Street furniture, footpath furniture

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Clive Coleman wrote:

> I was only making a simple point that
>movement is required to maintain balance, but your efforts to evade a
>simple no make you sound like son of Doug.

I've had my wheel stuck in a tram track, and no I couldn't balance.
I'm not evading anything. Do you really think tram tracks are a
serious problem on UK hills or not? If not, what relevence do you
think your point has?

 

[Clive Coleman]

In message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
<[email protected]> writes
>>Come on, Berkeley's been shut now for several years.
>
>Has it been shut for eighteen years though?
No, read post and responded before next post saying how long ago. (Hangs
head in shame.)
--
Clive.

 

[Adrian]

Alan Braggins ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

> Do you really think tram tracks are a serious problem on UK hills or not?

On some, yes.

The steep Sheffield hill that my father lives on has tram tracks up it.

There's been several serious accidents due to drivers losing control of
their cars on the tracks, including more than one death. Sure, the tracks
are not the only factor, but they're certainly a serious contribution.

 

[Clive Coleman]

In message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
<[email protected]> writes
>I've had my wheel stuck in a tram track, and no I couldn't balance. I'm
>not evading anything. Do you really think tram tracks are a serious
>problem on UK hills or not? If not, what relevence do you think your
>point has?
I was following an assertion that balancing a bike can be done whilst
stationary. When I was a kid I tried all the usual tricks like sitting
on the handlebars and riding backwards and used a bike for work in the
conventional manner for over twenty years, therefore to be told
something was possible when I knew it wasn't was a point looking to be
challenged. Nothing more, nothing less.
--
Clive.

 

[LSMike]

"Clive Coleman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was following an assertion that balancing a bike can be done whilst
> stationary. When I was a kid I tried all the usual tricks like sitting
> on the handlebars and riding backwards and used a bike for work in the
> conventional manner for over twenty years, therefore to be told something
> was possible when I knew it wasn't was a point looking to be challenged.
> Nothing more, nothing less.
> --
> Clive.

Let's hope you learnt you were wrong then.

 

[David Martin]

On 13/4/05 3:49 pm, in article [email protected], "Clive
Coleman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
> <[email protected]> writes
>> I've had my wheel stuck in a tram track, and no I couldn't balance. I'm
>> not evading anything. Do you really think tram tracks are a serious
>> problem on UK hills or not? If not, what relevence do you think your
>> point has?
> I was following an assertion that balancing a bike can be done whilst
> stationary. When I was a kid I tried all the usual tricks like sitting
> on the handlebars and riding backwards and used a bike for work in the
> conventional manner for over twenty years, therefore to be told
> something was possible when I knew it wasn't was a point looking to be
> challenged. Nothing more, nothing less.

We were trying to get you to define what you meant by stationary. ie are
small fore and aft movements allowed? on what scale? Trackstanding is
perfectly possible for extended lengths of time. See
http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-87962 for a few anecdotes.

Just because you cannot do it doesn't mean it can't be done. I've been
riding a bike for over 25 years and I can't trackstand particularly well at
all. I do cope reasonably well on slippery stuff though.

...d

 

[Clive Coleman]

In message <[email protected]>, LSMike
<[email protected]> writes
>> I was following an assertion that balancing a bike can be done whilst
>> stationary. When I was a kid I tried all the usual tricks like sitting
>> on the handlebars and riding backwards and used a bike for work in the
>> conventional manner for over twenty years, therefore to be told something
>> was possible when I knew it wasn't was a point looking to be challenged.
>> Nothing more, nothing less.
>> --
>> Clive.
>
>Let's hope you learnt you were wrong then.
I'll believe it when I see it.
--
Clive.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Clive Coleman wrote:
>In message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
><[email protected]> writes
>>I've had my wheel stuck in a tram track, and no I couldn't balance. I'm
>>not evading anything. Do you really think tram tracks are a serious
>>problem on UK hills or not? If not, what relevence do you think your
>>point has?
>I was following an assertion that balancing a bike can be done whilst
>stationary. When I was a kid I tried all the usual tricks like sitting
>on the handlebars and riding backwards and used a bike for work in the
>conventional manner for over twenty years, therefore to be told
>something was possible when I knew it wasn't was a point looking to be
>challenged. Nothing more, nothing less.

So, a deliberately evasive misinterpretation of something that was clear
from context, in order to make a pedantic challenge of something no-one
disagreed with. Fair enough.

