Water tires experiment/need contributions

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Phil, Squid-in-Training, Apr 18, 2006.

  1. I'm planning to fill up my tires with water to see what will happen. It's a
    science experiment for RBT. It's obviously a work in progress.

    ABSTRACT
    TBD

    OBJECTIVES
    To determine the effects of riding on water-filled tires originally designed
    to be pressurized with air.

    THEORY
    With water's virtual incompressibility, water-filled tires should exhibit a
    harsher ride compared to air-filled tires. The ability to generate pressure
    will also be hampered by its incompressibility, although inevitable air
    pockets will allow pressurization.

    PROCEDURE
    Immerse hand pump in water, pull plunger, attach pump to valve stem, then
    pump. Repeat until high pressure is acheived. Ride. Empty tubes of water.
    Fill tubes with air. Ride. Compare.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    TBD

    CONCLUSIONS
    Pneumatic tires are pneumatic for a reason.

    COMMENTS
    To be filled in by RBT contributors.
    --
    Phil, Squid-in-Training
     
    Tags:


  2. mort

    mort Guest

    Prediction: first big bump you blow the tire off the rim, to your
    subsequent misfortune. The good news is you will land in a puddle.

    Observation: you must have a lot of time on your hands.

    I am curious to see how it turns out, though.

    Mort
     
  3. Hi,

    > Prediction: first big bump you blow the tire off the rim, to your
    > subsequent misfortune. The good news is you will land in a puddle.


    Sounds fun ;-)

    > Observation: you must have a lot of time on your hands.


    Yeah.

    > I am curious to see how it turns out, though.


    That's true - and if you have some time left, try filling your tires
    with foam - this could be an interesting experiment... Watch for
    handling in normal operation and in case of pressure loss (puncture)...

    Ciao.
     
  4. Art Harris

    Art Harris Guest

    Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:

    > I'm planning to fill up my tires with water to see what will happen. It's a
    > science experiment for RBT. It's obviously a work in progress.


    It's already been done. See:
    http://tinyurl.com/eal8d

    Art Harris
     
  5. Vee

    Vee Guest

    Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
    > I'm planning to fill up my tires with water to see what will happen. It's a
    > science experiment for RBT. It's obviously a work in progress.
    >
    > ABSTRACT
    > TBD
    >
    > OBJECTIVES
    > To determine the effects of riding on water-filled tires originally designed
    > to be pressurized with air.
    >
    > THEORY
    > With water's virtual incompressibility, water-filled tires should exhibit a
    > harsher ride compared to air-filled tires. The ability to generate pressure
    > will also be hampered by its incompressibility, although inevitable air
    > pockets will allow pressurization.
    >
    > PROCEDURE
    > Immerse hand pump in water, pull plunger, attach pump to valve stem, then
    > pump. Repeat until high pressure is acheived. Ride. Empty tubes of water.
    > Fill tubes with air. Ride. Compare.
    >
    > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    > TBD
    >
    > CONCLUSIONS
    > Pneumatic tires are pneumatic for a reason.
    >
    > COMMENTS
    > To be filled in by RBT contributors.
    > --
    > Phil, Squid-in-Training


    A friend of mine once left his trials bike at a different friend's
    house overnight. As a prank, the second friend pumped the tires hard
    with water. It took a while to fill the huge 26" tires, but once they
    were full, the bike was impossibly heavy. We wanted to ride it, but we
    didn't think we could get it up the steep, narrow stairs of the
    basement. It rode sluggishly in the basement, but the tires stayed on
    the rims just fine.

    The owner of the bike wasn't amused, but it was in fact quite funny.

    -Vee
     
  6. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    "Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >I'm planning to fill up my tires with water to see what will happen. It's a
    >science experiment for RBT. It's obviously a work in progress.
    >
    >ABSTRACT
    >TBD
    >
    >OBJECTIVES
    >To determine the effects of riding on water-filled tires originally designed
    >to be pressurized with air.
    >
    >THEORY
    >With water's virtual incompressibility, water-filled tires should exhibit a
    >harsher ride compared to air-filled tires. The ability to generate pressure
    >will also be hampered by its incompressibility, although inevitable air
    >pockets will allow pressurization.


