Is Don Pearce actually an engineer? was Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and adaptive suspension
 

On Sep 9, 10:22 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:48:11 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

On Sep 9, 6:35 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:

So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
please!

In the thread "Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and
adaptive suspension" Don Pearce told us:

"that comes out at 1.05g" complete with his formula for "Anyone who
wants to do the sum the easy way.... (30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g".

Jute, you are a foul, lying weasel. Despite your lying editing-out of
the relevant words (from within a line even!) I told you to put that
formula into Google.

Indeed you did, Pearcey, and I so reported, not just once but several
times. But you snipped the part of my letter where I did so, perhaps
to justify calling a liar. But you're the liar, because I didn't snip
your words, as you snipped mine, I reported them in full, and sneered
at them in full, perhaps too fulsomely for you to bear. I give my
entire post again below, so that everyone can see what foul lying ****
you are.

Although it suits you to pretend you don't know,
Google handles all the different units quite happily, and provides
exactly the right answer, which is 1.05g. If you want to do it
manually, you must convert kph to metres per second and feet into
metres then divide the result by 9.81. Want to do all that the long
way when Google will handle the unit conversions for you?

But that's the point, Pearcey, that doing it the long way teaches and
reinforces understanding of the interrelationship of the factors,
something you are direly in need of, as has been amply demonstrated in
the Smover thread, where you repeatedly showed us you are ignorant of
quite simple matters regarding acceleration and deceleration.

You really are a pointless sack of ****.

Oh, not pointless, surely. I serve to correct the lucanae in your
knowledge and to whisper in your ear that you don't know everything.

And here is my entire previous post again, so that everyone can see
that you are, in your own words, a lying sack of ****:

On Sep 9, 6:35 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:

So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
please!

In the thread "Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and
adaptive suspension" Don Pearce told us:

"that comes out at 1.05g" complete with his formula for "Anyone who
wants to do the sum the easy way.... (30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g".

So let's do the sum and see what we get: (30*30)/(2*11) = 40.9. Nope,
Pearcey, that isn't 1.05. Let's try using compatible units, hmm? 30kph
is 18.64mph, so now let's try (18.64*18.64)/(11*2) = 15.8. Oh dear,
not 1.05 either. Looks like you got a simple formula wrong, Pearcey.
So now, let a reliable authority straighten you out:

"The maximum braking force that can be applied to a vehicle through
its wheels -- the mass of air having its own retarding force -- is
limited by the friction between the tire and the road, and is equal to
the weight of the vehicle multiplied by the coefficient of friction.
On a dry pavement, this coefficient could be as high as 1; with a
coefficient of unity, retardation would be 1g or 32.2ft/s^2 and the
stopping distance in feet would be V^2/29.9 where V is the speed in
mph. I must stress though that this is on an ideal surface such as
does not exist outside a test facility..."
(Andre Jute: Designing and Building Special Cars, Batsford,
London 1985, p98)

This correct formula, transformed just slightly, permits us to
calculate average retardation in fractions of one gravity when we know
the entry speed and the stopping distance (which is what poor Pearcey
is trying to do):

V^2/(29.9*D)

where V is speed in mph and D is stopping distance in feet. Taking
Pearcey's of 24ft
[[[typo, Pearce, trying to make me look foolish -- LOL! -- is actually
working with 11ft]]]
from 30kph, we need first to convert 30kph to mph
(which Pearce overlooked). So (18.64*18.64)/(29.9*11) gives us an
average retardation for Pearce's numbers of 1.05g

At last, the right answer, after applying expert knowledge to
Pearcey's errors. So how does Pearce get the formula wrong, forget to
regularize the measurements, and still get the right answer? Simple.
He tells us himself that he "just pop this into Google. I rarely use
an other calculator these days."

[[[Yoohoo, Pearcey! See, I didn't leave out your Google Idiot Service
habit.]]]

In short, Pearce doesn't know how to do a simple engineering
calculation, he gets formula wrong, he doesn't know to use compatible
measures, he doesn't understand what he is working with, he depends on
Google's idiot service to somehow give him the right answer. Then he
gets abusive when it is pointed out to him that he doesn't fully
(that's putting it very politely indeed!) understand the principles,
that he confuses the theoretical limit of deceleration of a wheeled
vehicle with the controlling factor under a particular set of
circumstance.

Arthur C Clarke said that any advanced technology will appear to a
savage as magic. Don Pearce's magic for technology he doesn't
understand is the Google calculator. He has faith in it. He gets very
angry when its use is questioned.

All this, especially Pearce's vicious attempts to prove everyone else
wrong, and his anger when his errors are pointed out, do make one
wonder how Pearce can ponce around calling himself an engineer.

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

Is Don Pearce actually an engineer? was Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and adaptive suspension
 

On Sep 9, 3:27 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article . com,
Peter Wieck wrote:





On Sep 9, 1:19 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:48:11 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

On Sep 9, 6:35 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:

So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
please!

In the thread "Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and
adaptive suspension" Don Pearce told us:

"that comes out at 1.05g" complete with his formula for "Anyone who
wants to do the sum the easy way.... (30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g".

