Missy Giove's QR pops open



Status
Not open for further replies.
James Annan wrote:
> I don't have sufficient mechanical engineering expertise to simply look at the system and work out
> with any confidence what will happen from first principles, even though it is quite
> straightforward to understand in hindsight.

Such is the way with most discoveries - they generally appear obvious in hindsight, but it takes a
lot of work to extract the salient facts from the noise.
--
R.

<> Richard Brockie "Categorical statements <> The tall blond one. always cause trouble." <>
[email protected]
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected],
>
> The difference between science and dogma is science seeks to challenge a theory which is
> strengthened or dismissed on its ability to meet those challenges. Dogma dismisses and belittles
> anyone who dares question it. N-rays and cold fusion both happened because people were preoccupied
> with seeing manifestations of what they wanted to believe. There may or may
not
> be something in your theory but you do it no credit by attacking anyone
who
> dares to question it.
>
> </rant>
>
> Tony
>
> --
> http://www.raven-family.com
>
> "All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
> Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer
>

Somewhat OT, interestingly, cold fusion is enjoying something of a renaissance. It may not have been
wishful thinking after all. Groups have continued the work started by Fleischmann-Pons and have
enjoyed considerably more success than they did originally. There is some debate about whether
fusion is actually taking place or some other nuclear interaction that is yet to be explained. So
you may have to hold off on that particular comparison!!

Cheers,

Scott..
 
S. Anderson wrote:
> Somewhat OT, interestingly, cold fusion is enjoying something of a renaissance. It may not have
> been wishful thinking after all. Groups have continued the work started by Fleischmann-Pons and
> have enjoyed considerably more success than they did originally. There is some debate about
> whether fusion is actually taking place or some other nuclear interaction that is yet to be
> explained. So you may have to hold off on that particular comparison!!

Er, care to substantiate that statement? Cold fusion as proposed by Fleischmann and Pons has been
roundly discredited. There are a few die-hard advocates who advocate precisely what you state, but
the evidence for their claims is still flimsy, at best.

--
T.

<> Richard Brockie "Categorical statements <> The tall blond one. always cause trouble." <>
[email protected]
 
"Richard Brockie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Er, care to substantiate that statement? Cold fusion as proposed by Fleischmann and Pons has been
> roundly discredited. There are a few die-hard advocates who advocate precisely what you state, but
> the evidence for their claims is still flimsy, at best.
>
> --
> R.
>
> <> Richard Brockie "Categorical statements <> The tall blond one. always cause trouble." <>
> [email protected]
>

From Scientific American:

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=0007CC4D-394F-1C71-84A 9809EC588EF21

I was careful to indicate in my post that it may not have been cold fusion at all, but some other
interaction. I still remember the debacle and remember feeling somewhat sadly for the two at being
shot down by peer review. But, that is the point of peer review after all. If I remember correctly,
they were partly a little too aggressive in extolling their fusion "success" and at the same time
became victims of media hype and shortly afterward, were made goats when their "success" was called
into question. Still, I keep reading in Scientific American and other science journals that there
is a quiet and steady study of the cold fusion experiments and that something may actually be
happening there that was not originally seen in the peer review experiements. I'm intrigued to see
the outcome.

Cheers!

Scott..
 
S. Anderson wrote:
> From Scientific American:
>
> http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=0007CC4D-394F-1C71-84A 9809EC588EF21

Thanks - I'll check this out.

> I was careful to indicate in my post that it may not have been cold fusion at all, but some other
> interaction. I still remember the debacle and remember feeling somewhat sadly for the two at being
> shot down by peer review. But, that is the point of peer review after all. If I remember
> correctly, they were partly a little too aggressive in extolling their fusion "success" and at the
> same time became victims of media hype and shortly afterward, were made goats when their "success"
> was called into question.

That is being charitable. The main problem with Fleischmann and Pons was that they did not go
through the usual peer review process before their public announcement. For more on the debacle,
read "Voodoo Science" by Robert Park.

--
T.

<> Richard Brockie "Categorical statements <> The tall blond one. always cause trouble." <>
[email protected]
 
In news:[email protected],
S. Anderson <[email protected]> typed:
>
> I was careful to indicate in my post that it may not have been cold fusion at all, but some other
> interaction. I still remember the debacle and remember feeling somewhat sadly for the two at being
> shot down by peer review. But, that is the point of peer review after all.

But not before quite a few respected scientists had joined their cause. There is a good book by
Robert Park - the author of the seven tests of "bogus science" - that is well worth reading called
Voodoo Science. The Park tests are at http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> Forester, though, was by his own admission instrumental in the introduction of the execrable
> "lawyer lips" which are so completely pointless on any rim-braked fork.

But not so pointless with a disk brake it seems.

--
Dave...
 
In news:[email protected],
S. Anderson <[email protected]> typed:
>
> From Scientific American:
>
>
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=0007CC4D-394F-1C71-84A
> 9809EC588EF21
>

An interesting article with a beautiful illustration of my point about science and dogma, quote:

"It might be thought that the three Japanese results would be decisive, but the two summary
speakers, Tullio Bressani of Turin and Mike McKubre of SRI International, were optimistic and
*belittled or ignored* them and instead talked of other experiments that were not performed with the
same careful controls."

