pedal cycle. I
>think you too are thinking of a human as a machine rather than a body
>of muscles and bones fed by an aerobic carburetor. Work is work and
>trying to get more of it out of the same source is like seeking the
>perpetual motion machine.
>
>Let me propose once more the intermittent pedaling exercise. Count
>1-2-3-1-2-3...cadence with the downward stroke of each pedal while
>riding at speed on a level road. Then switch to pedaling forcefully
>only on the count of "1" and notice that neither effort nor speed
>changes. The only thing that changes is that it is tedious to keeping
>track do so. There is no power hidden in the strokes even if you
>reduce them by 3.

Help me out here.

Lets assume that Powercranks exercise and therefore strengthen certain
leg, hip and other related muscles which are not used as much - or at
all - when pedaling on traditional cranks. This "one-leg-at-at-time"
motion - required when using these cranks - is popularly used in
spinning classes and exercise videos as a training technique.

So, when these newly trained legs switch back to regular cranks, your
conjecture would be that there would be zero effect in enabling the
cyclist to increasing speed. The newly strengthened muscles are not
necessary to power standard cranks. Indeed, there could be a negative
effect, in that these irrelevantly trained muscles might interfere
with the true muscles which power regular cranks, or that the increase
in the weight of the cyclist due to new muscle mass will increase drag
- or both.

This sounds counterintuitive. The intuitive - and maybe credulous -
assumption would be that the so trained legs and hips will enable the
cyclist to move the pedals faster.

 

[[email protected]]

Doug Taylor writes:

>> First, force cannot be kept constant. Of course you didn't say
>> what force, but I assume you mean torque throughout the pedal
>> cycle. I think you too are thinking of a human as a machine rather
>> than a body of muscles and bones fed by an aerobic carburetor.
>> Work is work and trying to get more of it out of the same source is
>> like seeking the perpetual motion machine.

>> Let me propose once more the intermittent pedaling exercise. Count
>> 1-2-3-1-2-3...cadence with the downward stroke of each pedal while
>> riding at speed on a level road. Then switch to pedaling
>> forcefully only on the count of "1" and notice that neither effort
>> nor speed changes. The only thing that changes is that it is
>> tedious to keeping track do so. There is no power hidden in the
>> strokes even if you reduce them by 3.

> Help me out here.

> Lets assume that PowerCranks exercise and therefore strengthen
> certain leg, hip and other related muscles which are not used as
> much - or at all - when pedaling on traditional cranks. This
> "one-leg-at-at-time" motion - required when using these cranks - is
> popularly used in spinning classes and exercise videos as a training
> technique.

> So, when these newly trained legs switch back to regular cranks,
> your conjecture would be that there would be zero effect in enabling
> the cyclist to increasing speed. The newly strengthened muscles are
> not necessary to power standard cranks. Indeed, there could be a
> negative effect, in that these irrelevantly trained muscles might
> interfere with the true muscles which power regular cranks, or that
> the increase in the weight of the cyclist due to new muscle mass
> will increase drag - or both.

> This sounds counterintuitive. The intuitive - and maybe credulous -
> assumption would be that the so trained legs and hips will enable
> the cyclist to move the pedals faster.

For a physically fit person, power is not equivalent to strength, just
as torque is not power. You say develop muscles and then talk of
speed. Muscle is strength, speed is power.

Power is aerobic capacity, no muscle mass.

Jobst Brandt