    While water is incompressible, the fact that the tire casing itself is
    elastic will allow the water to displace when you hit a bump (think of
    squeezing a long skinny balloon). My prediction is that the
    difference in ride quality won't be all that dramatic, but will be
    measurable.

    >PROCEDURE
    >Immerse hand pump in water, pull plunger, attach pump to valve stem, then
    >pump. Repeat until high pressure is acheived. Ride. Empty tubes of water.
    >Fill tubes with air. Ride. Compare.
    >
    >RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    >TBD
    >
    >CONCLUSIONS
    >Pneumatic tires are pneumatic for a reason.
    >
    >COMMENTS
    >To be filled in by RBT contributors.


    Sounds like a fun experiment!

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $795 ti frame
     
  7. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:21:04 -0400, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I'm planning to fill up my tires with water to see what will happen. It's a
    >science experiment for RBT. It's obviously a work in progress.
    >
    >ABSTRACT
    >TBD
    >
    >OBJECTIVES
    >To determine the effects of riding on water-filled tires originally designed
    >to be pressurized with air.
    >
    >THEORY
    >With water's virtual incompressibility, water-filled tires should exhibit a
    >harsher ride compared to air-filled tires.


    I believe this will not be the case. The incompressibility of the
    water is not a significant issue; bumps do not produce a dramatic
    variance in tire pressure for several reasons.

    > The ability to generate pressure
    >will also be hampered by its incompressibility, although inevitable air
    >pockets will allow pressurization.
    >
    >PROCEDURE
    >Immerse hand pump in water, pull plunger, attach pump to valve stem, then
    >pump. Repeat until high pressure is acheived. Ride. Empty tubes of water.
    >Fill tubes with air. Ride. Compare.
    >
    >RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    >TBD
    >
    >CONCLUSIONS
    >Pneumatic tires are pneumatic for a reason.
    >
    >COMMENTS
    >To be filled in by RBT contributors.


    It would be possible to pressurize with just water, but not as easy as
    topping off with air. With water, however, the incompressibility
    would mean that the pressure rise would occur much more abruptly, and
    trying to measure the pressure with a conventional gauge would reduce
    the pressure too much due to volume loss during the tap.

    Here's what I expect that you'll see: The significant increase in
    wheel mass will produce a noticeable effect on acceleration; it will
    take more energy to get up to speed. The increased mass in the wheels
    may actually smooth out the ride somewhat; precise pressure will make
    more of a difference here than anything else, but a high-mass wheel
    will tend to absorb more of an obstacle's potential deflection via
    deformation of the tire than through motion of the whole wheel,
    everything else being equal. (And that, of course, is a really hard
    condition to meet.)

    If I'm correct about the effects of the increased mass, snakebite
    punctures would become slightly more likely, but less immediately
    effective; the much higher viscosity of the water will greatly reduce
    the leak-down rate with the result that the puncture may not even be
    detected until the ride is over...if a snakebite occurs.
    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  8. One thing everyone is neglecting to consider are the laws of fluid
    dynamics.

    1) the water will behave more and more like a solid and the volume of
    the tire (not the tube) is approached. Werehatrack noted that the
    pressure increase would be abrupt. This is certainly true, and the
    limited expandability of the tire will make it exceptionally more hard
    as you try to force more water in. However, the flexibility of the tire
    wall will allow only for a certain level of compliance. I'm thinkin'
    you won't get no stinkin' snakebites.

    2) since water is in fact a fluid, as you accelerate, the mass of water
    in the tube will attempt to stay stationary. This will have a massive
    braking effect, much greater than the influence of greater weight. As
    you eventually get the rotational mass moving, you will experience a
    significant hydraulic flywheel effect. This is the same technology that
    is used in torque converters for automatic transmissions. The effect of
    the spinning hydaulic fluid keeps the vehicle speed differential to a
    minimum. Performance cars tend to use smaller torque converters to
    allow for quicker throttle response, while luxury cars tend to use
    larger torque converters to mask the shifts and variations in engine
    speed associated with them. Therefore, the rotating fluid in the tires
    would help to overcome the effects on rolling resistance and help the
    bike keep moving, as well reduce braking performance and acceleration.

    http://www.specriteconverters.com/
     
  9. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On 19 Apr 2006 07:32:34 -0700, "[email protected]"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Performance cars tend to use smaller torque converters to
    >allow for quicker throttle response, while luxury cars tend to use
    >larger torque converters to mask the shifts and variations in engine
    >speed associated with them.


