Motorcycles and fuel economy: the good, the bad and the ugly

Well enough to visit the family pile in Chalfont, on October 2nd, so I
hear.

 

"Good chap"? Is that what you're calling hopeless psychopaths over
there now?

Never let it be said that the British are ill-mannered!

 

There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
intelligent person.
If you ask the latter to defend or explain his/her beliefs,
the intelligent, rational person will cite hard evidence,
credible expert research, science, physics, etc., and do so
in a clear, logical, calm, and articulate manner.
OTOH, ask a nutjob to defend or explain its beliefs, and
the nutjob becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational,
and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down. The nutjob,
rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or
logic, will do one of several things - change the subject,
shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack"
the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical
"insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor",
"Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming,
evasive, poor loser", etc..
What the nutjob is pitifully and comically incapable of doing,
is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog of the
relevant facts, research, and evidence.
Let's give it a go, shall we? This little experiment is usually
quite revealing - and fun - unless, of course, you happen to be
a deluded and confused nutjob.... <vbg>



The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. But obviously, partial
is not total, gradual is not instant, and random is not
symmetric. The contradiction is blatant and extreme. That's why
no one can produce even *one* example of a steel framed high rise
that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not anywhere. It's
physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Now, look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's
the sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot nor did they even make contact with most of WTC7's massive
hurricane and earth quake resistant steel frame.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Here is some more expert research. Please tell us where you believe
they are all mistaken as they use logic, physics, detailed evidence,
and common sense, to prove that random, gradual heating can not possibly
cause the free fall and symmetric drop of a steel framed high rise.


http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

Proof that WTC 7 was demolished professionally

(This is a summary of the argument presented here, complete with more
detailed source links, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth.)


WTC 7 was the third steel-framed skyscraper that was completely
destroyed on 9/11. Unlike the Twin Towers, it was not hit by a plane.
Its height was 174 meters, and it had 47 floors. It was located in a
block separate from the other WTC buildings, 110 meters from the closest
tower. The implosion of WTC 7 is shown below (note the dropping of the
penthouse).



Investigations. As this was one of the biggest building disasters in
world history, the remains of the skyscraper should have been
painstakingly investigated. If the building collapsed in seconds to the
ground as a result of fires ? as FEMA speculated in 2002 ? the
significance of the event for building safety, building codes, etc. is
enormous. It would have been easy to properly examine the debris from
the building, as it landed mostly within its own footprint. This was not
done, and the physical research material was quickly removed and
destroyed. According to NIST, the governmental agency that is still ?
well after 6.5 years from the event ? trying to come up with a plausible
report, ?no steel was recovered from WTC 7?. This can be seen as either
suspicious or absurd, and I don?t think building disasters are
investigated absurdly.

The speed of destruction. WTC 7 fell into a pile of debris in
approximately 6.5 seconds. The corresponding free fall time is 5.95
seconds, while an apple dropped from the roof would have taken 7 seconds
to fall to the ground (Kurttila 2005; the exact time varies with the air
resistance of the object). The 80 steel support pillars of the building,
therefore, did not in practice resist the destruction. However,
destroying the support structures throughout the floors of the 174-meter
building demanded energy that would have been away from pure kinetic
energy; in other words, gravitational destruction of those structures
would necessarily have slowed down the collapse. No slowing down
required by destruction work can have taken place within the short time
it took WTC 7 to collapse. To simplify: the roof came down as if mere
air (and not 47 stories) had separated it from the ground. This can only
be explained by the removal of structural resistance in a controlled
demolition. In controlled demolitions, the roofs of highrises typically
reach the ground in a time that is slightly longer than free fall. [1]

The sudden onset and symmetry of the destruction. WTC 7 dropped suddenly
straight down. This means that the 80 support pillars had to give in
simultaneously. To believe that random fires on separate floors and
damage to one side caused the sudden vertical collapse is to believe in
a miracle (as pointed out by professor David Ray Griffin). Moreover,
achieving the outcome of a controlled demolition by means of matches and
damaging one side of a highrise would mean that companies specialized in
controlled demolition would have to start thinking about new business ideas.

Hot debris. According to NASA?s thermal imaging, the surface temperature
of the WTC 7 debris pile exceeded 700 degrees Celcius ? five days after
the destruction. Residual temperatures like this cannot be explained by
fires or gravitational collapse. The latter can only result in a few
degrees' increase in temperature.

Molten and vaporized steel. As in the case of the Twin Towers, molten
steel was reportedly found in the remains of WTC 7. Some steel samples
that the researchers did manage to examine were also partially
vaporized. In a New York Times interview, professor Jonathan Barnett
points out that fires cannot explain this. Evidently, not even these
samples were kept, and NIST has ignored this finding. Molten steel can
be explained by explosives but not by fires, as their temperature simply
cannot rise anywhere close to the melting point of steel, let alone the
temperature required by vaporization.

