Every time I come back from riding my bike, the bike computer tells me,
among other useful information like my pulse rate, how high the hills
were, how fast I pedalled, what my road speed was, the temperature,
rates of descent, etc, etc, etc, much more stuff which I have my
computer print out in neat graphs. Among all this the bike computer
tells me how many watts I expended. The thing cheats of course, as it
takes a downhill or level-road ride as zero watts (you're still
expending energy). It gives peak output and an average for the ride. So
the energy expended is the length of the ride (it only ticks the clock
when the wheels are moving) multiplied by the average output. But get
this, one kilowatt-hour is 860kJ. So, if you've gone for a ride that
will burst your average audiophile (middle-aged, overweight, fatarsed,
except for Patrick and me, who are ex-athletes and cyclists still) out
into heavy perspiration, say 100W average for an hour, which allows for
some extended peaks at 250W which will drive his heartbeat up to the
maximum, which does no one any good, is 0.1kW or 86kJ. In other words,
an hour's hard ride burns only 86 nutritional calories. You see, those
calories on food packets are really kiloJoules aka "nutritional
calories". You guys better stop eating altogether or you'll have to be
on your bikes eight hours a day.

Obligatory on-topic comment: That's a worse scam than rating audio gear
in "RMS watts" or "music watts".

Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they
know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain

Andre Jute wrote:
Every time I come back from riding my bike, the bike computer tells me,
among other useful information like my pulse rate, how high the hills
were, how fast I pedalled, what my road speed was, the temperature,
rates of descent, etc, etc, etc, much more stuff which I have my
computer print out in neat graphs. Among all this the bike computer
tells me how many watts I expended. The thing cheats of course, as it
takes a downhill or level-road ride as zero watts (you're still
expending energy). It gives peak output and an average for the ride. So
the energy expended is the length of the ride (it only ticks the clock
when the wheels are moving) multiplied by the average output. But get
this, one kilowatt-hour is 860kJ. So, if you've gone for a ride that
will burst your average audiophile (middle-aged, overweight, fatarsed,
except for Patrick and me, who are ex-athletes and cyclists still) out
into heavy perspiration, say 100W average for an hour, which allows for
some extended peaks at 250W which will drive his heartbeat up to the
maximum, which does no one any good, is 0.1kW or 86kJ. In other words,
an hour's hard ride burns only 86 nutritional calories. You see, those
calories on food packets are really kiloJoules aka "nutritional
calories". You guys better stop eating altogether or you'll have to be
on your bikes eight hours a day.

Obligatory on-topic comment: That's a worse scam than rating audio gear
in "RMS watts" or "music watts".

Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they
know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain



You know, the only way to really be sure of all this is
to hook up your bicycle to your audio system (like Gilligan)
and see how much pedaling you have to do to get the rated
power from it.

--
“I intended that "not stupid" be a requirement.” – Seth
Breidbart

in article , WindsorFox at
wrote on 1/14/07 2:03 PM:

Andre Jute wrote:
Every time I come back from riding my bike, the bike computer tells me,
among other useful information like my pulse rate, how high the hills
were, how fast I pedalled, what my road speed was, the temperature,
rates of descent, etc, etc, etc, much more stuff which I have my
computer print out in neat graphs. Among all this the bike computer
tells me how many watts I expended. The thing cheats of course, as it
takes a downhill or level-road ride as zero watts (you're still
expending energy). It gives peak output and an average for the ride. So
the energy expended is the length of the ride (it only ticks the clock
when the wheels are moving) multiplied by the average output. But get
this, one kilowatt-hour is 860kJ. So, if you've gone for a ride that
will burst your average audiophile (middle-aged, overweight, fatarsed,
except for Patrick and me, who are ex-athletes and cyclists still) out
into heavy perspiration, say 100W average for an hour, which allows for
some extended peaks at 250W which will drive his heartbeat up to the
maximum, which does no one any good, is 0.1kW or 86kJ. In other words,
an hour's hard ride burns only 86 nutritional calories. You see, those
calories on food packets are really kiloJoules aka "nutritional
calories". You guys better stop eating altogether or you'll have to be
on your bikes eight hours a day.

Obligatory on-topic comment: That's a worse scam than rating audio gear
in "RMS watts" or "music watts".

Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they
know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain



You know, the only way to really be sure of all this is
to hook up your bicycle to your audio system (like Gilligan)
and see how much pedaling you have to do to get the rated
power from it.


Jute seems to make the most of back-pedaling, too.

Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article , WindsorFox at
wrote on 1/14/07 2:03 PM:

Andre Jute wrote:
Every time I come back from riding my bike, the bike computer tells me,
among other useful information like my pulse rate, how high the hills
were, how fast I pedalled, what my road speed was, the temperature,
rates of descent, etc, etc, etc, much more stuff which I have my
computer print out in neat graphs. Among all this the bike computer
tells me how many watts I expended. The thing cheats of course, as it
takes a downhill or level-road ride as zero watts (you're still
expending energy). It gives peak output and an average for the ride. So
the energy expended is the length of the ride (it only ticks the clock
when the wheels are moving) multiplied by the average output. But get
this, one kilowatt-hour is 860kJ. So, if you've gone for a ride that
will burst your average audiophile (middle-aged, overweight, fatarsed,
except for Patrick and me, who are ex-athletes and cyclists still) out
into heavy perspiration, say 100W average for an hour, which allows for
some extended peaks at 250W which will drive his heartbeat up to the
maximum, which does no one any good, is 0.1kW or 86kJ. In other words,
an hour's hard ride burns only 86 nutritional calories. You see, those
calories on food packets are really kiloJoules aka "nutritional
calories". You guys better stop eating altogether or you'll have to be
on your bikes eight hours a day.