    Cause and effect getting confused here, among other things.
    Performance cars use smaller converters because they're lighter;
    reducing all types of mass is one of the keys to getting improved
    performance in a motor vehicle. Reducing the rotating mass in the
    dirvetrain increases acceleration potential. Big cars use big
    converters because big converters are cheaper to make than small ones
    that can do the same job; if you don't have to keep the tolerances as
    tight, and you don't need to worry about weight as much, the bigger
    converter is the better choice. It also takes longer to overheat in a
    high-load situation. None of this has a lot of relevance to the
    current discussion beyond the fact that the water-filled tire will
    mean that the wheel's inertia will increase, with the accompanying
    predictable effects. The fluid will, at these levels of acceleration,
    behave enough like a solid that the hydralic effects can be ignored.
    This is not true in automotive drivetrains.

    >Therefore, the rotating fluid in the tires
    >would help to overcome the effects on rolling resistance and help the
    >bike keep moving, as well reduce braking performance and acceleration.


    I'd have phrased that differently; "...help keep the bike moving, but
    in the process reduce braking performance and increase the effort
    required to get the same acceleration."

    If the test is with road tires, I think the effects will not be
    dramatic. If the test is with fat cruiser tires, I expect that it
    would be more noticeable.
    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  10. I'd be interested to see the pressure in the water filled tire when
    loaded/unloaded.
     
  11. Werehatrack wrote:

    "Big cars use big
    converters because big converters are cheaper to make than small ones
    that can do the same job; if you don't have to keep the tolerances as
    tight, and you don't need to worry about weight as much, the bigger
    converter is the better choice."

    not true at all. If the cost was main factor then economy cars would
    use big torque converters, and car makers would certainly find a way to
    stuff the cheaper part in. Cost is not the the factor. People that buy
    luxury cars dont want to feel the the engine shift, so the torque
    converters are big. People that buy performance cars don't care if they
    feel the engine shift, and in most cases prefer it, so the converters
    are smaller, but no less expensive. People that buy cheap economy cars
    don't expect performance or smoothness, so the converters are cheap and
    light. This, I realize, is a gross oversimplification but without
    getting into the technical details of torque converter design will have
    to do.

    "None of this has a lot of relevance to the
    current discussion beyond the fact that the water-filled tire will
    mean that the wheel's inertia will increase, with the accompanying
    predictable effects. The fluid will, at these levels of acceleration,
    behave enough like a solid that the hydralic effects can be ignored."

    Again, not true at all. Try this experiment: Fill two identicle round
    bottles with water. Freeze one of them. Place them next to each other
    on an incline plane and see which one accelerates faster. If the plane
    is long enough to evoke the entire mass of liquid water to spin, then
    you could see which one goes futher after the end of the incline. If
    the liquid gives the same results as the solid, then the laws of
    physics are different in your part of the universe than everywhere
    else. Besides that, how would one make the determination that the fluid
    dynamic effects are insignificant through empiracle testing? You would
    need solid tires of approximately the same density of water to make
    that comparison. Otherwise, the fluid dynamic effects will be there,
    and must be accounted for. These accelerations are slow enough to
    actually calcualte the effect of fluids with different viscosites.

    "If the test is with road tires, I think the effects will not be
    dramatic. If the test is with fat cruiser tires, I expect that it
    would be more noticeable"

    This is true.
     
  12. Mike Reed

    Mike Reed Guest

    mort wrote:
    > Prediction: first big bump you blow the tire off the rim, to your
    > subsequent misfortune. The good news is you will land in a puddle.


    Actually, since the water won't compress, it won't be a violent
    failure. I use water to pressure test water rockets: fill the launcher
    and rocket completely with water, then pressurize with air. If there is
    a failure, there's so little air in the system that there's very little
    danger -- even with shard-danger stuff like PVC in the mix.
     
