Engineering Genius or, uh...?

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Somehow, these just seem wrong to me: http://active-spoke.com. Any
thoughts from you engineering types?

Does one have to be an engineer to see the concept is drivel? The use
of the terms 'heavy' and 'light' in the ad copy is disingenuous. The
wheel is the same weight throughout, that is, heavy, or heavier than it
would be if the gimmicky hardware was dispensed with.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Somehow, these just seem wrong to me: http://active-spoke.com. Any
thoughts from you engineering types?

It's spokeys, innit?

Quoted message said:

Somehow, these just seem wrong to me: http://active-spoke.com. Any
thoughts from you engineering types?

Moser's hour record notwithstanding, I fail to see how a wheel can have
"insufficient" inertia, under any circumstances. If it were that
simple, I'd be filling my rims with lead shot for flat TTs.

Clive George said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Somehow, these just seem wrong to me:http://active-spoke.com. Any
thoughts from you engineering types?

It's spokeys, innit?

Yeah, Donald and Goofy--Mickey too! What a racket.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

landotter said:

Clive George said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Somehow, these just seem wrong to me:http://active-spoke.com. Any
thoughts from you engineering types?

It's spokeys, innit?

Yeah, Donald and Goofy--Mickey too! What a racket.

The amount of energy stored in the rotational inertia of the wheel is
miniscule compared to the amount stored in the forward motion of the
rider. Ergo, snake oil.

Notice how they talk about the spindown times of their treated wheel to
a "standard" wheel. They don't talk about the whole bike (where, again
the increase in stored energy is miniscule). They also don't mention
that the "free" energy that comes out of the wheel while decelerating
had to be put into it while accelerating. There ain't no such thing as
a free lunch.

Quoted message said:

Somehow, these just seem wrong to me:http://active-spoke.com. Any
thoughts from you engineering types?

Pure snake oil. "A concept roadies should find intriguing", because
we've all become convinced that our massive accelerations make
rotating mass relevant. This idea of spinning weights that move in
and out from the axis of rotation shows up periodically in claims of
perpetual motion machines. On the surface, it sounds almost
plausible. It should take less work to accelerate the wheel with
lower rotating mass than it does to decelerate the wheel with higher
rotating mass. The hitch is that if the light wheel and the heavy
wheel are the same wheel energy has to be conserved and the whole
thing washes out, because the work done to move those weights in and
out is not negligible. The end result is a 10oz per wheel weight
penalty that is not quite offset by the accompanying wallet lightening.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Somehow, these just seem wrong to me:http://active-spoke.com. Any
thoughts from you engineering types?

Pure snake oil.  "A concept roadies should find intriguing", because
we've all become convinced that our massive accelerations make
rotating mass relevant.  This idea of spinning weights that move in
and out from the axis of rotation shows up periodically in claims of
perpetual motion machines.  On the surface, it sounds almost
plausible.  It should take less work to accelerate the wheel with
lower rotating mass than it does to decelerate the wheel with higher
rotating mass.  The hitch is that if the light wheel and the heavy
wheel are the same wheel energy has to be conserved and the whole
thing washes out, because the work done to move those weights in and
out is not negligible.  The end result is a 10oz per wheel weight
penalty that is not quite offset by the accompanying wallet lightening.

I agree, but there is the slight difference that the type of
resistance encountered by the cyclist differs depending upon how fast
and thus how much wind resistance is. Low wind resistance when going
slow with low inertia, high resistance (as a percentage and absolute)
when going fast with higher inertia. But if there is any net positive,
I'm sure it is so miniscule that it is more than cancelled by the
extra weight.

Joseph

read Bayer thermoplastic polycarbonates?

<[email hidden]> wrote: (clip) But if there is any net
positive,
I'm sure it is so miniscule that it is more than cancelled by the
extra weight.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is so miniscule that it doesn't exist at all. For comparison, let me
propose this money-making scheme: I take my money to the bank in large
bills, and deposit it. When I withdraw it, I ask for small bills, so I get
more.

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:45:07 -0800 (PST),

Quoted post said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Somehow, these just seem wrong to me:http://active-spoke.com. Any
thoughts from you engineering types?

Pure snake oil.  "A concept roadies should find intriguing", because
we've all become convinced that our massive accelerations make
rotating mass relevant.  This idea of spinning weights that move in
and out from the axis of rotation shows up periodically in claims of
perpetual motion machines.  On the surface, it sounds almost
plausible.  It should take less work to accelerate the wheel with
lower rotating mass than it does to decelerate the wheel with higher
rotating mass.  The hitch is that if the light wheel and the heavy
wheel are the same wheel energy has to be conserved and the whole
thing washes out, because the work done to move those weights in and
out is not negligible.  The end result is a 10oz per wheel weight
penalty that is not quite offset by the accompanying wallet lightening.