Obligatory on-topic comment: That's a worse scam than rating audio gear
in "RMS watts" or "music watts".

Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they
know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain


You know, the only way to really be sure of all this is
to hook up your bicycle to your audio system (like Gilligan)
and see how much pedaling you have to do to get the rated
power from it.


Jute seems to make the most of back-pedaling, too.


Please do not include me in your trolling.

--
“I intended that "not stupid" be a requirement.” – Seth
Breidbart

in article , WindsorFox at
wrote on 1/14/07 7:51 PM:

Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article , WindsorFox at
wrote on 1/14/07 2:03 PM:

Andre Jute wrote:
Every time I come back from riding my bike, the bike computer tells me,
among other useful information like my pulse rate, how high the hills
were, how fast I pedalled, what my road speed was, the temperature,
rates of descent, etc, etc, etc, much more stuff which I have my
computer print out in neat graphs. Among all this the bike computer
tells me how many watts I expended. The thing cheats of course, as it
takes a downhill or level-road ride as zero watts (you're still
expending energy). It gives peak output and an average for the ride. So
the energy expended is the length of the ride (it only ticks the clock
when the wheels are moving) multiplied by the average output. But get
this, one kilowatt-hour is 860kJ. So, if you've gone for a ride that
will burst your average audiophile (middle-aged, overweight, fatarsed,
except for Patrick and me, who are ex-athletes and cyclists still) out
into heavy perspiration, say 100W average for an hour, which allows for
some extended peaks at 250W which will drive his heartbeat up to the
maximum, which does no one any good, is 0.1kW or 86kJ. In other words,
an hour's hard ride burns only 86 nutritional calories. You see, those
calories on food packets are really kiloJoules aka "nutritional
calories". You guys better stop eating altogether or you'll have to be
on your bikes eight hours a day.

Obligatory on-topic comment: That's a worse scam than rating audio gear
in "RMS watts" or "music watts".

Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they
know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain


You know, the only way to really be sure of all this is
to hook up your bicycle to your audio system (like Gilligan)
and see how much pedaling you have to do to get the rated
power from it.


Jute seems to make the most of back-pedaling, too.


Please do not include me in your trolling.


Then don't post to a public forum.

WindsorFox wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Every time I come back from riding my bike, the bike computer tells me,
among other useful information like my pulse rate, how high the hills
were, how fast I pedalled, what my road speed was, the temperature,
rates of descent, etc, etc, etc, much more stuff which I have my
computer print out in neat graphs. Among all this the bike computer
tells me how many watts I expended. The thing cheats of course, as it
takes a downhill or level-road ride as zero watts (you're still
expending energy). It gives peak output and an average for the ride. So
the energy expended is the length of the ride (it only ticks the clock
when the wheels are moving) multiplied by the average output. But get
this, one kilowatt-hour is 860kJ. So, if you've gone for a ride that
will burst your average audiophile (middle-aged, overweight, fatarsed,
except for Patrick and me, who are ex-athletes and cyclists still) out
into heavy perspiration, say 100W average for an hour, which allows for
some extended peaks at 250W which will drive his heartbeat up to the
maximum, which does no one any good, is 0.1kW or 86kJ. In other words,
an hour's hard ride burns only 86 nutritional calories. You see, those
calories on food packets are really kiloJoules aka "nutritional
calories". You guys better stop eating altogether or you'll have to be
on your bikes eight hours a day.

Obligatory on-topic comment: That's a worse scam than rating audio gear
in "RMS watts" or "music watts".

Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they
know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain



You know, the only way to really be sure of all this is
to hook up your bicycle to your audio system (like Gilligan)
and see how much pedaling you have to do to get the rated
power from it.

--
"I intended that "not stupid" be a requirement." - Seth
Breidbart

You're wicked-funny, WindsorFox. I'm much too fly to be caught in
compulsory exercise. But I have this image of whole rows of Elves of
the Silicon Slime doing punishment duty inside my big, wasteful Class A
amplifier (not the one I just published, my 75W SE DHT, which probably
requires 300W to keep it going), pedalling tiny little bikes over a
"high reluctance" rubber roller, special audiophile edition.

Andre Jute
Our legislators managed to criminalize hunting and smoking; when they
will get off their collective fat arse and criminalize negative
feedback? It is clearly consumed only by undesirables like Arny
"Slapdash" Krueger

Jon Yaeger wrote:

You know, the only way to really be sure of all this is
to hook up your bicycle to your audio system (like Gilligan)
and see how much pedaling you have to do to get the rated
power from it.

Jute seems to make the most of back-pedaling, too.

Please do not include me in your trolling.


Then don't post to a public forum.


No, you should stop trolling. If you dislike someone so much
that your only purpose in replying is to say something
derogatory, then you should just scroll past the thread.

--
“I intended that "not stupid" be a requirement.” – Seth
Breidbart

Andre Jute wrote:

one kilowatt-hour is 860kJ.

No it's not. 1kWhr = 3600kJ

Robert

Robert wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

one kilowatt-hour is 860kJ.

No it's not. 1kWhr = 3600kJ

Now spot all the other errors he made.

Graham