Expert statements. The Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who owns a
demolition firm and has been in the business for 30 years, regards it as
certain that WTC 7 was demolished. His view is shared by numerous
architects, engineers and other demolition professionals ? see
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, http://www.ae911truth.org/, and
this page exemplifying people with demolition expertise who question the
official account.

The testimony of first responders. Several rescue personnel have
testified to being told that WTC 7 would be brought down.


[1] Another way of looking at this:

1) In a vacuum, an object falls the height of WTC 7 in 5.95 seconds. An
object falling in a vacuum does not crush, twist or displace anything ?
not even air. If WTC 7 had collapsed in 5.95 seconds, not even air (let
alone the rest of the building) would have separated its roof from the
ground.

2) WTC 7 collapsed into a rubble pile in approximately 6.5 seconds.

3) As an object falling freely does not crush or twist anything, the
time available for gravitational crushing or twisting of the building's
~80 steel columns throughout its 47 floors is slightly over 0.5 seconds
(6.5 - 5.95 seconds) ? or, if you like, ~0.01 seconds per floor ( 0.5 / 47).

4) The 0.5 seconds is not enough even in theory for a total
gravitational collapse of a 174-meter highrise. Ergo, the structural
resistance was removed by means of explosives.


Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why. The writer proves that gradual weaken due
to heat couldn't possibly have caused WTC7's sudden, free fall,
and symmetric drop, and he uses a clear, logical combination of
evidence, basic physics, and common sense to do it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf


"If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to
fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be
necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine
its character. If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually
and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense.
At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up
the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of
gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32
feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing
upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. Let us say we are
looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the
point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the
force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would
thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. Now acceleration is
proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity
so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second
per second.
When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
of heat."



-- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

It is unimportant: Cd = D/(1/2 rho V^2 S). Once you have a value for
Cd, the length is irrelevant.

What has Bernoulli to do with it?

 

<delurk> Indeed his premise is utter shite. Consider this in the mid
90's a gentleman in the use designed and build a single enging home
built aircraft (not an ultralight) whose frontal area was only 1sqft.
His CD was good...not as good as some cars though. it's the hidden
drag that's the issue. Also management of your airflow from the engine
area, exhaust and rider placement. Oh and for the dingleberries who
think the rims and tyres have an affect on the airflow...not as such,
sorry.

Now what's really interesting is the magpie attitudes of the fools who
buy sprot bikes and all they care about is the front end* and care
****-all about the rear of the motorcycle that is SO damned dirty
(aerodynamicly) that it practically sucks the motorcycle backwards.

*same bunch of prats who only look at the boobs not the uh rear
quarter and what makes her tick. ;^)

 

actually you and that are wrong not sure you could understand why.
It's one of those "VERY obvious things"

and that right there is evidence that you don't know as much as you
think you do.

But at least you are trying unlike the cunts over in reeky and the
states in general.

 

There, there Pip no need to be nice to the leach...his kind are always
picking fights to support their INSANE beliefs. Better to just club
the bastards like baby seals, chuck the body in a deep lake and use
the hide for gloves or some such.

Or more politely he's insane and so is every person in those links of
his...bigots the lot of them.

 

Boobs! Where? I love boobs!

 

I'm not actually sure why I bothered answering: just exasperation I
guess.

 

If ever you wanted a definition of a Netk00k, that would be Drain Man.

 

Here's a nice pair for you:
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bicycle/146/booby-b.jpg

 

Reference, please. You wouldn't get an engine and prop within a square
foot, let alone wings, pilot and tail.

 

Blue footed! Cool! Avatar porn.

 

Having suffered the outpourings of "Henry" on changing newsreaders (in
the short time before he once again was consigned to the deepest corner
of my killfile) I did notice that all his posts follow exactly the same
pattern, and are in fact essentially the same bloody 100+ line post,
pasted out again and again.

I do wonder what he hopes to achieve by this, as any rational person
reading one of his posts would have any glimmering of interest swiftly
quashed upon reading the second identical post, and then the third and
the fourth follow swiftly, guaranteeing to turn any reader against him.
This led me inevitably to a mental picture of "Henry": small, fat, big
googly eyes: just like a nasty little vacuum cleaner, switch stuck
permanently on "BLOW".

Just like this:

http://ibm-1401.info/VacuumCleanerHenry-.jpg

Only without the smiley face, obviously. Just as red in the face,
however.

Moreover, nasty things happen when Henry goes into "suck" mode:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476560/

 

Outside of aeronautical engineering, drag coefficients are fairly
universally based on frontal area. Once you measure, or calculate, the
drag coefficient for a given shape, the length of the body does not
affect the drag. It is always (mod Re and Ma effects, neither of which
are relevant here) given by Cd.V^2.rho.S/2.

If it's very obvious, you'll have no trouble explaining it.

You can measure a drag coefficient even if you have never heard of
Bernoulli (which one did you have in mind, by the way?), unless you
know otherwise.