Jute, you are a foul, lying weasel. Despite your lying editing-out of
the relevant words (from within a line even!) I told you to put that
formula into Google. Although it suits you to pretend you don't know,
Google handles all the different units quite happily, and provides
exactly the right answer, which is 1.05g. If you want to do it
manually, you must convert kph to metres per second and feet into
metres then divide the result by 9.81. Want to do all that the long
way when Google will handle the unit conversions for you?

Don, Andre's observations on your use of Google formulas may finally
explain the mystery of your apparent lack of understanding of much of
the material you post to usenet. The simple Parroting of information
found on Google would go a long way towards a possible explanation.

Yikes, John.

Just change 11 feet to 3.353 meters.
30kph = 30,000 mph/60/60 = 8.33 mps.

Comes to a bit over 1.05G whomever calculates it.

Now, let's use Mr. Jute's Formula:

Oops... same result.

Now the bottom line is that an individual by his own admission at 1/8
ton (for gentleness, we will call it a "short" ton of 2000 lbs. avdp.
= 250 pounds/2.2 = 113.6 kg.) goes from 8.3 mps to 0 mps in 3.353
meters... whatever smoke and mirrors are applied and surrounding it.
And we will allow the bicycle as being part of that short ton. A long
ton (2200 pounds, 1000kg) only makes the impact a bit more painful.

Now just use your basic intuitive knowledge, no math required. Grade-
school science. G = 32/s/s. One second, fallen 16 feet, speed = 32fps.
2 seconds, fallen 48 feet, speed = 64fps. And so forth.

That is very nearly the functioning equivalent of running into a brick
wall. If you want an equivalent for it, imagine you have fallen ~ 14
feet onto whatever... that is about what you would be doing at the 14-
foot mark. Oh, sorry, you have fallen about 4.26 meters.

So, gravity gives you ~8.3mps in 4.26 meters (9.8M in 1S). Jute's
fantasy machine does it in less (3.36M). Therefore in more than 1G.
How much more is not the point. But 0.05g is certainly close enough.

As Jute's amanuensis, you need to pick your battles more aptly.

Peter, your problem is that you have not yet correctly identified the
"battle". This bicycle stopping distance business has nothing to do
with it, I haven't even been following the math and computations which
are of minimal interest to me in this instance, what I was playing off
of and generalizing on was Andre's mention of Don's use of Google, which
I suddenly realized explained a lot of things.

If Don choses to take exception to my general comments on his modis
operandi with respect to Google, then I may have to get more specific,
in the mean time it will be interesting to see if you can identify the
specific "battle" that prompted my comment, hint it is totally unrelated
to Andre or any of his threads.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John:

Mpffffff.... and with respect even if choked out of me..... Mr. Jute
is incapable of honesty or straightforward behavior. His response to
criticism, his errors and his bald lies is universally bullying and
meretricious.

So, whatever the failings and failures of his detractors and
supporters, they are lesser than those of the target and/or master.

You need to understand that by not supporting one individual, I am
quite capable of not supporting his/her enemies or detractors as well.
I have spent time in the Middle East, but the common "enemy of my
enemies is my friend" philosophy of that region is not mine. And vice-
versa, of course. I am also even capable of being supportive of
individuals on both sides of an otherwise poisonous division.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Is Don Pearce actually an engineer? was Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and adaptive suspension
 

On Sep 9, 1:27 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article . com,
Peter Wieck wrote:



On Sep 9, 1:19 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:48:11 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

On Sep 9, 6:35 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:

So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
please!

In the thread "Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and
adaptive suspension" Don Pearce told us:

"that comes out at 1.05g" complete with his formula for "Anyone who
wants to do the sum the easy way.... (30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g".

Jute, you are a foul, lying weasel. Despite your lying editing-out of
the relevant words (from within a line even!) I told you to put that
formula into Google. Although it suits you to pretend you don't know,
Google handles all the different units quite happily, and provides
exactly the right answer, which is 1.05g. If you want to do it
manually, you must convert kph to metres per second and feet into
metres then divide the result by 9.81. Want to do all that the long
way when Google will handle the unit conversions for you?

Don, Andre's observations on your use of Google formulas may finally
explain the mystery of your apparent lack of understanding of much of
the material you post to usenet. The simple Parroting of information
found on Google would go a long way towards a possible explanation.

Yikes, John.

Just change 11 feet to 3.353 meters.
30kph = 30,000 mph/60/60 = 8.33 mps.

Comes to a bit over 1.05G whomever calculates it.

Now, let's use Mr. Jute's Formula:

Oops... same result.

Now the bottom line is that an individual by his own admission at 1/8
ton (for gentleness, we will call it a "short" ton of 2000 lbs. avdp.
= 250 pounds/2.2 = 113.6 kg.) goes from 8.3 mps to 0 mps in 3.353
meters... whatever smoke and mirrors are applied and surrounding it.
And we will allow the bicycle as being part of that short ton. A long
ton (2200 pounds, 1000kg) only makes the impact a bit more painful.