I agree, but there is the slight difference that the type of
resistance encountered by the cyclist differs depending upon how fast
and thus how much wind resistance is. Low wind resistance when going
slow with low inertia, high resistance (as a percentage and absolute)
when going fast with higher inertia. But if there is any net positive,
I'm sure it is so miniscule that it is more than cancelled by the
extra weight.

Joseph

Dear Joseph,

Like the weight penalty, the wind drag will be greater in all cases
than if the weights and springs were simply left off the wheel.

Sticking junk on individual spokes isn't going to reduce turbulence.

In fact, the aero drag is likely to slow the bike down more than the
slight weight penalty.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:45:07 -0800 (PST),

Quoted post said:

Quoted message said:

On Jan 28, 2:30 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Somehow, these just seem wrong to me:http://active-spoke.com. Any
> thoughts from you engineering types?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pure snake oil.  "A concept roadies should find intriguing", because
we've all become convinced that our massive accelerations make
rotating mass relevant.  This idea of spinning weights that move in
and out from the axis of rotation shows up periodically in claims of
perpetual motion machines.  On the surface, it sounds almost
plausible.  It should take less work to accelerate the wheel with
lower rotating mass than it does to decelerate the wheel with higher
rotating mass.  The hitch is that if the light wheel and the heavy
wheel are the same wheel energy has to be conserved and the whole
thing washes out, because the work done to move those weights in and
out is not negligible.  The end result is a 10oz per wheel weight
penalty that is not quite offset by the accompanying wallet lightening.

Quoted message said:

I agree, but there is the slight difference that the type of
resistance encountered by the cyclist differs depending upon how fast
and thus how much wind resistance is. Low wind resistance when going
slow with low inertia, high resistance (as a percentage and absolute)
when going fast with higher inertia. But if there is any net positive,
I'm sure it is so miniscule that it is more than cancelled by the
extra weight.

Quoted message said:

Joseph

Dear Joseph,

Like the weight penalty, the wind drag will be greater in all cases
than if the weights and springs were simply left off the wheel.

Sticking junk on individual spokes isn't going to reduce turbulence.

In fact, the aero drag is likely to slow the bike down more than the
slight weight penalty.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

I didn't mean the wind drag from the gizmo. I meant the inertia is
"given back" when you need it, when wind resistance for the total
rider/bike combo is high. It's still a zero sum game, but the
conditions a rider needs to overcome are different when the energy is
put into the system than when it is taken out.

Up a hill adding 0.5% effort adds a certain speed gain and thus time
advantage. Adding 0.5% more effort on a descent does not result in the
same speed gain. But maybe this gizmo allows the (some tiny amount)
extra effort put in when it is easy to do so, to be taken out when it
is hard. Since this system saps the 0.5% on the way up, it doesn't
help there, but it may give it back when it makes a difference, thus
increasing the overall speed.

I'm certainly not ordering any, but it may not be 100% BS.

Joseph

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:19:51 -0800 (PST),

Quoted post said:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:45:07 -0800 (PST),

Quoted post said:

On Jan 29, 3:01 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2:30 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

> > Somehow, these just seem wrong to me:http://active-spoke.com. Any
> > thoughts from you engineering types?

Quoted message said:

> Pure snake oil.  "A concept roadies should find intriguing", because
> we've all become convinced that our massive accelerations make
> rotating mass relevant.  This idea of spinning weights that move in
> and out from the axis of rotation shows up periodically in claims of
> perpetual motion machines.  On the surface, it sounds almost
> plausible.  It should take less work to accelerate the wheel with
> lower rotating mass than it does to decelerate the wheel with higher
> rotating mass.  The hitch is that if the light wheel and the heavy
> wheel are the same wheel energy has to be conserved and the whole
> thing washes out, because the work done to move those weights in and
> out is not negligible.  The end result is a 10oz per wheel weight
> penalty that is not quite offset by the accompanying wallet lightening.

Quoted message said:

I agree, but there is the slight difference that the type of
resistance encountered by the cyclist differs depending upon how fast
and thus how much wind resistance is. Low wind resistance when going
slow with low inertia, high resistance (as a percentage and absolute)
when going fast with higher inertia. But if there is any net positive,
I'm sure it is so miniscule that it is more than cancelled by the
extra weight.

Quoted message said:

Joseph

Dear Joseph,

Like the weight penalty, the wind drag will be greater in all cases
than if the weights and springs were simply left off the wheel.