  13. Mike Reed

    Mike Reed Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > I'd be interested to see the pressure in the water filled tire when
    > loaded/unloaded.



    I think this could be checked without effecting the pressure to much
    with the following setup:

    -Drill a 2nd valve stem hole somewhere on the rim.
    -Install two flat tubes into the tire next to each other.
    -Pump a minimal amount of air into the one tube. Maybe just barely
    enough to seat the tire beads on the rim.
    -Fill the other tube with water and pressurize for the experiment.
    -Check the pressure in the air tube.


    -Mike
     
  14. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On 19 Apr 2006 09:33:10 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

    >I'd be interested to see the pressure in the water filled tire when
    >loaded/unloaded.


    That would be hard to measure without leaving the gauge hooked up, for
    reasons already mentioned.
    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  15. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On 19 Apr 2006 09:54:33 -0700, "[email protected]"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Werehatrack wrote:
    >
    >"Big cars use big
    >converters because big converters are cheaper to make than small ones
    >that can do the same job; if you don't have to keep the tolerances as
    >tight, and you don't need to worry about weight as much, the bigger
    >converter is the better choice."
    >
    >not true at all. If the cost was main factor then economy cars would
    >use big torque converters,


    Actually, some small cars *do* use a bigger TC than they really need.
    Often this is because the carmaker decides that it's not worth the
    expense to tool up to make a smaller unit when there is an existing
    design in production that will serve adequately. On occasion, as in
    the celebrated suit against GM decades ago, this sort of reasoning
    also results in a carmaker using a TC that's really not as big as it
    ought to be.

    >and car makers would certainly find a way to
    >stuff the cheaper part in.


    There are multiple costs to pay for having a big TC; today, one
    significant reason to avoid a larger TC than needed is that the
    overall drivetrain width and weight needs to be kept down. But for
    that matter, look at what was in the Vega; the TCs in those were much
    larger than needed precisely because it was cheaper to use what was on
    the shelf than to design new bits for the application. Where the
    makers can get away with using cheap-but-heavy, they do it. The
    Gremlin and the Pacer epitomized that philosophy end-to-end.

    >Cost is not the the factor. People that buy
    >luxury cars dont want to feel the the engine shift, so the torque
    >converters are big. People that buy performance cars don't care if they
    >feel the engine shift, and in most cases prefer it, so the converters
    >are smaller, but no less expensive.


    Actually, the performance-car converters are smaller and *more*
    expensive. Making it smaller, for the same power-handling, generally
    means it can't be made as cheaply.

    >People that buy cheap economy cars
    >don't expect performance or smoothness, so the converters are cheap and
    >light.


    Huh? You ever sell cars for a living? Lots of cheap economy cars
    have smooth shifting.

    >This, I realize, is a gross oversimplification but without
    >getting into the technical details of torque converter design will have
    >to do.


    Having had to deal with the technical details of TC design a couple of
    times, the reason that small economy cars have small converters is
    that they don't need a bigger one; a smaller unit does the job just
    fine for a low-output motor. The TC's slippage isn't the big reason
    that the shifting is damped well in luxury cars or any other cars for
    that matter; that's also a product of the sheer mass of the vehicle,
    the tuning of the valve body, the choice of friction materials for the
    clutches, the use of good isolation mounts, and the choice of a low
    stall speed for the converter. GM sold a lot of mid-price and even
    inexpensive cars for a long time on the strength of the fact that
    their THM unit's typical valving was so well designed that it damped
    the shift effects beautifully, "just like a Cadillac". Even in a
    ratbox bottom-of-the-line Chevy. On the other hand, to make a small
    converter do the work of a big one requires much closer engineering of
    the components and mandates the use of better materials; this
    increases the cost *without* improving the end result relative to the
    big converter in any area except weight. Cost is important to
    manufacturers; you don't spend money where you don't need to. So, for
    a big car with a big mass, a big engine, and no weight issues, you use
    a big but cheaply manufacturable converter; for a small car with a big
    engine and no performance issues, you still use a (relatively) big
    converter; if the performance issues are important, you spend the
    money to make a smaller converter do the job. Small non-performance
    cars can use smaller versions of the cheap-to-make big-car converters,
    and they generally are so equipped. Over the last 40 years, TC design
    has improved considerably overall in response to the need for improved
    fuel economy, but the biggest gain was with the lockup converter,
    where the TC is taken out of the picture as anything more than a
    flywheel. (And that brings us to the other reason for using a big TC
    in a luxury car; a big flywheel makes for a smoother-feeling
    drivetrain in any event.)

    >"None of this has a lot of relevance to the
    >current discussion beyond the fact that the water-filled tire will
    >mean that the wheel's inertia will increase, with the accompanying
    >predictable effects. The fluid will, at these levels of acceleration,
    >behave enough like a solid that the hydralic effects can be ignored."
    >
    >Again, not true at all. Try this experiment: Fill two identicle round
    >bottles with water. Freeze one of them.


    Poor simulation. Try it with a narrow torus of significant diameter.
    The magnitude of the resulting difference will change quite a bit. At
    bike wheel sizes, speeds and accelerations, I suspect you won't see a
    difference at all.

    >Place them next to each other
    >on an incline plane and see which one accelerates faster. If the plane
    >is long enough to evoke the entire mass of liquid water to spin, then
    >you could see which one goes futher after the end of the incline. If
    >the liquid gives the same results as the solid, then the laws of
    >physics are different in your part of the universe than everywhere
    >else. Besides that, how would one make the determination that the fluid
    >dynamic effects are insignificant through empiracle testing? You would
    >need solid tires of approximately the same density of water to make
    >that comparison. Otherwise, the fluid dynamic effects will be there,
    >and must be accounted for. These accelerations are slow enough to
    >actually calcualte the effect of fluids with different viscosites.


    The jar of water has the fluid mass at the center of rotation; there
    is no impetus to put it into angular motion except the surface effects
    of the rotation of the jar, which are minimized in a cylinder of
    significant diameter. This isn't all that similar to the effect with
    a small-volume toroid, where the fluid is much more likely to move
    with the containing vessel. At any given point in the torus, the
    fluid sees much more of the local effect of the wheel's motion.

    Torque converters are a different matter; they work in a range where
    hydraulic effects are the goal. The bike wheel at typical speeds and
    accelerations will not go there.

    >"If the test is with road tires, I think the effects will not be
    >dramatic. If the test is with fat cruiser tires, I expect that it
    >would be more noticeable"
    >
    >This is true.


    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  16. In article <[email protected]>,
    "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I'm planning to fill up my tires with water to see what will happen. It's a
    > science experiment for RBT. It's obviously a work in progress.
    >
    > ABSTRACT
    > TBD
    >
    > OBJECTIVES
    > To determine the effects of riding on water-filled tires originally designed
    > to be pressurized with air.
    >
    > THEORY
    > With water's virtual incompressibility, water-filled tires should exhibit a
    > harsher ride compared to air-filled tires. The ability to generate pressure
    > will also be hampered by its incompressibility, although inevitable air
    > pockets will allow pressurization.
    >
    > PROCEDURE
    > Immerse hand pump in water, pull plunger, attach pump to valve stem, then
    > pump. Repeat until high pressure is acheived. Ride. Empty tubes of water.
    > Fill tubes with air. Ride. Compare.
    >
    > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    > TBD
    >
    > CONCLUSIONS
    > Pneumatic tires are pneumatic for a reason.
    >
    > COMMENTS
    > To be filled in by RBT contributors.


    You will find the rolling resistance is very, very great,
    because of viscous losses in the water as it flows to
    conform to the constantly moving contact patch deformation
    of the tire.

    --
    Michael Press
     
  17. On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:21:04 -0400, "Phil,
    Squid-in-Training" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >I'm planning to fill up my tires with water to see what will happen. It's a
    >science experiment for RBT. It's obviously a work in progress.
    >
    >ABSTRACT
    >TBD
    >
    >OBJECTIVES
    >To determine the effects of riding on water-filled tires originally designed
    >to be pressurized with air.
    >
    >THEORY
    >With water's virtual incompressibility, water-filled tires should exhibit a
    >harsher ride compared to air-filled tires. The ability to generate pressure
    >will also be hampered by its incompressibility, although inevitable air
    >pockets will allow pressurization.
    >
    >PROCEDURE
    >Immerse hand pump in water, pull plunger, attach pump to valve stem, then
    >pump. Repeat until high pressure is acheived. Ride. Empty tubes of water.
    >Fill tubes with air. Ride. Compare.
    >
    >RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    >TBD
    >
    >CONCLUSIONS
    >Pneumatic tires are pneumatic for a reason.
    >
    >COMMENTS
    >To be filled in by RBT contributors.


    Dear Phil,

    These guys offer the equipment that you want:

    http://www.gemplers.com/a/pages/tliq.asp

    Unfortunately, they don't do Presta.

    Their findings include vastly improved pulling traction,
    better stability when crossing slopes, and the anti-freeze
    benefits of calcium chloride.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel
     
  18. oddly comma an archives search for helium zilch nets period
     
  19. Werehatrack wrote:

    "Actually, some small cars *do* use a bigger TC than they really need.
    Often this is because the carmaker decides that it's not worth the
    expense to tool up to make a smaller unit when there is an existing
    design in production that will serve adequately."

    Key words: 'serve adequately'. Generally speaking, manufacturers of any
    product will spec in the cheapest part that does the job, but when you
    plan on selling over a million units per year, it's often in your best
    interest to optimize the design and reduce the risk of warrenty
    returns. Still some mfrs don't quite get that message and risk the cost
    savings, sometimes versus safety.

    "Actually, the performance-car converters are smaller and *more*
    expensive. Making it smaller, for the same power-handling, generally
    means it can't be made as cheaply. "

    yeah, that's what I said...

    "Huh? You ever sell cars for a living? Lots of cheap economy cars
    have smooth shifting. "

    I didn't say they didn't, I said people don't expect it. HAving drove
    cheap cars for most of my life, I can say that even when they do shift
    well, they don't for long.

    "Having had to deal with the technical details of TC design a couple of

    times"

    Oh, the irony.....(FWIW - my experience with torque converters stems
    from my attempts at amatuer drag racing)

    "the reason that small economy cars have small converters is
    that they don't need a bigger one; a smaller unit does the job just
    fine for a low-output motor"

    Again, I said that.

    "The TC's slippage isn't the big reason...

    (This is why I didn't want to get into a technical discussion on torque
    converter design)

    smooth shifting is of course achieved through more than just flywheel
    damping, just as performance shifting is achieved through significantly
    more than a small converter. A cheap tranmission with a poorly designed
    valve body and crappy torque converter will shift poorly, regardless of
    size. The turbohydromatic was a spectacular leap in automatic
    transmission design, as you point out. The 400 was what I used as the
    base in my olds 442, modified with a competition valve body and 2500RPM
    'holeshot' torque converter.

    "(And that brings us to the other reason for using a big TC
    in a luxury car; a big flywheel makes for a smoother-feeling
    drivetrain in any event.) "

    Thank you for re-making my point.

    "Try it with a narrow torus of significant diameter.
    The magnitude of the resulting difference will change quite a bit. At
    bike wheel sizes, speeds and accelerations, I suspect you won't see a
    difference at all."

    I suspect you will.

    "At any given point in the torus, the
    fluid sees much more of the local effect of the wheel's motion."

    Right, and therefore more a immediately noticable effect on
    acceleration.

    "The bike wheel at typical speeds and
    accelerations will not go there."

    I still think it would have more effect than you realize. But remember,
    this is some sort of stupid experiment with absolutely no practical
    outcome performed by a guy with waaaaaaay to much time on his hands,
    Sort of like these dweebs:

    *
    http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

    Introduction -
    It has long been suspected that the government has been using
    satellites to read and control the minds of certain citizens. The use
    of aluminum helmets has been a common guerrilla tactic against the
    government's invasive tactics.
    *
     

  20. >That would be hard to measure without leaving the gauge hooked up, for
    >reasons already mentioned


    No problem. You don't have to ride the bike to load the tire.
     
Loading...
Loading...