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer
 
In news:p[email protected], Just zis Guy, you know?
<[email protected]> typed:
>
> Forester, though, was by his own admission instrumental in the introduction of the execrable
> "lawyer lips" which are so completely pointless on any rim-braked fork.

...and were introduced for all those people (with rim brakes) whose wheels came out despite them
being absolutely certain they had done the quick release up properly. Plus ca change......

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer .
 
On Sat, 17 May 2003 19:36:16 -0400, "S. Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>There is some debate about whether fusion is actually taking place or some other nuclear
>interaction that is yet to be explained.

That was the view of my friend Séamus, who worked in the lab in Southampton where some of the
initial experiments were done. Séamus is now Professor of Bio- and Electroanalysis at Cranfield, so
was not standing behind the door when brains were handed out.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
On 18 May 2003 00:12:42 -0700, [email protected] (Dave Kahn) wrote:

>> Forester, though, was by his own admission instrumental in the introduction of the execrable
>> "lawyer lips" which are so completely pointless on any rim-braked fork.

>But not so pointless with a disk brake it seems.

Yes - it amused me that years after having introduced an unnecessary "safety" device for rim-braked
bikes, the bike makers finally introduced a product which made the lawyer lips worthwhile - except
that the only bike I have with disc brakes has no lawyer lips, and the only bike I have with lawyer
lips has rim brakes!

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> The difference between science and dogma is science seeks to challenge a theory which is
> strengthened or dismissed on its ability to meet those challenges.

Ok then, have a go at challenging it. But let's stick to the scientific method, and avoid simply
saying "I don't believe it". _Why_ don't you believe it? There are essentially two aspects to the
failure, the slipping and the unscrewing. Both are predicted by elementary theory, both have been
repeatedly observed. I'm at a loss to see what more you can need. If it's just a matter of the time
it takes you to get your head round the idea, that's fair enough and I'm sorry I was a bit short. It
is a bit incredible to believe that all the major manufacturers can have made this mistake. I
suspect that the problem must have been properly considered a long time ago, but a combination of
corporate memory loss and erroneous copying of designs has brought us to the current situation.

The ultimate test of a theory is its ability to predict future outcomes, because that enables it to
be falsified or validated. In my opinion it predicted Spaceman Spiff's experience rather well
(quoted on my page). This anecdote was not one of the ones that I drew on when dreaming up my ideas,
it only happened a couple of weeks ago and you can therefore treat it as an independent data point
for validation.

James
 
"Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote in message news:<fcyxa.35850$eJ2.9502@fed1read07>...

> Maybe there's an idiot loose behind the wrench/QR? Maybe we have a case of "I had a McD's
> milkshake between my legs, hit a bump, smashed the milkshake into my lap which distracted me, then
> I ran into a wall, and its McD's fault..."

Every sporting activity is now constrained by the safety-Nazis, sometimes with little or no sense
coming into play. [You should see the daft 'safety instructions' printed on parachute sacks].

However, James' theory (and I'll continue to call it a theory, even if he believes I'm sneering when
I'm writing it!) needs to be taken seriously by the global bike trade because it appears to be
easily solved by manufacturers.

Tullio Campangnolo invented the QR in the 1930s. The way QRs are being currently deployed by many
bike suppliers may not be safe in some situations. Mountain biking is dangerous (if you do it
right...) but if just a handful of people per decade are saved from lifelong, crippling injuries
it's incumbent upon the trade to make the required changes.

The problem the bike trade has got is admitting there's a problem because that raises the spectre of
a massive recall programme. Many niche, high-end bike suppliers are already offering bikes that
don't suffer from the problems James Annan decribes. I suspect some of them were way ahead of James
but instead of shouting about it, just quietly modified their designs, leaving other suppliers with
the allegedly 'defective' set-ups.
 
"Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote in message news:<fcyxa.35850$eJ2.9502@fed1read07>...

> Seems friend B forgot to tell Friend A that he didn't tighten the axle nuts holding the wheel on.
>
> So what do we have here?

A red herring.

--
Dave...
 
On 18 May 2003 03:30:58 -0700, [email protected] (Carlton Reid, BikeBiz.co.uk) wrote:

>James' theory (and I'll continue to call it a theory, even if he believes I'm sneering when I'm
>writing it!) needs to be taken seriously by the global bike trade because it appears to be easily
>solved by manufacturers.

The word "theory" is not in any way pejorative, I would suggest.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> In news:[email protected], James Annan <[email protected]> typed:

> > You should have trusted your first instincts. But looking on the bright side, this does give
> > Brant's nonsense a public viewing rather than clogging up my mailbox.
>
> The difference between science and dogma is science seeks to challenge a theory which is
> strengthened or dismissed on its ability to meet those challenges. Dogma dismisses and belittles
> anyone who dares question it. N-rays and cold fusion both happened because people were preoccupied
> with seeing manifestations of what they wanted to believe. There may or may not be something in
> your theory but you do it no credit by attacking anyone who dares to question it.

But the challenging of a theory is supposed to be done on a scientific basis. Simply saying "the
theory is wrong" is not scientific. Failing to consider the available evidence is also unscientific.
If the unscrewing mechanism is wrong it deserves a proper rebuttal. James' robust response is
entirely justified in this case.

--
Dave...
 
Dave Kahn said...

> Why would you expect it to?

See thread subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.