Now just use your basic intuitive knowledge, no math required. Grade-
school science. G = 32/s/s. One second, fallen 16 feet, speed = 32fps.
2 seconds, fallen 48 feet, speed = 64fps. And so forth.

That is very nearly the functioning equivalent of running into a brick
wall. If you want an equivalent for it, imagine you have fallen ~ 14
feet onto whatever... that is about what you would be doing at the 14-
foot mark. Oh, sorry, you have fallen about 4.26 meters.

So, gravity gives you ~8.3mps in 4.26 meters (9.8M in 1S). Jute's
fantasy machine does it in less (3.36M). Therefore in more than 1G.
How much more is not the point. But 0.05g is certainly close enough.

Oley Polony, this poor dumb cluck Worthless Wiecky is another Parrot.
He has taken poor old Pearcey's 11ft over without realizing that a
retardation in excess of 1G is impossible.

In fact, all these little scumballs, like Pearce, trying by
misrepresenting a typo to make out I made a gross error, would be
better employed by the more reasonable argument that even 0.484g (24ft
from 30kph or 18.64mph) is exceptional, in fact so good that even the
hostile Eiron at first agreed with Pearce's statement, in his
ignorance, that anything near 0.5g is impossible; since then Eiron has
surprised himself by making an even better stop than my best one.

As Jute's amanuensis, you need to pick your battles more aptly.

Peter, your problem is that you have not yet correctly identified the
"battle". This bicycle stopping distance business has nothing to do
with it, I haven't even been following the math and computations which
are of minimal interest to me in this instance, what I was playing off
of and generalizing on was Andre's mention of Don's use of Google, which
I suddenly realized explained a lot of things.

It struck me too a blinding blow; I had been wondering for years if
Don was just very poorly educated, or if some leftbrain-rightbrain
slippage accounted for the stupidities he comes out with every so
often, then defends beyond all reason, indeed with a great deal of
anger and abuse. Then he told me to use Google's Black Box for Known
Idiots and all became clear in an instant.

If Don choses to take exception

Pearce is too thick to grasp a warning. He's a jerk-up: he will come
out swinging.

to my general comments on his modis
operandi with respect to Google, then I may have to get more specific,
in the mean time it will be interesting to see if you can identify the
specific "battle" that prompted my comment, hint it is totally unrelated
to Andre or any of his threads.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

I doubt that Blustering Don Pearce is worth a battle at all, purely on
the grounds that nothing will be learned in return for the effort, no
truth confirmed. He isn't even as intelligent as Pasternack; in fact,
after recent experiences (Pinkerton, Poopie, Krueger, Pearce) I'm
starting to view even that moral cripple Pasternack with nostalgia:
after all, he merely lied about electronics and was quickly caught
out; he wasn't actively ignorant.

Andre Jute

Report from the Unimportant Niche Mumble
 

On Sep 9, 2:48 pm, Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article om, Andre Jute
at wrote on 9/9/07 5:33 PM:

It is reported from the Atlanta Docks that the garage vermin Jon (aka
Jono and John to the Atlanta Vice Squad) Yaeger has offered to become
a stoolie for the Topic Police.

I love your irony, Jute. Calling me a "stoolie", when it was YOU who posted
an off-topic thread on "smooth mover." ;-) Clever!

Only a cad would blare out the punchline of someone else's joke.
Still, I'm glad you caught it; I always worry when I include a
scatalogical pun to curry favour with the lower intellectual levels,
that I will make it too subtle. That even you got it, Yaeger, proves I
haven't lost my common touch.

Off-topic? How? You have as usual not been paying attention, Yeager.
My Smover it is an electronically operated and controlled bike. These
are electronics conferences.

Andre Jute
Creator of Worthless Wieckless TM. All Rights Reserved by McCoy-Jute
Exploitation. Patent Pending. Licences still available for North Korea
and Lesotho. Our Attorneys are Bigger than Your Shysters.

Report from the Unimportant Niche Mumble
 

in article , Andre Jute
at wrote on 9/9/07 6:18 PM:

On Sep 9, 2:48 pm, Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article om, Andre Jute
at wrote on 9/9/07 5:33 PM:

It is reported from the Atlanta Docks that the garage vermin Jon (aka
Jono and John to the Atlanta Vice Squad) Yaeger has offered to become
a stoolie for the Topic Police.

I love your irony, Jute. Calling me a "stoolie", when it was YOU who posted
an off-topic thread on "smooth mover." ;-) Clever!

Only a cad would blare out the punchline of someone else's joke.
Still, I'm glad you caught it; I always worry when I include a
scatalogical pun to curry favour with the lower intellectual levels,
that I will make it too subtle. That even you got it, Yaeger, proves I
haven't lost my common touch.

Off-topic? How? You have as usual not been paying attention, Yeager.
My Smover it is an electronically operated and controlled bike. These
are electronics conferences.

*** Then do it justice with a vacuum tube version.

Andre Jute
Creator of Worthless Wieckless TM. All Rights Reserved by McCoy-Jute
Exploitation. Patent Pending. Licences still available for North Korea
and Lesotho. Our Attorneys are Bigger than Your Shysters.