Sticking junk on individual spokes isn't going to reduce turbulence.

In fact, the aero drag is likely to slow the bike down more than the
slight weight penalty.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

I didn't mean the wind drag from the gizmo. I meant the inertia is
"given back" when you need it, when wind resistance for the total
rider/bike combo is high. It's still a zero sum game, but the
conditions a rider needs to overcome are different when the energy is
put into the system than when it is taken out.

Up a hill adding 0.5% effort adds a certain speed gain and thus time
advantage. Adding 0.5% more effort on a descent does not result in the
same speed gain. But maybe this gizmo allows the (some tiny amount)
extra effort put in when it is easy to do so, to be taken out when it
is hard. Since this system saps the 0.5% on the way up, it doesn't
help there, but it may give it back when it makes a difference, thus
increasing the overall speed.

I'm certainly not ordering any, but it may not be 100% BS.

Joseph

Dear Joseph,

I'm afraid that it's 100% BS, both in theory and in practice.

First, let's do theory.

There's no time when it's easier to put in extra effort. Extra effort
is extra effort. If you use a flywheel to store power, you have to put
the power into the flywheel. Since the wheel weighs more, it takes
more power to run it up to the same RPM as a wheel without the extra
weight. Perpetual motion designs always have a step where they forget
where the power came from.

As for practice, things are even worse.

On a typical bicycle course, the rider slowly and painfully gains
speed until he's going as fast as he can.

The rider with the heavier wheels would fall slightly behind because
he has more mass to accelerate, so he's already losing.

At the first corner, we grab the brakes and throw away most of that
painfully gained momentum. This wastes most of the flywheel effect,
which was a net loss to start with.

And if you think about it, the rider with the heavier wheels has to
brake a little earlier, so he loses on braking, just as he lost on
acceleration.

On a race up and down a climb, the extra weight on the wheel loses,
too.

Imagine two riders with identical power, but one has the goofy wheels
with weights heavy enough to slow him down 10%.

The rider on the lighter bike climbs 10 miles to the top in 60 minutes
at 10 mph. He turns around and descends the same 10 miles at 30 mph in
20 minutes. His total time is 80 minutes.

The rider slowed down by the heavy weights on his spokes takes 10%
longer to reach the top, which means 66 minutes, 9.0909 mph. When he
turns around, his heavier bike helps a little, but he hasn't got a
chance of catching up with the first rider--he has only 14 minutes
left to reach the bottom, which means he'd have to go about 43 mph
down a hill where the other rider was doing 30 mph. Ain't gonna
happen.

***

In a long-ago Tour de France, a very short, light rider who was demon
climber got sick of losing because he was so light that he couldn't
get down the far side of the mountains fast enough to preserve his
lead.

So he had his support team give him a water bottle at the top of the
pass that was filled with lead instead of water. The extra 20 pounds
without any extra wind drag really helped.

That's what the goofy design is hoping for--a way to cheat the
conservation laws of physics. The feather-merchant's trick only worked
because a car raised the lead-filled water-bottle to the top of the
pass. If the rider had carried it up the pass himself, instead of
getting it for free at the top, he'd have lost overall.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Clive George said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Somehow, these just seem wrong to me:http://active-spoke.com. Any
thoughts from you engineering types?

It's spokeys, innit?

Nice. Who wants to buy the wheels off my kid sister's bike, replete
with fluorescent pink and yellow, err, ACTIVE-SPOKEs?

/s

<[email hidden]> wrote : (clip) Since this system saps the
0.5% on the way up, it doesn't
help there, but it may give it back when it makes a difference, thus
increasing the overall speed. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, every time you accelerate, the weights move outward, absorbing energy,
and decreasing your acceleration. Then, when you apply the brakes, they
return the energy, slowing down your braking. Thank goodness the effect is
miniscule.

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:19:51 -0800 (PST),

Quoted post said:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:45:07 -0800 (PST),

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>On Jan 29, 3:01 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
>> On Jan 28, 2:30 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> > Somehow, these just seem wrong to me:http://active-spoke.com. Any
>> > thoughts from you engineering types?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Pure snake oil.  "A concept roadies should find intriguing", because
>> we've all become convinced that our massive accelerations make
>> rotating mass relevant.  This idea of spinning weights that move in
>> and out from the axis of rotation shows up periodically in claims of
>> perpetual motion machines.  On the surface, it sounds almost
>> plausible.  It should take less work to accelerate the wheel with
>> lower rotating mass than it does to decelerate the wheel with higher
>> rotating mass.  The hitch is that if the light wheel and the heavy
>> wheel are the same wheel energy has to be conserved and the whole
>> thing washes out, because the work done to move those weights in and
>> out is not negligible.  The end result is a 10oz per wheel weight
>> penalty that is not quite offset by the accompanying wallet lightening.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I agree, but there is the slight difference that the type of
>resistance encountered by the cyclist differs depending upon how fast
>and thus how much wind resistance is. Low wind resistance when going
>slow with low inertia, high resistance (as a percentage and absolute)
>when going fast with higher inertia. But if there is any net positive,
>I'm sure it is so miniscule that it is more than cancelled by the
>extra weight.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Joseph

