The great rotating-weight debate

[David Damerell]

Quoting Michael Press <[email protected]>:
> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Quoting Michael Press <[email protected]>:
>>>So the rotational energy of the wheel equals
>>>the translational energy.
>>Quite correct... if all the mass is at the very outside. Which it isn't.
>>Even the rim and tyre are nontrivially inboard of that point.
>Yes, an upper bound on the rotational energy to
>translational energy is one.

Nowhere in the post I replied to do you mention that you are stating an
upper bound. You got it wrong; deal.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Aponoia, April.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting <[email protected]>:
>The problem is that acceleration on bicycles is so slight that all
>this is irrelevant. If someone graphed speed variations while
>pedaling on an absolute scale while riding at steady state on the flat
>or for that matter during acceleration from stopped to that speed, the
>whole subject would blow away.

For one thing, we can see these effects are not significant from the fact
that tandems with cranks mounted out of phase are no faster than tandems
with conventionally mounted cranks.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Aponoia, April.