MTB bar ends or not

Quoted message said:

If I'm not mistaken this MTB racer is using standard bar ends
in the middle of his handle bars - am I right or is this a special
attachment ? Anyone ever tried it ?

I don't think it's that easy. Most MTB bars have thinner ends so
standard bar ends won't fit in the middle of the bar.

"Rik O'Shea" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If I'm not mistaken this MTB racer is using standard bar ends
in the middle of his handle bars - am I right or is this a special
attachment ? Anyone ever tried it ?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=photos/2004/oct04/croctrophy/stage6/7890

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If I'm not mistaken this MTB racer is using standard bar ends
in the middle of his handle bars - am I right or is this a special
attachment ? Anyone ever tried it ?

I don't think it's that easy. Most MTB bars have thinner ends so
standard bar ends won't fit in the middle of the bar.

"Rik O'Shea" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If I'm not mistaken this MTB racer is using standard bar ends
in the middle of his handle bars - am I right or is this a special
attachment ? Anyone ever tried it ?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=photos/2004/oct04/croctrophy/stage6/7890

Quoted message said:

I have a set something like that. there was a bit of a fad for a while on
road bikes but i think they may be outlawed now. They were legal in racing
as long as they don't protude past the normal handlebar curves. I put some
on my mountain bike and with a small set of pads they are really comfortable
and aero and you can really cover some distance quick.

Marty

Rik O'Shea said:

Quoted message said:

If I'm not mistaken this MTB racer is using standard bar ends
in the middle of his handle bars - am I right or is this a special
attachment ? Anyone ever tried it ?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=photos/2004/oct04/croctrophy/stage6/7890

Yes, I've got my own IRO Jamie Roy fixie set up with something like
that, and I like it very much. I'm using some cool Thorn carbon "bar
ends" in the middle, with Cane Creek stubbies on the ends.

The middle "bar ends" provide a good sort of "time trial" position, very
nice for fighting headwinds.

Ronald said:

I don't think it's that easy. Most MTB bars have thinner ends so
standard bar ends won't fit in the middle of the bar.

Yes, that is a problem with most newer MTB bars, due to the popular
"bulge" design. Those also make it hard to mount the brake levers as
far inboard as I prefer.

Older MTB bars didn't have this bulge. They were 7/8" (22.2 mm) all the
way along, witha shim or sleeve to fit the standard 1" (25.4 mm) stem
clamp.

My Iro has an older Merlin Ti bar, which uses a shim.

Sheldon "Nothing Exceeds Like Excess" Brown
+----------------------------------+
| Good health is nothing but the |
| slowest way to die. -Les Barker |
+----------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

Sheldon Brown said:

The middle "bar ends" provide a good sort of "time trial" position, very
nice for fighting headwinds.

The best headwind fighter is an airspeed indicator _and no speedometer_. Instead
of feeling you're crawling along that day, you marvel at the increased speed. Wind
whistles past your ears.

On days with a tailwind, you marvel instead at how fast you're going past rock
and tree.

Airspeed indicator
http://www.celestaire.com/catalog/products/3806.html

I don't know if it's waterproof or not. I've been assuming not on mine.

It says it works by the doppler effect, which is certainly wrong, there being
no doppler shift with wind. It's almost certainly measuring the wavelength
change by comparing inphase and quadrature amplitudes a small distance from
its ultrasonic transmitter.
--
Ron Hardin
[email hidden]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

"Ron Hardin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > Airspeed indicator

Quoted message said:

http://www.celestaire.com/catalog/products/3806.html

I don't know if it's waterproof or not. I've been assuming not on mine.

It says it works by the doppler effect, which is certainly wrong, there

being

Quoted message said:

no doppler shift with wind. It's almost certainly measuring the

wavelength

Quoted message said:

change by comparing inphase and quadrature amplitudes a small distance

from

Quoted message said:

its ultrasonic transmitter.

So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?

Marty

Quoted message said:

--
Ron Hardin
[email hidden]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

"Marty Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If I'm not mistaken this MTB racer is using standard bar ends
in the middle of his handle bars - am I right or is this a special
attachment ? Anyone ever tried it ?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=photos/2004/oct04/croctrophy/stage6/7890

Quoted message said:

I have a set something like that. there was a bit of a fad for a
while on road bikes but i think they may be outlawed now.

You're thinking of the Cinnelli mini-aerobars. They were outlawed for road
racing about five minutes after they came out. I've got a set of the BBB
ripoffs. Most useful. However, the set in the picture are curved like
standard bar ends.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Marty Wallace said:

"Ron Hardin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > Airspeed indicator

Quoted message said:

http://www.celestaire.com/catalog/products/3806.html

I don't know if it's waterproof or not. I've been assuming not on mine.