 

[David Hansen]

On 13 Apr 2005 14:45:45 GMT someone who may be Adrian
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>The steep Sheffield hill that my father lives on has tram tracks up it.

Park Grange Road ISTR.

>There's been several serious accidents due to drivers losing control of
>their cars on the tracks, including more than one death.

There are many such "accidents" on roads without tramlines.

>Sure, the tracks
>are not the only factor, but they're certainly a serious contribution.

So some people claim. Some even claim the tramlines are entirely
"responsible" for the "accident". However, the head of tramway rails
are very narrow and the rail itself is surrounded by a polymer. It
is unlikely that the overall effect of the railhead and polymer on
the skid resistance experienced by vehicles with broad tyres is
great. Vehicles with narrow tyres are a different matter, because if
ridden badly the tyre may just be on the rail head and not in
contact with the polymer.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[JLB]

John Wright wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:39:21 +0100, JLB <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>John Wright wrote:
>>
>>> JLB wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Wright wrote:
>
>
>>>>>However IME people who actually invent things - BP
>>>>>may hold the patents but some person actually put brain to paper and
>>>>>did the inventing - have no great wish for their patents to be put on
>>>>>ice while their employer looks the other way.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure what you're getting at there. When I was doing research
>>>>engineering for a very big energy company I had to sign away all my
>>>>intellectual property rights as a condition of employment; the argument
>>>>was that the company was providing me with the facilities to develop new
>>>>ideas and the company was entitled to whatever I produced in
>>>>consequence. If I invented something the company owned the patent and
>>>>the company decided what to do with it. My wishes in the matter counted
>>>>for exactly nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course you do. It happens in any company which invests in R&D. It
>>>doesn't stop you having pride in what you develop. Someone I work with
>>>received an internal award regarded as the corporate equivalent of the
>>>Nobel prize for something he invented. The IP belongs to the
>>>corporation. The pride in the invention belongs to him. That's what I
>>>was getting at.
>>
>>OK. But when you mentioned these employees and the things they might
>>invent, it was in the context of an earlier suggestion that a company
>>like BP could own patents on alternative technology and as a matter of
>>policy might simply shelve them; your response said the employees who
>>had done the inventing might wish otherwise; and it now appears we agree
>>that the inventor's wishes are immaterial, and their pride has no
>>bearing on what the company's policy might be in dealing with the invention.
>
>
> No, that's not what I implied at all. My point is and remains that the
> inventors would be pretty ****** off if the company they work for
> decided just to shelve their work. Unless of course they paid them
> very well.

My experience was that anyone who valued having some control over their
invention would have enough sense not to work for an organisation that
insisted they sign away all IP rights from the start; once the people I
worked with had signed their contracts they were under no illusions. So
long as they were paid their salaries (typically around £20k AFAIR for
the engineers in the late 1980s, so some way short of wealth beyond
dreams) they recognised the company had kept its part of the bargain.
The fate of their inventions was not something to get overly concerned
about. Anyone who got "pretty ****** off" about it would have been
considered rather naive and immature.
>
> In any case, this appears to be a UL that's been around for decades.
> Its relatively easy (though costly) to do a complete search of
> patents, I'm sure an organisation with an interest and a fair amount
> of cash - e.g. FoE or Greenpeace would have done that by now, but one
> never sees any results from this.

I agree completely. Patenting something and keeping it secret is not easy.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[Mark McNeill]

Reply to Clive Coleman
> I was following an assertion that balancing a bike can be done whilst
> stationary. When I was a kid I tried all the usual tricks like sitting
> on the handlebars and riding backwards and used a bike for work in the
> conventional manner for over twenty years, therefore to be told
> something was possible when I knew it wasn't was a point looking to be
> challenged. Nothing more, nothing less.