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dear Joseph,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Like the weight penalty, the wind drag will be greater in all cases
than if the weights and springs were simply left off the wheel.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sticking junk on individual spokes isn't going to reduce turbulence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, the aero drag is likely to slow the bike down more than the
slight weight penalty.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cheers,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

I didn't mean the wind drag from the gizmo. I meant the inertia is
"given back" when you need it, when wind resistance for the total
rider/bike combo is high. It's still a zero sum game, but the
conditions a rider needs to overcome are different when the energy is
put into the system than when it is taken out.

Quoted message said:

Up a hill adding 0.5% effort adds a certain speed gain and thus time
advantage. Adding 0.5% more effort on a descent does not result in the
same speed gain. But maybe this gizmo allows the (some tiny amount)
extra effort put in when it is easy to do so, to be taken out when it
is hard. Since this system saps the 0.5% on the way up, it doesn't
help there, but it may give it back when it makes a difference, thus
increasing the overall speed.

Quoted message said:

I'm certainly not ordering any, but it may not be 100% BS.

Quoted message said:

Joseph

Dear Joseph,

I'm afraid that it's 100% BS, both in theory and in practice.

First, let's do theory.

There's no time when it's easier to put in extra effort. Extra effort
is extra effort. If you use a flywheel to store power, you have to put
the power into the flywheel. Since the wheel weighs more, it takes
more power to run it up to the same RPM as a wheel without the extra
weight. Perpetual motion designs always have a step where they forget
where the power came from.

As for practice, things are even worse.

On a typical bicycle course, the rider slowly and painfully gains
speed until he's going as fast as he can.

The rider with the heavier wheels would fall slightly behind because
he has more mass to accelerate, so he's already losing.

At the first corner, we grab the brakes and throw away most of that
painfully gained momentum. This wastes most of the flywheel effect,
which was a net loss to start with.

And if you think about it, the rider with the heavier wheels has to
brake a little earlier, so he loses on braking, just as he lost on
acceleration.

On a race up and down a climb, the extra weight on the wheel loses,
too.

Imagine two riders with identical power, but one has the goofy wheels
with weights heavy enough to slow him down 10%.

The rider on the lighter bike climbs 10 miles to the top in 60 minutes
at 10 mph. He turns around and descends the same 10 miles at 30 mph in
20 minutes. His total time is 80 minutes.

The rider slowed down by the heavy weights on his spokes takes 10%
longer to reach the top, which means 66 minutes, 9.0909 mph. When he
turns around, his heavier bike helps a little, but he hasn't got a
chance of catching up with the first rider--he has only 14 minutes
left to reach the bottom, which means he'd have to go about 43 mph
down a hill where the other rider was doing 30 mph. Ain't gonna
happen.

***

In a long-ago Tour de France, a very short, light rider who was demon
climber got sick of losing because he was so light that he couldn't
get down the far side of the mountains fast enough to preserve his
lead.

So he had his support team give him a water bottle at the top of the
pass that was filled with lead instead of water. The extra 20 pounds
without any extra wind drag really helped.

That's what the goofy design is hoping for--a way to cheat the
conservation laws of physics. The feather-merchant's trick only worked
because a car raised the lead-filled water-bottle to the top of the
pass. If the rider had carried it up the pass himself, instead of
getting it for free at the top, he'd have lost overall.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Ok, it's BS.

But what I meant to say it possibly accomplished was to allow a rider
to store energy in circumstances where this energy stored would have
ony made for a small time savings had it been used right away, and to
release this energy later when it gives more of a time advantage.