It says it works by the doppler effect, which is certainly wrong, there

being

Quoted message said:

no doppler shift with wind. It's almost certainly measuring the

wavelength

Quoted message said:

change by comparing inphase and quadrature amplitudes a small distance

from

Quoted message said:

its ultrasonic transmitter.

So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?

No, the frequency is unchanged.
--
Ron Hardin
[email hidden]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

Ron Hardin said:

Marty Wallace said:

"Ron Hardin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > Airspeed indicator

Quoted message said:

http://www.celestaire.com/catalog/products/3806.html

I don't know if it's waterproof or not. I've been assuming not on mine.

It says it works by the doppler effect, which is certainly wrong, there

being

Quoted message said:

no doppler shift with wind. It's almost certainly measuring the

wavelength

Quoted message said:

change by comparing inphase and quadrature amplitudes a small distance

from

Quoted message said:

its ultrasonic transmitter.

So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?

No, the frequency is unchanged.

Dear Ron,

This may be the utlrasonic anemometer technology:

patft.uspto.govnph ParserOpen ↗

or http://tinyurl.com/6npqq

Carl Fogel

Ron Hardin said:

Marty Wallace said:

"Ron Hardin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > Airspeed indicator

Quoted message said:

http://www.celestaire.com/catalog/products/3806.html

I don't know if it's waterproof or not. I've been assuming not on mine.

It says it works by the doppler effect, which is certainly wrong, there

being

Quoted message said:

no doppler shift with wind. It's almost certainly measuring the

wavelength

Quoted message said:

change by comparing inphase and quadrature amplitudes a small distance

from

Quoted message said:

its ultrasonic transmitter.

So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?

No, the frequency is unchanged.

Dear Ron,

When I browsed for sonic anemometers, this sort of thing
came up:

"The EPA also uses sonic anemometers at some stations. Sonic
anemometers operate on the principal that the speed of wind
affects the time it takes for sound to travel from one point
to another. If the sound is travelling in the direction of
the wind then the transit time is decreased. "

"Conversely, if it is travelling in the opposite direction
to the wind the transit time is increased. Sonic anemometers
emit sound waves, record the time taken to receive the wave
at the other end of the instrument, then convert the value
into the wind speed. By monitoring the speed of sound along
two different axes, wind direction is also able to be
measured."

http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/air/air_quality_monitoring/meteorological_data/

I still want one for Christmas.

Carl Fogel

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:45:19 GMT, Ron Hardin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?

No, the frequency is unchanged.

Wavelength change without frequency change?!? It seems to be some
revolutionary discovery in phisics to me! :-)

WBR,
Artur

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:45:19 GMT, Ron Hardin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?

No, the frequency is unchanged.

Wavelength change without frequency change?!? It seems to be some
revolutionary discovery in physic science to me! :-)

WBR,
Artur

Artur Yelchishchev said:

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:45:19 GMT, Ron Hardin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?

No, the frequency is unchanged.

Wavelength change without frequency change?!? It seems to be some
revolutionary discovery in physic science to me! :-)

WBR,
Artur

If you're moving with the air, you see a different frequency. But
you're not moving with the air. You're moving with the source.

Imagine that you're on a tandem and your stoker claps his hands once
a second. There's a wind, so the noise has to go upstream.

You hear one clap a second. They don't pile up somewhere for an hour
and all arrive when you stop.

Frequency in = frequency out in a linear system that isn't time-varying.

If the source is moving at one speed and the receiver is moving at
another speed, then it's time-varying, and you can have frequency
changes.
--
Ron Hardin
[email hidden]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:15:55 GMT, Ron Hardin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?
No, the frequency is unchanged.

Wavelength change without frequency change?!? It seems to be some
revolutionary discovery in physic science to me! :-)

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Frequency in = frequency out in a linear system that isn't time-varying.

Correct. And another equation would be: Wavelength change = frequency
change, hence my irony, because wavelength and frequency are
essentially the same thing - it's impossible to change one of them
without changing the second.

WBR,
Artur

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:15:55 GMT, Ron Hardin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?
>No, the frequency is unchanged.

Wavelength change without frequency change?!? It seems to be some
revolutionary discovery in physic science to me! :-)

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Frequency in = frequency out in a linear system that isn't time-varying.

Correct. And another equation would be: Wavelength change = frequency
change, hence my irony, because wavelength and frequency are
essentially the same thing - it's impossible to change one of them
without changing the second.

WBR,
Artur

The wave length does not change, nor does the frequency.
Imagine you are standing on top of a fast moving train.
You clap hands at once per second.
The time taken for the first clap to reach a person in front of you will
have a long time delay because the sound has to cover the gap between you,
plus the distance covered by the train (in the meantime). However, after the
first clap the other claps will arrive at one second intervals.
A person standing behind you will hear the first clap very soon after you
clap because the sound has to travel the distance between you and him, MINUS
the distance covered by the train (in the meantime). And once again all the
other claps will arrive at one second intervals.
So there is no change in the frequency or wave length, however there is a
DIFFERENCE in the delay time.

So if you set up a microphone in front of the "clapper" and one behind. The
one behind would detect the sound first, as it is moving into the sound
wave.
I imagine the sonic speed sensor would use this principal.

Thanks Ron for making me think!

Marty

Marty said:

The wave length does not change, nor does the frequency.

Exactly. This is why I've responded to the Ron's comment (" It's
almost certainly measuring the wavelength change"😉.

Quoted message said:

I imagine the sonic speed sensor would use this principal.

Yes, that's correct.

WBR,
Artur

Artur Yelchishchev said:

Quoted message said:

Frequency in = frequency out in a linear system that isn't time-varying.

Correct. And another equation would be: Wavelength change = frequency
change, hence my irony, because wavelength and frequency are
essentially the same thing - it's impossible to change one of them
without changing the second.

Um, no. The sound travels slower into the wind. The frequency is the
same. So the distance between peaks of the wave is less. That's a reduced
wavelength. (Group and phase velocity are the same so a complication is
avoided here that you'd get with, say, water waves.)

Alternatively, if you're moving with the air (let's take the frame that
the air is still and the bike is moving) the frequency is increased by
the doppler shift, so the wavelength is smaller.

The guy moving with the bike sees that smaller wavelength but hears the
original frequency.

Alternatively again, the wavelength of a train whistle appears the
same to the engineer and the stationmaster but the pitch is different.
--
Ron Hardin
[email hidden]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:58:24 GMT, Ron Hardin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The frequency is the same. So the distance between peaks of the wave is less.

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Alternatively again, the wavelength of a train whistle appears the
same to the engineer and the stationmaster but the pitch is different.

Excuse me, but this is fundamentally impossible. The distance between
peaks of the wave and the frequensy are the two parameters of the same
thing - if you know the frequency, you know the wavelenght, and vice
versa.

In the gas flowmeters (and, in our particular case, in wind speed
meter), the time required for signal to travel from transmitter to the
receiver is measured, not wavelenght/frequency.

WBR,
Artur

Artur Yelchishchev <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Excuse me, but this is fundamentally impossible. The distance between
peaks of the wave and the frequensy are the two parameters of the same
thing - if you know the frequency, you know the wavelenght, and vice
versa.

That's utter [censored].

I can give you lots of frequencies for which you don't know the wavelength.

1 radian/sec.

2 radian/sec.

3 radian/sec.

We could go on forever.

99 radians/sec in r.b.t,
99 radians/sec
Slow it down, spin it around,
98 radians/sec in r.b.t

Artur Yelchishchev said:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:58:24 GMT, Ron Hardin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The frequency is the same. So the distance between peaks of the wave is less.

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Alternatively again, the wavelength of a train whistle appears the
same to the engineer and the stationmaster but the pitch is different.

Excuse me, but this is fundamentally impossible. The distance between
peaks of the wave and the frequensy are the two parameters of the same
thing - if you know the frequency, you know the wavelenght, and vice
versa.

In the gas flowmeters (and, in our particular case, in wind speed
meter), the time required for signal to travel from transmitter to the
receiver is measured, not wavelenght/frequency.

Frequency depends on motion (aka doppler shift). Wavelength does not.
You can mark out where the sound pressure peaks are at a single instant, and
measure the distance between them. Short of relativity, you get the same marks
whether you're moving relative to the source or not, and so the same wavelength.

Indeed the usual way of explaining doppler shift is to show that as you approach
a stationary source, you travel down the series of those peaks at your own speed, and thus
add to the frequency you hear. You assume the wavelength is unchanged to explain
the frequency change.

(Complicating general fact, there's no general relation between frequency and wavelength
in general; the relation that happens to exist is called the dispersion
relation for the medium. It happens to be dispersionless for sound in air.)
--
Ron Hardin
[email hidden]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.