As has been pointed out several times, it depends how pedantic you
want to be about the meaning of "stationary". If you allow miniscule
corrections - as for instance those which occur when e.g. driving, let
along walking, in a straight line - then trackstanding is perfectly
possible. If, on the other hand, you insist on a theoretical absolute
stillness, then balancing on a stationary bike is not only possible,
it's unavoidable: given that the CoG is over the contact patch, what
force is there to move it to one side or the other? ;-)


--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

 

[Tony Raven]

JLB wrote:
>
> My experience was that anyone who valued having some control over their
> invention would have enough sense not to work for an organisation that
> insisted they sign away all IP rights from the start;

Its irrelevant whether they sign away all their rights or not, in law
their inventions belong to their employer without any clause in their
employment contract [1]

Tony

[1] Section 39 of the Patents Act 1977 lays down:
"(i) Notwithstanding anything in any rule of law, an invention made by
an employee shall, as between him and his employer, be taken to belong
to his employer for the purposes of this Act and all other purposes if -
(a) it was made in the course of the normal duties of the employee or in
the course of duties falling outside his normal duties but specifically
assigned to him and the circumstances in either case were such that an
invention might reasonably be expected to result from the carrying out
of his duties; or
(b) the invention was made in the course of the duties of the employee
and, at the time of making the invention, because of the nature of his
duties and the particular responsibilities arising from the nature of
his duties, he had a special obligation to further the interests of the
employer's undertaking.
(ii) Any other invention made by an employee shall, as between him and
his employer, be taken for those purposes to belong to the employee."

 

[Tim Woodall]

[uk.transport dropped]

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:42:16 GMT,
Mark Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Not in this manor squire. (Apologises to Monty Python.) Too hilly.
>
> Cycling is allegedly 5 times more efficient than walking, but what about
> going up hills? Do wheels that roll backwards make it less efficient?
> Back of envelope calculations suggest I should have paid more attention in
> physics lessons - I don't have a clue, but am guessing it still has the
> edge on walking up 'em.
>
Doesn't look like anyone answered this.

Yes it is more efficient[1]

The problem is power, not energy.

If, for example, the slowest you could safely cycle was 3mph, on a steep
hill you might have to average about 4mph so that the speedups/slowdowns
as you got more/less power into the pedals as they rotated didn't drop
you below your minimum speed.

But, even if you assume 100% efficiency for the bike, you are still
gaining gravitational potential energy as you climb, and the faster you
climb the faster you need to supply that energy.

Lets say you can sustain 200W power output and you plus bike weigh 80kg

Therefore you can climb (vertically) 200/80/10 = 0.25m/s (E=mgh)
On a 1 in 10 hill you will travel 2.5m when climbing 0.25m much - i.e.
doing about 5mph will require you to sustain 200W assuming there are no
other losses in the system.

A walker can (obviously) go much slower and so needs a much lower
sustained power output even if they actually end up using more energy in
the long run.

Tim.

[1] qualify this because I've never measured it and I don't know
how to measure efficiency of human driven vehicles and walking ;-)


> You aren't going to tell me walking isn't a viable way of getting up a hill
> are you? ;-)


--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Clive Coleman]

In message <[email protected]>, Mark McNeill
<[email protected]> writes
> If, on the other hand, you insist on a theoretical absolute stillness,
>then balancing on a stationary bike is not only possible, it's
>unavoidable: given that the CoG is over the contact patch, what force
>is there to move it to one side or the other? ;-)
Going back to infant school. There are two centres of gravity the one
that is hanging which is stable and the opposite, vertically up which is
unstable or unstable equilibrium if you insist. Balancing on a bike is
the later and requires corrections to keep it there. To be honest I'm
doing a little mild trolling after taking lessons from Doug.
--
Clive.

 

[JLB]

Tony Raven wrote:
> JLB wrote:
>
>>
>> My experience was that anyone who valued having some control over
>> their invention would have enough sense not to work for an
>> organisation that insisted they sign away all IP rights from the start;
>
>
> Its irrelevant whether they sign away all their rights or not, in law
> their inventions belong to their employer without any clause in their
> employment contract [1]
>
> Tony
>
> [1] Section 39 of the Patents Act 1977 lays down:
> "(i) Notwithstanding anything in any rule of law, an invention made by
> an employee shall, as between him and his employer, be taken to belong
> to his employer for the purposes of this Act and all other purposes if -
> (a) it was made in the course of the normal duties of the employee or in
> the course of duties falling outside his normal duties but specifically
> assigned to him and the circumstances in either case were such that an
> invention might reasonably be expected to result from the carrying out
> of his duties; or
> (b) the invention was made in the course of the duties of the employee
> and, at the time of making the invention, because of the nature of his
> duties and the particular responsibilities arising from the nature of
> his duties, he had a special obligation to further the interests of the
> employer's undertaking.
> (ii) Any other invention made by an employee shall, as between him and
> his employer, be taken for those purposes to belong to the employee."

Fair enough. Perhaps the piece of paper I remember was doing no more
than spelling it out, for the avoidance of any misunderstanding. There
was certainly a document about this that each of us employees signed,
and the law you have quoted above seems familiar.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[Tony Raven]

Steve Firth wrote:
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Its irrelevant whether they sign away all their rights or not, in law
>>their inventions belong to their employer without any clause in their
>>employment contract [1]
>
>
> Many employers (Oracle is one such) seek to extend their rights beyond
> what is reasonable in their contract of employment. Oracle sent me a
> contract which I considered a complete stitch-up. So did my lawyer. I
> didn't go to work for them.
>

As is your right. Market forces at work and if enough people follow the
same route they will eventually have to change their policies.

Tony

 

[Adrian]

David Hansen ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

>>The steep Sheffield hill that my father lives on has tram tracks up
>>it.

> Park Grange Road ISTR.

<paranoid glance around>

>>There's been several serious accidents due to drivers losing control
>>of their cars on the tracks, including more than one death.

> There are many such "accidents" on roads without tramlines.

True, but...

>> Sure, the tracks are not the only factor, but they're certainly a
>> serious contribution.

> So some people claim. Some even claim the tramlines are entirely
> "responsible" for the "accident".

Which is, obviously, wrong - as many many people manage not to wrap
'emselves.

> However, the head of tramway rails are very narrow and the rail itself
> is surrounded by a polymer. It is unlikely that the overall effect of
> the railhead and polymer on the skid resistance experienced by
> vehicles with broad tyres is great.

It is certainly very noticable in a largish car with 205 tyres on.

Driving up and down the road, especially in the wet, you need to be very
careful of the tracks - get a tyre on one, and there's a definite
squirming and slipping, especially as the "natural line" of traffic
moves you from one side of the tracks to the other on some of the bends.
It's not difficult to see how a bit too much velocity would cause big
problems far more quickly than without the tram tracks there.

> Vehicles with narrow tyres are a different matter

It's bloody evil in a 2cv with 125s.

> because if ridden badly the tyre may just be on the rail head and not
> in contact with the polymer.

Anybody actually driving/riding *ON* the tracks is asking for trouble.
Unfortunately, you do need to cross them. I really don't fancy trying it
on a bike - either bicycle or powered - although you would have less
excuse for crossing the tracks on the bends, so it may be easier.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Clive Coleman wrote:
>In message <[email protected]>, Mark McNeill
><[email protected]> writes
>> If, on the other hand, you insist on a theoretical absolute stillness,
>>then balancing on a stationary bike is not only possible, it's
>>unavoidable: given that the CoG is over the contact patch, what force
>>is there to move it to one side or the other? ;-)
>Going back to infant school. There are two centres of gravity the one
>that is hanging which is stable and the opposite, vertically up which is
>unstable or unstable equilibrium if you insist. Balancing on a bike is
>the later and requires corrections to keep it there.

But if it falls over, then it isn't stationary. So a perfectly stationary
bike must, by definition, be in equilibrium, unstable or not. This is
completely irrelevent to real life of course, but you started the evasion.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>JLB wrote:
>>
>> My experience was that anyone who valued having some control over their
>> invention would have enough sense not to work for an organisation that
>> insisted they sign away all IP rights from the start;
>
>Its irrelevant whether they sign away all their rights or not, in law
>their inventions belong to their employer without any clause in their
>employment contract [1]
[...]
>(ii) Any other invention made by an employee shall, as between him and
>his employer, be taken for those purposes to belong to the employee."

There are companies that attempt to get employees to sign away rights to
"Any other invention" as well as those done in the course of work, even
if it has nothing at all to do with the company's normal area of business.

Years ago I worked for a company that was owned by a company that was taken
over by a company that tried to do that, along with restraint of trade
clauses ("You realize that's almost certainly illegal under UK law?" "Yes"
"So you won't mind dropping it from the new contracts?" "No, we need it
just in case"), and requirements that any communication at all with anyone
working in the same industry had written minutes kept (that went down
especially well with those with spouses in the same industry).

Most of the company refused to sign the new contracts, and a more reasonable
one was introduced instead.

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:27:38 +0100 someone who may be John Wright
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>What I meant was simply that the site took in more electricity than it
>>contributed to the grid.
>
>But you didn't say that in so many words. The same can be said of any
>nuclear power station and probably wind farms as well.

Leaving aside nuclear power stations, how would a wind farm take in
electricity and what would this do?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.