Joseph

email hidden said:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:45:07 -0800 (PST),

Quoted message said:

Quoted post said:

On Jan 29, 3:01 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2:30 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Somehow, these just seem wrong to me:http://active-spoke.com. Any
> > thoughts from you engineering types?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Pure snake oil. "A concept roadies should find intriguing", because
> we've all become convinced that our massive accelerations make
> rotating mass relevant. This idea of spinning weights that move in
> and out from the axis of rotation shows up periodically in claims of
> perpetual motion machines. On the surface, it sounds almost
> plausible. It should take less work to accelerate the wheel with
> lower rotating mass than it does to decelerate the wheel with higher
> rotating mass. The hitch is that if the light wheel and the heavy
> wheel are the same wheel energy has to be conserved and the whole
> thing washes out, because the work done to move those weights in and
> out is not negligible. The end result is a 10oz per wheel weight
> penalty that is not quite offset by the accompanying wallet lightening.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agree, but there is the slight difference that the type of
resistance encountered by the cyclist differs depending upon how fast
and thus how much wind resistance is. Low wind resistance when going
slow with low inertia, high resistance (as a percentage and absolute)
when going fast with higher inertia. But if there is any net positive,
I'm sure it is so miniscule that it is more than cancelled by the
extra weight.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Joseph

Quoted message said:

Dear Joseph,

Quoted message said:

Like the weight penalty, the wind drag will be greater in all cases
than if the weights and springs were simply left off the wheel.

Quoted message said:

Sticking junk on individual spokes isn't going to reduce turbulence.

Quoted message said:

In fact, the aero drag is likely to slow the bike down more than the
slight weight penalty.

Quoted message said:

Cheers,

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel

I didn't mean the wind drag from the gizmo. I meant the inertia is
"given back" when you need it, when wind resistance for the total
rider/bike combo is high. It's still a zero sum game, but the
conditions a rider needs to overcome are different when the energy is
put into the system than when it is taken out.

Up a hill adding 0.5% effort adds a certain speed gain and thus time
advantage. Adding 0.5% more effort on a descent does not result in the
same speed gain. But maybe this gizmo allows the (some tiny amount)
extra effort put in when it is easy to do so, to be taken out when it
is hard. Since this system saps the 0.5% on the way up, it doesn't
help there, but it may give it back when it makes a difference, thus
increasing the overall speed.

I'm certainly not ordering any, but it may not be 100% BS.

Joseph

No. If you put in N Joules of energy on the way up, you don't get
more than N Joules out on the way down. And getting that energy out
at a higher speed doesn't help you. If it did, then riding at
constant power over rolling hills would be as fast as riding at the
same power on flat ground. There's a claim here that at some speed
the energy you put into the system gets magically multiplied, and you
go faster up and down. That's not 100% BS. It's at least 112%.

<[email hidden]> wrote: (clip) There's a claim here that at some
speed

Quoted message said:

the energy you put into the system gets magically multiplied, and you
go faster up and down. That's not 100% BS. It's at least 112%.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think that's the claim. The claim is that in some way you can bank
some of your energy. and draw it out at a time when it will do you more
good. I don't think these spoke weights are the way to do it, but the
principle is what we're arguing about. Let's say you're going down hill at
about 50 mph. Using all the power you can muster, you probably could not
add l MPH to your speed, because the power goes up as (I think) the cube of
your speed. Suppose you had a big clock spring you could wind up while
coasting downhill. If you draw this energy out when you are struggling up a
hill at, say, 5 mph, you would get less tired, or go faster. If you went 1
MPH faster, this would reduce your uphill time by 20%.

Please don't tell me this is not practical--I already know that. We're
discussing the principle.

There is a conservation law that says you can't get out more than goes in,
so BS is limited to 100% <G>.

On Jan 29, 11:15 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote:  (clip) There's a claim here that at some

speed> the energy you put into the system gets magically multiplied, and you

Quoted message said:

go faster up and down.  That's not 100% BS.  It's at least 112%.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think that's the claim.  The claim is that in some way you can bank
some of your energy. and draw it out at a time when it will do you more
good.  I don't think these spoke weights are the way to do it, but the
principle is what we're arguing about.  Let's say you're going down hillat
about 50 mph.  Using all the power you can muster, you probably could not
add l MPH to your speed, because the power goes up as (I think) the cube of
your speed.  Suppose you had a big clock spring you could wind up while
coasting downhill.  If you draw this energy out when you are struggling up a
hill at, say, 5 mph, you would get less tired, or go faster.  If you went 1
MPH faster, this would reduce your uphill time by 20%.

Please don't tell me this is not practical--I already know that.  We're
discussing the principle.

There is a conservation law that says you can't get out more than goes in,
so BS is limited to 100% <G>.

That's exactly what I meant. However thinking about these spokes, I
think they do exactly the opposite! It saps some of your energy on a
slow hill when any extra speed will gain you good time, and gives it
back at high speed when the time gain is minimal.

Joseph

...we can only hope that 100 years from now somebody will say, "Hey
guys, look at this goofy idea!" and someone from the crowd will ask
"What did'ya find now Fogel?"...

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin