People seem to think that fast tires have low rolling resistance but that
is hardly the case In the rolling resistance tests 25 mm tires have lower rolling resistance than 28's. And high pressure 23 mm lower still,
Remember that they claim that their setup has bumps etc to correct
rolling resistace for road conditions but that can't be the case.
Vittoria Corsa is rated as lowest rolling resistance but in my experience Michelin Pro5's are faster. Also I find that setting pressure below the Silca pressure calculator increases the speed if not taken to extremes.
I find TPU innertubes to be unbelievably expensive and flat very easily.
I see no advantage to them. While Latex tubes do increase speed, they
have to be pumped up every ride. In cold weather I can ride a butyl tube
for a week before pumping them up again.
Tubeless is nasty to work with. The tires are more expensive and harder to mount.
The informaion we are being fed is lacking accuracy and incomplete
leaving you to have to experiment yourself.
As with life need to fact check and be sure one understands let alone that for example tyre choices for example for my gravel bike each ride I do
would favour different tyre choices.
I?m fairly sure that for my uses bigger tyres into XC MTB sizes would
perform better for me most of the time.
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
People seem to think that fast tires have low rolling resistance but thatWhose tests? Drum tests particularly one with smaller drums will give a
is hardly the case In the rolling resistance tests 25 mm tires have lower
rolling resistance than 28's. And high pressure 23 mm lower still,
Remember that they claim that their setup has bumps etc to correct
rolling resistace for road conditions but that can't be the case.
less realistic model of tarmac.
Vittoria Corsa is rated as lowest rolling resistance but in my experienceBoth are designed to be fast road tyres, so you’d expect fairly close performance between brands. And road is much more homogeneous than gravel
Michelin Pro5's are faster. Also I find that setting pressure below the
Silca pressure calculator increases the speed if not taken to extremes.
or MTB
I find TPU innertubes to be unbelievably expensive and flat very easily.In my relatively short experience of TPU tubes, is that they offer same amount of puncture resistance aka zero if it gets through the tyre, it’s game over.
I see no advantage to them. While Latex tubes do increase speed, they
have to be pumped up every ride. In cold weather I can ride a butyl tube
for a week before pumping them up again.
They do feel noticeably nicer vs Butyl tubes, are yes more expensive and
more tedious to fix, though that would depend on how many punctures someone gets I used to get 1 every year or less. So it’s a £10 over a year at worst.
Tubeless is nasty to work with. The tires are more expensive and harder to mount.
Absolutely can be, the ongoing maintenance is why I run it on one bike and not all of them. While I’m a fan it’s not the best option 100% of the time.
As with life need to fact check and be sure one understands let alone that for example tyre choices for example for my gravel bike each ride I do
The informaion we are being fed is lacking accuracy and incomplete
leaving you to have to experiment yourself.
would favour different tyre choices.
I’m fairly sure that for my uses bigger tyres into XC MTB sizes would perform better for me most of the time.
Roger Merriman
I ride faster on my 25mm road bike Conti GP5000
s on the rim brake Habanero. I ride slower on the 32MM Conti's I have on
the disc brake Habby. I have no stats or ways to measure except how fast
I ride on any given ride. Lately the fatter 32 mms seem to me to be a
bit heavy and roll with more balancing require by me. I have no idea why.
On 6/12/2025 7:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
People seem to think that fast tires have low rolling resistance butWhose tests? Drum tests particularly one with smaller drums will give a
that
is hardly the case In the rolling resistance tests 25 mm tires have
lower
rolling resistance than 28's. And high pressure 23 mm lower still,
Remember that they claim that their setup has bumps etc to correct
rolling resistace for road conditions but that can't be the case.
less realistic model of tarmac.
Vittoria Corsa is rated as lowest rolling resistance but in myBoth are designed to be fast road tyres, so you’d expect fairly close
experience
Michelin Pro5's are faster. Also IÂ find that setting pressure below the >>> Silca pressure calculator increases the speed if not taken to extremes.
performance between brands. And road is much more homogeneous than gravel
or MTB
I find TPU innertubes to be unbelievably expensive and flat very easily. >>> I see no advantage to them. While Latex tubes do increase speed, theyIn my relatively short experience of TPU tubes, is that they offer same
have to be pumped up every ride. In cold weather I can ride a butyl tube >>> for a week before pumping them up again.
amount of puncture resistance aka zero if it gets through the tyre, it’s >> game over.
They do feel noticeably nicer vs Butyl tubes, are yes more expensive and
more tedious to fix, though that would depend on how many punctures
someone
gets I used to get 1 every year or less. So it’s a £10 over a year at
worst.
Tubeless is nasty to work with. The tires are more expensive and
harder to mount.
Absolutely can be, the ongoing maintenance is why I run it on one bike
and
not all of them. While I’m a fan it’s not the best option 100% of the
time.
As with life need to fact check and be sure one understands let alone
The informaion we are being fed is lacking accuracy and incomplete
leaving you to have to experiment yourself.
that
for example tyre choices for example for my gravel bike each ride I do
would favour different tyre choices.
I’m fairly sure that for my uses bigger tyres into XC MTB sizes would
perform better for me most of the time.
Roger Merriman
I ride faster on my 25mm road bike Conti GP5000
s on the rim brake Habanero. I ride slower on the 32MM Conti's I have on
the disc brake Habby. I have no stats or ways to measure except how fast
I ride on any given ride. Lately the fatter 32 mms seem to me to be a
bit heavy and roll with more balancing require by me. I have no idea why.
On 6/12/2025 12:38 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
People seem to think that fast tires have low rolling resistance butWhose tests? Drum tests particularly one with smaller drums will give a
that
is hardly the case In the rolling resistance tests 25 mm tires have
lower
rolling resistance than 28's. And high pressure 23 mm lower still,
Remember that they claim that their setup has bumps etc to correct
rolling resistace for road conditions but that can't be the case.
less realistic model of tarmac.
Vittoria Corsa is rated as lowest rolling resistance but in myBoth are designed to be fast road tyres, so you’d expect fairly close
experience
Michelin Pro5's are faster. Also IÂ find that setting pressure below
the
Silca pressure calculator increases the speed if not taken to extremes. >>>>
performance between brands. And road is much more homogeneous than
gravel
or MTB
I find TPU innertubes to be unbelievably expensive and flat veryIn my relatively short experience of TPU tubes, is that they offer same
easily.
I see no advantage to them. While Latex tubes do increase speed, they
have to be pumped up every ride. In cold weather I can ride a butyl
tube
for a week before pumping them up again.
amount of puncture resistance aka zero if it gets through the tyre, it’s >>> game over.
They do feel noticeably nicer vs Butyl tubes, are yes more expensive and >>> more tedious to fix, though that would depend on how many punctures
someone
gets I used to get 1 every year or less. So it’s a £10 over a year at >>> worst.
Tubeless is nasty to work with. The tires are more expensive and
harder to mount.
Absolutely can be, the ongoing maintenance is why I run it on one
bike and
not all of them. While I’m a fan it’s not the best option 100% of the >>> time.
As with life need to fact check and be sure one understands let alone
The informaion we are being fed is lacking accuracy and incomplete
leaving you to have to experiment yourself.
that
for example tyre choices for example for my gravel bike each ride I do
would favour different tyre choices.
I’m fairly sure that for my uses bigger tyres into XC MTB sizes would
perform better for me most of the time.
Roger Merriman
I ride faster on my 25mm road bike Conti GP5000
s on the rim brake Habanero. I ride slower on the 32MM Conti's I have
on the disc brake Habby. I have no stats or ways to measure except how
fast I ride on any given ride. Lately the fatter 32 mms seem to me to
be a bit heavy and roll with more balancing require by me. I have no
idea why.
It may have something to do with the road surface. One reason 32s can be faster than 25s is if the road surface is on the rough side. If you've
been riding on new pavement lately, the 32's don't offer much advantage.
Of course inflation pressures have a lot to do with it. You might want
to experiment with the pressures, and don't forget to consider that your gauge may be off too. The pump I keep in my car pump somehow become
offset by 20 PSI with no warning. I should just toss it because I have
three more floor pumps that are all good, I just have a real hard time throwing away usable cycling parts and equipment (Much to my wife's
chagrin).
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat underinflated. Put
another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
On 6/12/2025 1:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 12:38 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
People seem to think that fast tires have low rolling resistanceWhose tests? Drum tests particularly one with smaller drums will give a >>>> less realistic model of tarmac.
but that
is hardly the case In the rolling resistance tests 25 mm tires have
lower
rolling resistance than 28's. And high pressure 23 mm lower still,
Remember that they claim that their setup has bumps etc to correct
rolling resistace for road conditions but that can't be the case.
Vittoria Corsa is rated as lowest rolling resistance but in myBoth are designed to be fast road tyres, so you’d expect fairly close >>>> performance between brands. And road is much more homogeneous than
experience
Michelin Pro5's are faster. Also IÂ find that setting pressure
below the
Silca pressure calculator increases the speed if not taken to
extremes.
gravel
or MTB
I find TPU innertubes to be unbelievably expensive and flat veryIn my relatively short experience of TPU tubes, is that they offer same >>>> amount of puncture resistance aka zero if it gets through the tyre,
easily.
I see no advantage to them. While Latex tubes do increase speed, they >>>>> have to be pumped up every ride. In cold weather I can ride a butyl
tube
for a week before pumping them up again.
it’s
game over.
They do feel noticeably nicer vs Butyl tubes, are yes more expensive
and
more tedious to fix, though that would depend on how many punctures
someone
gets I used to get 1 every year or less. So it’s a £10 over a year at >>>> worst.
Tubeless is nasty to work with. The tires are more expensive and
harder to mount.
Absolutely can be, the ongoing maintenance is why I run it on one
bike and
not all of them. While I’m a fan it’s not the best option 100% of
the time.
As with life need to fact check and be sure one understands let
The informaion we are being fed is lacking accuracy and incomplete
leaving you to have to experiment yourself.
alone that
for example tyre choices for example for my gravel bike each ride I do >>>> would favour different tyre choices.
I’m fairly sure that for my uses bigger tyres into XC MTB sizes would >>>> perform better for me most of the time.
Roger Merriman
I ride faster on my 25mm road bike Conti GP5000
s on the rim brake Habanero. I ride slower on the 32MM Conti's I have
on the disc brake Habby. I have no stats or ways to measure except
how fast I ride on any given ride. Lately the fatter 32 mms seem to
me to be a bit heavy and roll with more balancing require by me. I
have no idea why.
It may have something to do with the road surface. One reason 32s can
be faster than 25s is if the road surface is on the rough side. If
you've been riding on new pavement lately, the 32's don't offer much
advantage.
Of course inflation pressures have a lot to do with it. You might want
to experiment with the pressures, and don't forget to consider that
your gauge may be off too. The pump I keep in my car pump somehow
become offset by 20 PSI with no warning. I should just toss it because
I have three more floor pumps that are all good, I just have a real
hard time throwing away usable cycling parts and equipment (Much to my
wife's chagrin).
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat underinflated. Put
another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
According to the charts I should run about 62 in rear and 58 in front. I
do run about this amount a bit more at the start. These I don't need to
pump ever day before a ride they loose PSI slower of course.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 6/12/2025 1:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 12:38 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
People seem to think that fast tires have low rolling resistanceWhose tests? Drum tests particularly one with smaller drums will give a >>>>> less realistic model of tarmac.
but that
is hardly the case In the rolling resistance tests 25 mm tires have >>>>>> lower
rolling resistance than 28's. And high pressure 23 mm lower still, >>>>>> Remember that they claim that their setup has bumps etc to correct >>>>>> rolling resistace for road conditions but that can't be the case.
Vittoria Corsa is rated as lowest rolling resistance but in myBoth are designed to be fast road tyres, so you’d expect fairly close >>>>> performance between brands. And road is much more homogeneous than
experience
Michelin Pro5's are faster. Also IÂ find that setting pressure
below the
Silca pressure calculator increases the speed if not taken to
extremes.
gravel
or MTB
I find TPU innertubes to be unbelievably expensive and flat veryIn my relatively short experience of TPU tubes, is that they offer same >>>>> amount of puncture resistance aka zero if it gets through the tyre,
easily.
I see no advantage to them. While Latex tubes do increase speed, they >>>>>> have to be pumped up every ride. In cold weather I can ride a butyl >>>>>> tube
for a week before pumping them up again.
it’s
game over.
They do feel noticeably nicer vs Butyl tubes, are yes more expensive >>>>> and
more tedious to fix, though that would depend on how many punctures
someone
gets I used to get 1 every year or less. So it’s a £10 over a year at >>>>> worst.
Tubeless is nasty to work with. The tires are more expensive and
harder to mount.
Absolutely can be, the ongoing maintenance is why I run it on one
bike and
not all of them. While I’m a fan it’s not the best option 100% of >>>>> the time.
As with life need to fact check and be sure one understands let
The informaion we are being fed is lacking accuracy and incomplete >>>>>> leaving you to have to experiment yourself.
alone that
for example tyre choices for example for my gravel bike each ride I do >>>>> would favour different tyre choices.
I’m fairly sure that for my uses bigger tyres into XC MTB sizes would >>>>> perform better for me most of the time.
Roger Merriman
I ride faster on my 25mm road bike Conti GP5000
s on the rim brake Habanero. I ride slower on the 32MM Conti's I have
on the disc brake Habby. I have no stats or ways to measure except
how fast I ride on any given ride. Lately the fatter 32 mms seem to
me to be a bit heavy and roll with more balancing require by me. I
have no idea why.
It may have something to do with the road surface. One reason 32s can
be faster than 25s is if the road surface is on the rough side. If
you've been riding on new pavement lately, the 32's don't offer much
advantage.
Of course inflation pressures have a lot to do with it. You might want
to experiment with the pressures, and don't forget to consider that
your gauge may be off too. The pump I keep in my car pump somehow
become offset by 20 PSI with no warning. I should just toss it because
I have three more floor pumps that are all good, I just have a real
hard time throwing away usable cycling parts and equipment (Much to my
wife's chagrin).
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat underinflated. Put
another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
According to the charts I should run about 62 in rear and 58 in front. I
do run about this amount a bit more at the start. These I don't need to
pump ever day before a ride they loose PSI slower of course.
On smoother roads you may feel better performance running a bit higher pressure.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer is
fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho "Everything is
where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, you just crushed it).
I passed the concussion protocol three days after the hit (failed it a
few hours after the hit). I have to rehab the MCL to a certain level
before they'll schedule surgery for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9
months of rehab. They're thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( .
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 6/12/2025 1:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 12:38 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
People seem to think that fast tires have low rollingWhose tests? Drum tests particularly one with smaller
resistance but that
is hardly the case In the rolling resistance tests 25
mm tires have lower
rolling resistance than 28's. And high pressure 23 mm
lower still,
Remember that they claim that their setup has bumps
etc to correct
rolling resistace for road conditions but that can't
be the case.
drums will give a
less realistic model of tarmac.
Vittoria Corsa is rated as lowest rolling resistanceBoth are designed to be fast road tyres, so you’d
but in my experience
Michelin Pro5's are faster. Also IÂ find that setting
pressure below the
Silca pressure calculator increases the speed if not
taken to extremes.
expect fairly close
performance between brands. And road is much more
homogeneous than gravel
or MTB
I find TPU innertubes to be unbelievably expensive andIn my relatively short experience of TPU tubes, is that
flat very easily.
I see no advantage to them. While Latex tubes do
increase speed, they
have to be pumped up every ride. In cold weather I can
ride a butyl tube
for a week before pumping them up again.
they offer same
amount of puncture resistance aka zero if it gets
through the tyre, it’s
game over.
They do feel noticeably nicer vs Butyl tubes, are yes
more expensive and
more tedious to fix, though that would depend on how
many punctures someone
gets I used to get 1 every year or less. So it’s a £10
over a year at
worst.
Tubeless is nasty to work with. The tires are more
expensive and harder to mount.
Absolutely can be, the ongoing maintenance is why I run
it on one bike and
not all of them. While I’m a fan it’s not the best
option 100% of the time.
As with life need to fact check and be sure one
The informaion we are being fed is lacking accuracy
and incomplete
leaving you to have to experiment yourself.
understands let alone that
for example tyre choices for example for my gravel bike
each ride I do
would favour different tyre choices.
I’m fairly sure that for my uses bigger tyres into XC
MTB sizes would
perform better for me most of the time.
Roger Merriman
I ride faster on my 25mm road bike Conti GP5000
s on the rim brake Habanero. I ride slower on the 32MM
Conti's I have on the disc brake Habby. I have no stats
or ways to measure except how fast I ride on any given
ride. Lately the fatter 32 mms seem to me to be a bit
heavy and roll with more balancing require by me. I have
no idea why.
It may have something to do with the road surface. One
reason 32s can be faster than 25s is if the road surface
is on the rough side. If you've been riding on new
pavement lately, the 32's don't offer much advantage.
Of course inflation pressures have a lot to do with it.
You might want to experiment with the pressures, and
don't forget to consider that your gauge may be off too.
The pump I keep in my car pump somehow become offset by
20 PSI with no warning. I should just toss it because I
have three more floor pumps that are all good, I just
have a real hard time throwing away usable cycling parts
and equipment (Much to my wife's chagrin).
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat
underinflated. Put another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
According to the charts I should run about 62 in rear and
58 in front. I do run about this amount a bit more at the
start. These I don't need to pump ever day before a ride
they loose PSI slower of course.
On smoother roads you may feel better performance running a
bit higher pressure.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding
inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor
trainer is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs
have healed, the shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words
of the ortho "Everything is where it should be and somehow
nothing is broken, you just crushed it). I passed the
concussion protocol three days after the hit (failed it a
few hours after the hit). I have to rehab the MCL to a
certain level before they'll schedule surgery for the ACL -
Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're thinking
early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I
won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( .
On 6/12/2025 2:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat underinflated. Put
another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
Experimenting with tire pressure sounds interesting, and would be a lot easier than comparing different sizes and brands of tires.
But I'm skeptical of anyone's ability to "feel" the probably minor differences that would result from five or ten psi upward or downward.
I think the most practical way of detecting a difference would be to use
a road with a consistent, slight downward slope. Coast down it
repeatedly with different air pressure and note speeds. Try for days
with no wind and consistent temperatures if possible.
And keep in mind that if the difference is difficult to detect that way,
it probably doesn't matter for most riding.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat underinflated. Put
another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
Experimenting with tire pressure sounds interesting, and would be a lot
easier than comparing different sizes and brands of tires.
But I'm skeptical of anyone's ability to "feel" the probably minor
differences that would result from five or ten psi upward or downward.
10 psi is definitely very obvious certainly by gravel bike terms let alone MTB! I started at 60psi realised it was rather too high 50 psi is
noticeable difference and indeed 45psi that I run now, with the difference being it’s now tubeless vs tubes, if I’ve had a puncture and had to top up
a tyre I’m well aware that I’m a bit lower than normal and can feel it.
Likewise on the MTB 10 psi or even 5psi is quite a difference, if your running 20/30psi.
If your running higher pressure and/or using touring type tyres the differences will be less. Due to sidewalls and all that.
Certainly off road it’s a common green gravel folks mistake, aka running tyre pressures 10 psi over what they need and pinging about the place!
I think the most practical way of detecting a difference would be to use
a road with a consistent, slight downward slope. Coast down it
repeatedly with different air pressure and note speeds. Try for days
with no wind and consistent temperatures if possible.
And keep in mind that if the difference is difficult to detect that way,
it probably doesn't matter for most riding.
Roger Merriman
On 6/12/2025 4:14 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat underinflated. Put
another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
Experimenting with tire pressure sounds interesting, and would be a lot
easier than comparing different sizes and brands of tires.
But I'm skeptical of anyone's ability to "feel" the probably minor
differences that would result from five or ten psi upward or downward.
10 psi is definitely very obvious certainly by gravel bike terms let alone >> MTB! I started at 60psi realised it was rather too high 50 psi is
noticeable difference and indeed 45psi that I run now, with the difference >> being it’s now tubeless vs tubes, if I’ve had a puncture and had to top up >> a tyre I’m well aware that I’m a bit lower than normal and can feel it.
Likewise on the MTB 10 psi or even 5psi is quite a difference, if your
running 20/30psi.
If your running higher pressure and/or using touring type tyres the
differences will be less. Due to sidewalls and all that.
Certainly off road it’s a common green gravel folks mistake, aka running
I think the most practical way of detecting a difference would be to use >>> a road with a consistent, slight downward slope. Coast down it
repeatedly with different air pressure and note speeds. Try for days
with no wind and consistent temperatures if possible.
And keep in mind that if the difference is difficult to detect that way, >>> it probably doesn't matter for most riding.
tyre pressures 10 psi over what they need and pinging about the place!
Roger Merriman
I actually like a bit more pressure in the tires than some. I hate the >feeling of the tire bottoming out or I go over bump and can feel the
tire give a lot. It makes me uneasy and I always get the feeling I might
be having a flat. When I go in drive way ending ride I have small drive
way bump and that tells me things. If the tires is flexing more than I
like I know it i air time.
On 6/12/2025 4:14 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat underinflated. Put
another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
Experimenting with tire pressure sounds interesting, and would be a lot
easier than comparing different sizes and brands of tires.
But I'm skeptical of anyone's ability to "feel" the probably minor
differences that would result from five or ten psi upward or downward.
10 psi is definitely very obvious certainly by gravel bike terms let alone MTB! I started at 60psi realised it was rather too high 50 psi is noticeable difference and indeed 45psi that I run now, with the difference being it?s now tubeless vs tubes, if I?ve had a puncture and had to top up a tyre I?m well aware that I?m a bit lower than normal and can feel it.
Likewise on the MTB 10 psi or even 5psi is quite a difference, if your running 20/30psi.
If your running higher pressure and/or using touring type tyres the differences will be less. Due to sidewalls and all that.
Certainly off road it?s a common green gravel folks mistake, aka running tyre pressures 10 psi over what they need and pinging about the place!
I think the most practical way of detecting a difference would be to use >> a road with a consistent, slight downward slope. Coast down it
repeatedly with different air pressure and note speeds. Try for days
with no wind and consistent temperatures if possible.
And keep in mind that if the difference is difficult to detect that way, >> it probably doesn't matter for most riding.
Roger Merriman
I actually like a bit more pressure in the tires than some. I hate the feeling of the tire bottoming out or I go over bump and can feel the
tire give a lot. It makes me uneasy and I always get the feeling I might
be having a flat. When I go in drive way ending ride I have small drive
way bump and that tells me things. If the tires is flexing more than I
like I know it i air time.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer is
fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho "Everything is
where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, you just crushed it).
I passed the concussion protocol three days after the hit (failed it a
few hours after the hit). I have to rehab the MCL to a certain level
before they'll schedule surgery for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9
months of rehab. They're thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( .
On Thu Jun 12 17:49:01 2025 Mark J cleary wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:14 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat underinflated. Put
another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
Experimenting with tire pressure sounds interesting, and would be a lot >>>> easier than comparing different sizes and brands of tires.
But I'm skeptical of anyone's ability to "feel" the probably minor
differences that would result from five or ten psi upward or downward.
10 psi is definitely very obvious certainly by gravel bike terms let alone >>> MTB! I started at 60psi realised it was rather too high 50 psi is
noticeable difference and indeed 45psi that I run now, with the difference >>> being it?s now tubeless vs tubes, if I?ve had a puncture and had to top up >>> a tyre I?m well aware that I?m a bit lower than normal and can feel it.
Likewise on the MTB 10 psi or even 5psi is quite a difference, if your
running 20/30psi.
If your running higher pressure and/or using touring type tyres the
differences will be less. Due to sidewalls and all that.
Certainly off road it?s a common green gravel folks mistake, aka running >>> tyre pressures 10 psi over what they need and pinging about the place!
I think the most practical way of detecting a difference would be to use >>>> a road with a consistent, slight downward slope. Coast down it
repeatedly with different air pressure and note speeds. Try for days
with no wind and consistent temperatures if possible.
And keep in mind that if the difference is difficult to detect that way, >>>> it probably doesn't matter for most riding.
Roger Merriman
I actually like a bit more pressure in the tires than some. I hate the
feeling of the tire bottoming out or I go over bump and can feel the
tire give a lot. It makes me uneasy and I always get the feeling I might
be having a flat. When I go in drive way ending ride I have small drive
way bump and that tells me things. If the tires is flexing more than I
like I know it i air time.
I am running 69 lbs. in the Gatorskins 32 mm and the bike is WAY too stiff. There's no way that this is going to bottom out or feel flabby at those pressures. I will experiment with it but my suspicions is that it will take 50 to 55 to feel correct.The problem is that it takes a bike built especially to mount tires that wide. The disc bike with Hunt wheels just makes it.
My Time Ulteam looks like it would be too tight vertically to the brake mount and the front fork.identifies components with a component number. If this doesn't work I do have a 4 way interconnect but that makes the wires longer..
Perhaps they would work on the BMC SCO 01 but I have to sell off a couple of bikes to get down to the level. At the Moment the Ridley Helium Di2 is taking priority.
Speaking of which - I missed whether Andrew answered me or not - Di2 11 speed levers have space for 3 Di2 cables per lever. It I were to mounf cables serially would they work or does on lever interfere with the lines? I would think not since Di2
On 6/12/2025 7:02 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Jun 12 17:49:01 2025 Mark J cleary wrote:
On 6/12/2025 4:14 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 2:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:10 psi is definitely very obvious certainly by gravel bike terms let alone >>>> MTB! I started at 60psi realised it was rather too high 50 psi is
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat underinflated. Put >>>>>> another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
Experimenting with tire pressure sounds interesting, and would be a lot >>>>> easier than comparing different sizes and brands of tires.
But I'm skeptical of anyone's ability to "feel" the probably minor
differences that would result from five or ten psi upward or downward. >>>>
noticeable difference and indeed 45psi that I run now, with the difference >>>> being it?s now tubeless vs tubes, if I?ve had a puncture and had to top up >>>> a tyre I?m well aware that I?m a bit lower than normal and can feel it. >>>>
Likewise on the MTB 10 psi or even 5psi is quite a difference, if your >>>> running 20/30psi.
If your running higher pressure and/or using touring type tyres the
differences will be less. Due to sidewalls and all that.
Certainly off road it?s a common green gravel folks mistake, aka running >>>> tyre pressures 10 psi over what they need and pinging about the place! >>>>
I think the most practical way of detecting a difference would be to use >>>>> a road with a consistent, slight downward slope. Coast down it
repeatedly with different air pressure and note speeds. Try for days >>>>> with no wind and consistent temperatures if possible.
And keep in mind that if the difference is difficult to detect that way, >>>>> it probably doesn't matter for most riding.
Roger Merriman
I actually like a bit more pressure in the tires than some. I hate the
feeling of the tire bottoming out or I go over bump and can feel the
tire give a lot. It makes me uneasy and I always get the feeling I might >>> be having a flat. When I go in drive way ending ride I have small drive
way bump and that tells me things. If the tires is flexing more than I
like I know it i air time.
I am running 69 lbs. in the Gatorskins 32 mm and the bike is WAY too
stiff. There's no way that this is going to bottom out or feel flabby at
those pressures. I will experiment with it but my suspicions is that it
will take 50 to 55 to feel correct. The problem is that it takes a bike
built especially to mount tires that wide. The disc bike with Hunt wheels just makes it.
My Time Ulteam looks like it would be too tight vertically to the brake
mount and the front fork.
Perhaps they would work on the BMC SCO 01 but I have to sell off a
couple of bikes to get down to the level. At the Moment the Ridley
Helium Di2 is taking priority.
Speaking of which - I missed whether Andrew answered me or not - Di2 11
speed levers have space for 3 Di2 cables per lever. It I were to mounf
cables serially would they work or does on lever interfere with the
lines? I would think not since Di2 identifies components with a
component number. If this doesn't work I do have a 4 way interconnect
but that makes the wires longer..
How much you weight has most to do with this and the the weight of the
bike. I weigh 170 pounds and my bike about 20.
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 6/12/2025 1:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 12:38 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
People seem to think that fast tires have low rolling resistance >>>>>>> but thatWhose tests? Drum tests particularly one with smaller drums will give a >>>>>> less realistic model of tarmac.
is hardly the case In the rolling resistance tests 25 mm tires have >>>>>>> lower
rolling resistance than 28's. And high pressure 23 mm lower still, >>>>>>> Remember that they claim that their setup has bumps etc to correct >>>>>>> rolling resistace for road conditions but that can't be the case. >>>>>>>
Vittoria Corsa is rated as lowest rolling resistance but in myBoth are designed to be fast road tyres, so you’d expect fairly close >>>>>> performance between brands. And road is much more homogeneous than >>>>>> gravel
experience
Michelin Pro5's are faster. Also IÂ find that setting pressure
below the
Silca pressure calculator increases the speed if not taken to
extremes.
or MTB
I find TPU innertubes to be unbelievably expensive and flat very >>>>>>> easily.In my relatively short experience of TPU tubes, is that they offer same >>>>>> amount of puncture resistance aka zero if it gets through the tyre, >>>>>> it’s
I see no advantage to them. While Latex tubes do increase speed, they >>>>>>> have to be pumped up every ride. In cold weather I can ride a butyl >>>>>>> tube
for a week before pumping them up again.
game over.
They do feel noticeably nicer vs Butyl tubes, are yes more expensive >>>>>> and
more tedious to fix, though that would depend on how many punctures >>>>>> someone
gets I used to get 1 every year or less. So it’s a £10 over a year at >>>>>> worst.
Tubeless is nasty to work with. The tires are more expensive and >>>>>>> harder to mount.
Absolutely can be, the ongoing maintenance is why I run it on one
bike and
not all of them. While I’m a fan it’s not the best option 100% of >>>>>> the time.
As with life need to fact check and be sure one understands let
The informaion we are being fed is lacking accuracy and incomplete >>>>>>> leaving you to have to experiment yourself.
alone that
for example tyre choices for example for my gravel bike each ride I do >>>>>> would favour different tyre choices.
I’m fairly sure that for my uses bigger tyres into XC MTB sizes would >>>>>> perform better for me most of the time.
Roger Merriman
I ride faster on my 25mm road bike Conti GP5000
s on the rim brake Habanero. I ride slower on the 32MM Conti's I have >>>>> on the disc brake Habby. I have no stats or ways to measure except
how fast I ride on any given ride. Lately the fatter 32 mms seem to
me to be a bit heavy and roll with more balancing require by me. I
have no idea why.
It may have something to do with the road surface. One reason 32s can
be faster than 25s is if the road surface is on the rough side. If
you've been riding on new pavement lately, the 32's don't offer much
advantage.
Of course inflation pressures have a lot to do with it. You might want >>>> to experiment with the pressures, and don't forget to consider that
your gauge may be off too. The pump I keep in my car pump somehow
become offset by 20 PSI with no warning. I should just toss it because >>>> I have three more floor pumps that are all good, I just have a real
hard time throwing away usable cycling parts and equipment (Much to my >>>> wife's chagrin).
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat underinflated. Put
another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
According to the charts I should run about 62 in rear and 58 in front. I >>> do run about this amount a bit more at the start. These I don't need to
pump ever day before a ride they loose PSI slower of course.
On smoother roads you may feel better performance running a bit higher
pressure.
Indeed pressure guides are that just a guide plus how a tyre feels some
folks don’t like any flex in the tyre and so on.
All things considered that’s a good outcome, even if it’s a frustrating one!
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer is
fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho "Everything is
where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, you just crushed it).
I passed the concussion protocol three days after the hit (failed it a
few hours after the hit). I have to rehab the MCL to a certain level
before they'll schedule surgery for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9
months of rehab. They're thinking early august time frame for the
surgery....maybe. IOW I won't be riding outside until next march at the
earliest :( .
Roger Merriman
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer is
fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho "Everything
is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, you just crushed
it). I passed the concussion protocol three days after the hit (failed
it a few hours after the hit). I have to rehab the MCL to a certain
level before they'll schedule surgery for the ACL - Then it's another
6-9 months of rehab. They're thinking early august time frame for the
surgery....maybe. IOW I won't be riding outside until next march at
the earliest :( .
Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
On 6/12/2025 2:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat underinflated. Put
another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
Experimenting with tire pressure sounds interesting, and would be a lot easier than comparing different sizes and brands of tires.
But I'm skeptical of anyone's ability to "feel" the probably minor differences that would result from five or ten psi upward or downward.
I think the most practical way of detecting a difference would be to use
a road with a consistent, slight downward slope. Coast down it
repeatedly with different air pressure and note speeds. Try for days
with no wind and consistent temperatures if possible.
And keep in mind that if the difference is difficult to detect that way,
it probably doesn't matter for most riding.
On 6/12/2025 4:42 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 6/12/2025 1:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 12:38 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
People seem to think that fast tires have low rolling resistance >>>>>>>> but thatWhose tests? Drum tests particularly one with smaller drums will give a >>>>>>> less realistic model of tarmac.
is hardly the case In the rolling resistance tests 25 mm tires have >>>>>>>> lower
rolling resistance than 28's. And high pressure 23 mm lower still, >>>>>>>> Remember that they claim that their setup has bumps etc to correct >>>>>>>> rolling resistace for road conditions but that can't be the case. >>>>>>>>
Vittoria Corsa is rated as lowest rolling resistance but in my >>>>>>>> experienceBoth are designed to be fast road tyres, so you’d expect fairly close >>>>>>> performance between brands. And road is much more homogeneous than >>>>>>> gravel
Michelin Pro5's are faster. Also I find that setting pressure >>>>>>>> below the
Silca pressure calculator increases the speed if not taken to
extremes.
or MTB
I find TPU innertubes to be unbelievably expensive and flat very >>>>>>>> easily.In my relatively short experience of TPU tubes, is that they offer same >>>>>>> amount of puncture resistance aka zero if it gets through the tyre, >>>>>>> it’s
I see no advantage to them. While Latex tubes do increase speed, they >>>>>>>> have to be pumped up every ride. In cold weather I can ride a butyl >>>>>>>> tube
for a week before pumping them up again.
game over.
They do feel noticeably nicer vs Butyl tubes, are yes more expensive >>>>>>> and
more tedious to fix, though that would depend on how many punctures >>>>>>> someone
gets I used to get 1 every year or less. So it’s a £10 over a year at >>>>>>> worst.
Tubeless is nasty to work with. The tires are more expensive and >>>>>>>> harder to mount.
Absolutely can be, the ongoing maintenance is why I run it on one >>>>>>> bike and
not all of them. While I’m a fan it’s not the best option 100% of >>>>>>> the time.
As with life need to fact check and be sure one understands let
The informaion we are being fed is lacking accuracy and incomplete >>>>>>>> leaving you to have to experiment yourself.
alone that
for example tyre choices for example for my gravel bike each ride I do >>>>>>> would favour different tyre choices.
I’m fairly sure that for my uses bigger tyres into XC MTB sizes would >>>>>>> perform better for me most of the time.
Roger Merriman
I ride faster on my 25mm road bike Conti GP5000
s on the rim brake Habanero. I ride slower on the 32MM Conti's I have >>>>>> on the disc brake Habby. I have no stats or ways to measure except >>>>>> how fast I ride on any given ride. Lately the fatter 32 mms seem to >>>>>> me to be a bit heavy and roll with more balancing require by me. I >>>>>> have no idea why.
It may have something to do with the road surface. One reason 32s can >>>>> be faster than 25s is if the road surface is on the rough side. If
you've been riding on new pavement lately, the 32's don't offer much >>>>> advantage.
Of course inflation pressures have a lot to do with it. You might want >>>>> to experiment with the pressures, and don't forget to consider that
your gauge may be off too. The pump I keep in my car pump somehow
become offset by 20 PSI with no warning. I should just toss it because >>>>> I have three more floor pumps that are all good, I just have a real
hard time throwing away usable cycling parts and equipment (Much to my >>>>> wife's chagrin).
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat underinflated. Put
another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
According to the charts I should run about 62 in rear and 58 in front. I >>>> do run about this amount a bit more at the start. These I don't need to >>>> pump ever day before a ride they loose PSI slower of course.
On smoother roads you may feel better performance running a bit higher
pressure.
Indeed pressure guides are that just a guide plus how a tyre feels some
folks don’t like any flex in the tyre and so on.
All things considered that’s a good outcome, even if it’s a frustrating
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer is
fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho "Everything is
where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, you just crushed it).
I passed the concussion protocol three days after the hit (failed it a
few hours after the hit). I have to rehab the MCL to a certain level
before they'll schedule surgery for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9
months of rehab. They're thinking early august time frame for the
surgery....maybe. IOW I won't be riding outside until next march at the
earliest :( .
one!
Yup, the speed limit on that road is 50 MPH. If I had been bounced into
the oncoming lane they would have been scraping me up with a spatula.
Roger Merriman
On 6/13/2025 12:33 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
I weigh 170 pounds and my bike about 20.
Which means if you ever get an urge to get a lighter bike, each pound reduction will give only about 1/2% benefit - and only when riding uphill!
Back when we did a 3 week bike tour of Ireland, I was curious whetherI’m 200 pounds or more don’t really do pounds in uk for human sized
weights
generally either stones and pounds or KG.
all the riding was causing me to lose weight. At some B&B I stepped on a scale, prepared to convert kg to pounds if necessary.
??? What the heck? It said something like 12 or 13! What are those?
It took me a second to remember about Stones, but I didn't remember
whether a stone is 12, 13 or 14 pounds. I still tend to forget.
Ya gotta love British (and Irish) "organic" units. Stones. Feet. Rods. Hogsheads, etc.
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer
is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho "Everything
is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, you just
crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days after the
hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to rehab the MCL
to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery for the ACL -
Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're thinking early august
time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I won't be riding outside
until next march at the earliest :( .
Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
I'm curious about what happened.
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the >>>>>> shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho
"Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken,
you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days
after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to
rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery
for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're
thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I
won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( .
Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate
from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin
shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are
rare. Hope you heal quickly.
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the >>>>>>> shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho
"Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to
rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're
thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( .
Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate
from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin
shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are
rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
At any rate, those unavoidable crashes on bikes on streets and roads
are primary reason I don't ride there much any more.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the >>>>>>>> shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho
"Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're
thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( .
Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate
from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin
shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are
rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
In the US you’re seem to be the outlier regarding pedestrians deaths, ie >other countries the trend to down.
It looks to be if any even more hostile for pedestrians in the US with wide >junctions/roads and right turning traffic, and essentially missing
At any rate, those unavoidable crashes on bikes on streets and roads
are primary reason I don't ride there much any more.
pavement, aka infrastructure. Vs bikes which are faster and all that.
Hence I guess the walking and cycling rates, both usage and injuries. Which >are trending down/up in direct opposite to UK/Europe etc.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On 14 Jun 2025 13:30:03 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the >>>>>>>>> shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho
"Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate >>>>> from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin
shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are >>>> rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
In the US youÂ’re seem to be the outlier regarding pedestrians deaths, ie
other countries the trend to down.
It looks to be if any even more hostile for pedestrians in the US with wide >> junctions/roads and right turning traffic, and essentially missing
At any rate, those unavoidable crashes on bikes on streets and roads
are primary reason I don't ride there much any more.
pavement, aka infrastructure. Vs bikes which are faster and all that.
Hence I guess the walking and cycling rates, both usage and injuries. Which >> are trending down/up in direct opposite to UK/Europe etc.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I've been involved in accidents while driving, and some while
bicycling, but I've never had even had a "close call" while walking. Krygowski's comment about walking crashes" was because of his need to rationalize Juniors accident. Truth is that walking "crashes" are most
likly to occur when the walker is walking where the law says he
shouldn't be walking.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/14/2025 9:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:because it doesn't jibe with his world view. ("Reality is biased against
On 14 Jun 2025 13:30:03 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>>>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the >>>>>>>>>>> shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho >>>>>>>>>>> "Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>>
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate >>>>>>> from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin >>>>>>> shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are >>>>>> rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
In the US you?re seem to be the outlier regarding pedestrians deaths, ie >>>> other countries the trend to down.
It looks to be if any even more hostile for pedestrians in the US with wide
At any rate, those unavoidable crashes on bikes on streets and roads >>>>> are primary reason I don't ride there much any more.
junctions/roads and right turning traffic, and essentially missing
pavement, aka infrastructure. Vs bikes which are faster and all that.
Hence I guess the walking and cycling rates, both usage and injuries. Which
are trending down/up in direct opposite to UK/Europe etc.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I've been involved in accidents while driving, and some while
bicycling, but I've never had even had a "close call" while walking.
Krygowski's comment about walking crashes" was because of his need to
rationalize Juniors accident. Truth is that walking "crashes" are most
likly to occur when the walker is walking where the law says he
shouldn't be walking.
Which is absolutely a car centric political move, aka car companies
lobbying to have jaywalking law passed.
That and other laws/design choices make walking a much less useable for
utility, I’ve walked to get a few groceries then sat in cafe before
returning home. All very easy, much easier than car or bike.
I’d assume that pedestrian deaths are kinda binary ie one is fine or not. >The timid Floridian is still paranoid about bicycling, and apparently >ignorant of relevant data - or more likely, rejecting relevant data
the right wing.")
There are roughly 1000 bike fatalities per year in the U.S. vs. about
7000 pedestrian fatalities.
Most sources say cycling is safer per mile
traveled than pedestrian travel.
On 6/14/2025 9:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:The timid Floridian is still paranoid about bicycling, and apparently ignorant of relevant data - or more likely, rejecting relevant data
On 14 Jun 2025 13:30:03 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>>>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the >>>>>>>>>>> shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho >>>>>>>>>>> "Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>>
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate >>>>>>> from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin >>>>>>> shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are >>>>>> rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
In the US youÂ’re seem to be the outlier regarding pedestrians deaths, ie >>>> other countries the trend to down.
It looks to be if any even more hostile for pedestrians in the US with wide
At any rate, those unavoidable crashes on bikes on streets and roads >>>>> are primary reason I don't ride there much any more.
junctions/roads and right turning traffic, and essentially missing
pavement, aka infrastructure. Vs bikes which are faster and all that.
Hence I guess the walking and cycling rates, both usage and injuries. Which
are trending down/up in direct opposite to UK/Europe etc.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I've been involved in accidents while driving, and some while
bicycling, but I've never had even had a "close call" while walking.
Krygowski's comment about walking crashes" was because of his need to
rationalize Juniors accident. Truth is that walking "crashes" are most
likly to occur when the walker is walking where the law says he
shouldn't be walking.
Which is absolutely a car centric political move, aka car companies
lobbying to have jaywalking law passed.
That and other laws/design choices make walking a much less useable for
utility, I’ve walked to get a few groceries then sat in cafe before
returning home. All very easy, much easier than car or bike.
I’d assume that pedestrian deaths are kinda binary ie one is fine or not.
because it doesn't jibe with his world view. ("Reality is biased against
the right wing.")
There are roughly 1000 bike fatalities per year in the U.S. vs. about
7000 pedestrian fatalities. Most sources say cycling is safer per mile traveled than pedestrian travel.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 9:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:ignorant of relevant data - or more likely, rejecting relevant data
On 14 Jun 2025 13:30:03 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>>>>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho >>>>>>>>>>>> "Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>>>
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate >>>>>>>> from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin >>>>>>>> shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are >>>>>>> rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
In the US you?re seem to be the outlier regarding pedestrians deaths, ie >>>>> other countries the trend to down.
It looks to be if any even more hostile for pedestrians in the US with wide
At any rate, those unavoidable crashes on bikes on streets and roads >>>>>> are primary reason I don't ride there much any more.
junctions/roads and right turning traffic, and essentially missing
pavement, aka infrastructure. Vs bikes which are faster and all that. >>>>>
Hence I guess the walking and cycling rates, both usage and injuries. Which
are trending down/up in direct opposite to UK/Europe etc.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I've been involved in accidents while driving, and some while
bicycling, but I've never had even had a "close call" while walking.
Krygowski's comment about walking crashes" was because of his need to
rationalize Juniors accident. Truth is that walking "crashes" are most >>>> likly to occur when the walker is walking where the law says he
shouldn't be walking.
Which is absolutely a car centric political move, aka car companies
lobbying to have jaywalking law passed.
That and other laws/design choices make walking a much less useable for
utility, I’ve walked to get a few groceries then sat in cafe before
returning home. All very easy, much easier than car or bike.
I’d assume that pedestrian deaths are kinda binary ie one is fine or not. >> The timid Floridian is still paranoid about bicycling, and apparently
because it doesn't jibe with his world view. ("Reality is biased against
the right wing.")
There are roughly 1000 bike fatalities per year in the U.S. vs. about
7000 pedestrian fatalities. Most sources say cycling is safer per mile
traveled than pedestrian travel.
Indeed though considering how poorly provided for pedestrians seem to be in >the US and that the rate is rising compared to other 1st world etc places, >that’s a relatively low bar really!
Would seem a slight increase in rate. Which is broadly what one would
expect I guess.
Absolutely it’s clearly not a high risk method of travel, though as ever
risk and how comfortable it may feel are two different things.
Roger Merriman
On 14 Jun 2025 15:46:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 9:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:ignorant of relevant data - or more likely, rejecting relevant data
On 14 Jun 2025 13:30:03 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I'm curious about what happened.
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks. >>>>>>>>>>
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer
is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>>>>
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate >>>>>>>>> from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin >>>>>>>>> shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are >>>>>>>> rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
In the US you?re seem to be the outlier regarding pedestrians deaths, ie >>>>>> other countries the trend to down.
It looks to be if any even more hostile for pedestrians in the US with wide
At any rate, those unavoidable crashes on bikes on streets and roads >>>>>>> are primary reason I don't ride there much any more.
junctions/roads and right turning traffic, and essentially missing >>>>>> pavement, aka infrastructure. Vs bikes which are faster and all that. >>>>>>
Hence I guess the walking and cycling rates, both usage and injuries. Which
are trending down/up in direct opposite to UK/Europe etc.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I've been involved in accidents while driving, and some while
bicycling, but I've never had even had a "close call" while walking. >>>>> Krygowski's comment about walking crashes" was because of his need to >>>>> rationalize Juniors accident. Truth is that walking "crashes" are most >>>>> likly to occur when the walker is walking where the law says he
shouldn't be walking.
Which is absolutely a car centric political move, aka car companies
lobbying to have jaywalking law passed.
That and other laws/design choices make walking a much less useable for >>>> utility, IÂ’ve walked to get a few groceries then sat in cafe before
returning home. All very easy, much easier than car or bike.
IÂ’d assume that pedestrian deaths are kinda binary ie one is fine or not. >>> The timid Floridian is still paranoid about bicycling, and apparently
because it doesn't jibe with his world view. ("Reality is biased against >>> the right wing.")
There are roughly 1000 bike fatalities per year in the U.S. vs. about
7000 pedestrian fatalities. Most sources say cycling is safer per mile
traveled than pedestrian travel.
Indeed though considering how poorly provided for pedestrians seem to be in >> the US and that the rate is rising compared to other 1st world etc places, >> thatÂ’s a relatively low bar really!
Would seem a slight increase in rate. Which is broadly what one would
expect I guess.
Absolutely itÂ’s clearly not a high risk method of travel, though as ever
risk and how comfortable it may feel are two different things.
Roger Merriman
As I said, most pedestrian accidents happen where the pedistrian is
not supposed to be, as dictated by law. Not so with bicycle accidents.
Obey the law, reduce the risk.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 15:46:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:And if your pedestrian crossing has right turning traffic etc, ie will have >cars crossing as you are despite the sigh for you to go as US is very much >about car design.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 9:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:ignorant of relevant data - or more likely, rejecting relevant data
On 14 Jun 2025 13:30:03 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I'm curious about what happened.
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks. >>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer
is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days
after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>>>>>
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate >>>>>>>>>> from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin >>>>>>>>>> shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just >>>>>>>>> unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are
rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
In the US you?re seem to be the outlier regarding pedestrians deaths, ie
other countries the trend to down.
It looks to be if any even more hostile for pedestrians in the US with wide
At any rate, those unavoidable crashes on bikes on streets and roads >>>>>>>> are primary reason I don't ride there much any more.
junctions/roads and right turning traffic, and essentially missing >>>>>>> pavement, aka infrastructure. Vs bikes which are faster and all that. >>>>>>>
Hence I guess the walking and cycling rates, both usage and injuries. Which
are trending down/up in direct opposite to UK/Europe etc.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I've been involved in accidents while driving, and some while
bicycling, but I've never had even had a "close call" while walking. >>>>>> Krygowski's comment about walking crashes" was because of his need to >>>>>> rationalize Juniors accident. Truth is that walking "crashes" are most >>>>>> likly to occur when the walker is walking where the law says he
shouldn't be walking.
Which is absolutely a car centric political move, aka car companies
lobbying to have jaywalking law passed.
That and other laws/design choices make walking a much less useable for >>>>> utility, I?ve walked to get a few groceries then sat in cafe before
returning home. All very easy, much easier than car or bike.
I?d assume that pedestrian deaths are kinda binary ie one is fine or not. >>>> The timid Floridian is still paranoid about bicycling, and apparently
because it doesn't jibe with his world view. ("Reality is biased against >>>> the right wing.")
There are roughly 1000 bike fatalities per year in the U.S. vs. about
7000 pedestrian fatalities. Most sources say cycling is safer per mile >>>> traveled than pedestrian travel.
Indeed though considering how poorly provided for pedestrians seem to be in >>> the US and that the rate is rising compared to other 1st world etc places, >>> that?s a relatively low bar really!
Would seem a slight increase in rate. Which is broadly what one would
expect I guess.
Absolutely it?s clearly not a high risk method of travel, though as ever >>> risk and how comfortable it may feel are two different things.
Roger Merriman
As I said, most pedestrian accidents happen where the pedistrian is
not supposed to be, as dictated by law. Not so with bicycle accidents.
Obey the law, reduce the risk.
Go for a walk about your neighbourhood and look really look at the
pavements and crossings.
Other places tend not to have jaywalking laws and have big bustling city’s >and big roads but have lower fatalities rate and one that is getting lower
US is the outlier in that it’s increasing.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On 6/14/2025 12:00 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:53:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 9:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:ignorant of relevant data - or more likely, rejecting relevant data
On 14 Jun 2025 13:30:03 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I'm curious about what happened.
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks. >>>>>>>>>>
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer
is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>>>>
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate >>>>>>>>> from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin >>>>>>>>> shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are >>>>>>>> rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
In the US you?re seem to be the outlier regarding pedestrians deaths, ie >>>>>> other countries the trend to down.
It looks to be if any even more hostile for pedestrians in the US with wide
At any rate, those unavoidable crashes on bikes on streets and roads >>>>>>> are primary reason I don't ride there much any more.
junctions/roads and right turning traffic, and essentially missing >>>>>> pavement, aka infrastructure. Vs bikes which are faster and all that. >>>>>>
Hence I guess the walking and cycling rates, both usage and injuries. Which
are trending down/up in direct opposite to UK/Europe etc.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I've been involved in accidents while driving, and some while
bicycling, but I've never had even had a "close call" while walking. >>>>> Krygowski's comment about walking crashes" was because of his need to >>>>> rationalize Juniors accident. Truth is that walking "crashes" are most >>>>> likly to occur when the walker is walking where the law says he
shouldn't be walking.
Which is absolutely a car centric political move, aka car companies
lobbying to have jaywalking law passed.
That and other laws/design choices make walking a much less useable for >>>> utility, I’ve walked to get a few groceries then sat in cafe before
returning home. All very easy, much easier than car or bike.
I’d assume that pedestrian deaths are kinda binary ie one is fine or not. >>> The timid Floridian is still paranoid about bicycling, and apparently
because it doesn't jibe with his world view. ("Reality is biased against >>> the right wing.")
Some people are centent to accept the conclusions put forth by the
people who collected the data who were beholding to the people who
funded the collection. I'm not.
Of course not. You're not content to accept any data that belies what
you believe. And what you believe comes almost exclusively from your
right wing propaganda sources.
There are roughly 1000 bike fatalities per year in the U.S. vs. about
7000 pedestrian fatalities.
Of course there's many, many more pedestrians than bicyclists,
probably lots more than seven times as many.
Does everybody note this guy's inability to process the terms "Per mile >traveled"?
Most sources say cycling is safer per mile
traveled than pedestrian travel.
Safer by what standards?
Fatalities per mile traveled. How is that difficult to understand?
Most pedestrian "accidents" happen at crosswalks in big cities, and a
high percentage of bicyclist accidents happen on city streets, too.
Of course. The data I'm referring to regards pedestrian travel. If you
like, we can include those walking deaths that happen in and around the
home, but I'm sure you're not going to like the effect it has on your >position.
... which, of course, would mean you would totally reject the validity
of that data.
"Over half of the deaths occurring in the home are poisonings, totaling >77,000 deaths in 2023. The second leading cause was falls, resulting in >32,000 deaths, or about a quarter of all home deaths. No other cause >accounted for more than 3% of the home deaths."
From
<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/deaths-in-the-home/introduction/>
Damn, does this guy never look up _any_ data?
On 14 Jun 2025 16:37:57 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 15:46:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:And if your pedestrian crossing has right turning traffic etc, ie will have >> cars crossing as you are despite the sigh for you to go as US is very much >> about car design.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 9:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:The timid Floridian is still paranoid about bicycling, and apparently >>>>> ignorant of relevant data - or more likely, rejecting relevant data
On 14 Jun 2025 13:30:03 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I'm curious about what happened.
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer
is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken,
you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days
after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery
for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I
won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate
from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin >>>>>>>>>>> shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just >>>>>>>>>> unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are
rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
In the US you?re seem to be the outlier regarding pedestrians deaths, ie
other countries the trend to down.
It looks to be if any even more hostile for pedestrians in the US with wide
At any rate, those unavoidable crashes on bikes on streets and roads >>>>>>>>> are primary reason I don't ride there much any more.
junctions/roads and right turning traffic, and essentially missing >>>>>>>> pavement, aka infrastructure. Vs bikes which are faster and all that. >>>>>>>>
Hence I guess the walking and cycling rates, both usage and injuries. Which
are trending down/up in direct opposite to UK/Europe etc.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I've been involved in accidents while driving, and some while
bicycling, but I've never had even had a "close call" while walking. >>>>>>> Krygowski's comment about walking crashes" was because of his need to >>>>>>> rationalize Juniors accident. Truth is that walking "crashes" are most >>>>>>> likly to occur when the walker is walking where the law says he
shouldn't be walking.
Which is absolutely a car centric political move, aka car companies >>>>>> lobbying to have jaywalking law passed.
That and other laws/design choices make walking a much less useable for >>>>>> utility, I?ve walked to get a few groceries then sat in cafe before >>>>>> returning home. All very easy, much easier than car or bike.
I?d assume that pedestrian deaths are kinda binary ie one is fine or not.
because it doesn't jibe with his world view. ("Reality is biased against >>>>> the right wing.")
There are roughly 1000 bike fatalities per year in the U.S. vs. about >>>>> 7000 pedestrian fatalities. Most sources say cycling is safer per mile >>>>> traveled than pedestrian travel.
Indeed though considering how poorly provided for pedestrians seem to be in
the US and that the rate is rising compared to other 1st world etc places, >>>> that?s a relatively low bar really!
Would seem a slight increase in rate. Which is broadly what one would
expect I guess.
Absolutely it?s clearly not a high risk method of travel, though as ever >>>> risk and how comfortable it may feel are two different things.
Roger Merriman
As I said, most pedestrian accidents happen where the pedistrian is
not supposed to be, as dictated by law. Not so with bicycle accidents.
Obey the law, reduce the risk.
Go for a walk about your neighbourhood and look really look at the
pavements and crossings.
Other places tend not to have jaywalking laws and have big bustling city’s >> and big roads but have lower fatalities rate and one that is getting lower >> US is the outlier in that it’s increasing.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Like I said elsewhere, location and circumstance are relevant. Just
looking at total numbers and total miles traveled produces irrelevant conclusions, that "some ignorant people" accept because it fits their
agenda.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/14/2025 12:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 16:37:57 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 15:46:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:And if your pedestrian crossing has right turning traffic etc, ie will have >>> cars crossing as you are despite the sigh for you to go as US is very much >>> about car design.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 9:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:The timid Floridian is still paranoid about bicycling, and apparently >>>>>> ignorant of relevant data - or more likely, rejecting relevant data >>>>>> because it doesn't jibe with his world view. ("Reality is biased against >>>>>> the right wing.")
On 14 Jun 2025 13:30:03 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I'm curious about what happened.
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer
is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken,
you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days
after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery
for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I
won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate
from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin
shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just >>>>>>>>>>> unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are
rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
In the US you?re seem to be the outlier regarding pedestrians deaths, ie
other countries the trend to down.
It looks to be if any even more hostile for pedestrians in the US with wide
At any rate, those unavoidable crashes on bikes on streets and roads >>>>>>>>>> are primary reason I don't ride there much any more.
junctions/roads and right turning traffic, and essentially missing >>>>>>>>> pavement, aka infrastructure. Vs bikes which are faster and all that. >>>>>>>>>
Hence I guess the walking and cycling rates, both usage and injuries. Which
are trending down/up in direct opposite to UK/Europe etc.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I've been involved in accidents while driving, and some while
bicycling, but I've never had even had a "close call" while walking. >>>>>>>> Krygowski's comment about walking crashes" was because of his need to >>>>>>>> rationalize Juniors accident. Truth is that walking "crashes" are most >>>>>>>> likly to occur when the walker is walking where the law says he >>>>>>>> shouldn't be walking.
Which is absolutely a car centric political move, aka car companies >>>>>>> lobbying to have jaywalking law passed.
That and other laws/design choices make walking a much less useable for >>>>>>> utility, I?ve walked to get a few groceries then sat in cafe before >>>>>>> returning home. All very easy, much easier than car or bike.
I?d assume that pedestrian deaths are kinda binary ie one is fine or not.
There are roughly 1000 bike fatalities per year in the U.S. vs. about >>>>>> 7000 pedestrian fatalities. Most sources say cycling is safer per mile >>>>>> traveled than pedestrian travel.
Indeed though considering how poorly provided for pedestrians seem to be in
the US and that the rate is rising compared to other 1st world etc places,
that?s a relatively low bar really!
Would seem a slight increase in rate. Which is broadly what one would >>>>> expect I guess.
Absolutely it?s clearly not a high risk method of travel, though as ever >>>>> risk and how comfortable it may feel are two different things.
Roger Merriman
As I said, most pedestrian accidents happen where the pedistrian is
not supposed to be, as dictated by law. Not so with bicycle accidents. >>>>
Obey the law, reduce the risk.
Go for a walk about your neighbourhood and look really look at the
pavements and crossings.
Other places tend not to have jaywalking laws and have big bustling city’s >>> and big roads but have lower fatalities rate and one that is getting lower >>> US is the outlier in that it’s increasing.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Like I said elsewhere, location and circumstance are relevant. Just
looking at total numbers and total miles traveled produces irrelevant
conclusions, that "some ignorant people" accept because it fits their
agenda.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Without engaging this argument myself (meh) people do
compare both per mile and per hour, and the population sizes
are mostly conjecture anyway. (Who's a cyclist? Who's a
pedestrian?) so any conclusion at all will be challenged.
On 6/14/2025 12:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 16:37:57 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 15:46:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:And if your pedestrian crossing has right turning traffic etc, ie will have >>> cars crossing as you are despite the sigh for you to go as US is very much >>> about car design.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 9:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:The timid Floridian is still paranoid about bicycling, and apparently >>>>>> ignorant of relevant data - or more likely, rejecting relevant data >>>>>> because it doesn't jibe with his world view. ("Reality is biased against >>>>>> the right wing.")
On 14 Jun 2025 13:30:03 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I'm curious about what happened.
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer
is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken,
you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days
after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery
for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I
won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate
from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin
shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just >>>>>>>>>>> unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are
rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
In the US you?re seem to be the outlier regarding pedestrians deaths, ie
other countries the trend to down.
It looks to be if any even more hostile for pedestrians in the US with wide
At any rate, those unavoidable crashes on bikes on streets and roads >>>>>>>>>> are primary reason I don't ride there much any more.
junctions/roads and right turning traffic, and essentially missing >>>>>>>>> pavement, aka infrastructure. Vs bikes which are faster and all that. >>>>>>>>>
Hence I guess the walking and cycling rates, both usage and injuries. Which
are trending down/up in direct opposite to UK/Europe etc.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I've been involved in accidents while driving, and some while
bicycling, but I've never had even had a "close call" while walking. >>>>>>>> Krygowski's comment about walking crashes" was because of his need to >>>>>>>> rationalize Juniors accident. Truth is that walking "crashes" are most >>>>>>>> likly to occur when the walker is walking where the law says he >>>>>>>> shouldn't be walking.
Which is absolutely a car centric political move, aka car companies >>>>>>> lobbying to have jaywalking law passed.
That and other laws/design choices make walking a much less useable for >>>>>>> utility, I?ve walked to get a few groceries then sat in cafe before >>>>>>> returning home. All very easy, much easier than car or bike.
I?d assume that pedestrian deaths are kinda binary ie one is fine or not.
There are roughly 1000 bike fatalities per year in the U.S. vs. about >>>>>> 7000 pedestrian fatalities. Most sources say cycling is safer per mile >>>>>> traveled than pedestrian travel.
Indeed though considering how poorly provided for pedestrians seem to be in
the US and that the rate is rising compared to other 1st world etc places,
that?s a relatively low bar really!
Would seem a slight increase in rate. Which is broadly what one would >>>>> expect I guess.
Absolutely it?s clearly not a high risk method of travel, though as ever >>>>> risk and how comfortable it may feel are two different things.
Roger Merriman
As I said, most pedestrian accidents happen where the pedistrian is
not supposed to be, as dictated by law. Not so with bicycle accidents. >>>>
Obey the law, reduce the risk.
Go for a walk about your neighbourhood and look really look at the
pavements and crossings.
Other places tend not to have jaywalking laws and have big bustling city’s
and big roads but have lower fatalities rate and one that is getting lower >>> US is the outlier in that it’s increasing.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Like I said elsewhere, location and circumstance are relevant. Just
looking at total numbers and total miles traveled produces irrelevant
conclusions, that "some ignorant people" accept because it fits their
agenda.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Without engaging this argument myself (meh) people do
compare both per mile and per hour, and the population sizes
are mostly conjecture anyway. (Who's a cyclist? Who's a
pedestrian?) so any conclusion at all will be challenged.
On 6/13/2025 12:33 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
I weigh 170 pounds and my bike about 20.
Which means if you ever get an urge to get a lighter bike, each pound reduction will give only about 1/2% benefit - and only when riding
uphill!
Back when we did a 3 week bike tour of Ireland, I was curious whetherI’m 200 pounds or more don’t really do pounds in uk for human sized weights
generally either stones and pounds or KG.
all the riding was causing me to lose weight. At some B&B I stepped on
a scale, prepared to convert kg to pounds if necessary.
??? What the heck? It said something like 12 or 13! What are those?
It took me a second to remember about Stones, but I didn't remember
whether a stone is 12, 13 or 14 pounds. I still tend to forget.
Ya gotta love British (and Irish) "organic"
units. Stones. Feet. Rods. Hogsheads, etc.
On 6/16/2025 1:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
... I didn't remember
whether a stone is 12, 13 or 14 pounds. I still tend to forget.
Just remember the "98 pound weakling" trope. Seven stone exactly, 49*2.
My brain's already storing facts like 12 inches per foot, 36 inches per
yard, 5280 feet in a mile, 88 ft/s = 60 mph, 231 cubic inches per
gallon, 43560 square feet per acre etc. ... all done by memory.
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used to
have an actual kilogram?)
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/16/2025 1:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
... I didn't remember
whether a stone is 12, 13 or 14 pounds. I still tend to forget.
Just remember the "98 pound weakling" trope. Seven stone exactly, 49*2.
My brain's already storing facts like 12 inches per foot, 36 inches per
yard, 5280 feet in a mile, 88 ft/s = 60 mph, 231 cubic inches per
gallon, 43560 square feet per acre etc. ... all done by memory.
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used to
have an actual kilogram?)
It’s not used for technical purposes so probably not! And is a much older system, so the idea of having the stone that all others must conform to is unlikely to be a thing.
Roger Merriman
On 6/17/2025 4:53 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
It’s not used for technical purposes so probably not! And is a much older
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used to
have an actual kilogram?)
system, so the idea of having the stone that all others must conform to is >> unlikely to be a thing.
Pity! It would be fun to go to a museum and see THE stone! ;-)
On 6/13/2025 11:01 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 12:33 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Mark J cleary <mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:
I weigh 170 pounds and my bike about 20.
Which means if you ever get an urge to get a lighter bike, each pound reduction will give only about 1/2% benefit - and only when riding uphill!
Back when we did a 3 week bike tour of Ireland, I was curious whetherI?m 200 pounds or more don?t really do pounds in uk for human sized
weights
generally either stones and pounds or KG.
all the riding was causing me to lose weight. At some B&B I stepped on a scale, prepared to convert kg to pounds if necessary.
??? What the heck? It said something like 12 or 13! What are those?
It took me a second to remember about Stones, but I didn't remember
whether a stone is 12, 13 or 14 pounds. I still tend to forget.
Ya gotta love British (and Irish) "organic" units. Stones. Feet. Rods. Hogsheads, etc.
The first time I heard that term was when I had joined my first bike
club in the early 80s. There was a well-seasoned brit in the club who
was claimed to be an olympic track racer in the 1960s. When I was
introduced to him the guy who invited me said (about me) 'watch out for
this kid in the hills'. He replied "of course!, he's not but ten stone
_with_ the bike" (which wasn't too far from the truth back then).
On 6/16/2025 1:40 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
... I didn't rememberJust remember the "98 pound weakling" trope. Seven stone exactly,
whether a stone is 12, 13 or 14 pounds. I still tend to forget.
49*2.
My brain's already storing facts like 12 inches per foot, 36 inches
per yard, 5280 feet in a mile, 88 ft/s = 60 mph, 231 cubic inches per
gallon, 43560 square feet per acre etc. ... all done by memory.
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used to
have an actual kilogram?)
On 6/14/2025 12:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 16:37:57 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 15:46:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:And if your pedestrian crossing has right turning traffic etc, ie will have
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/14/2025 9:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:The timid Floridian is still paranoid about bicycling, and apparently >>>>> ignorant of relevant data - or more likely, rejecting relevant data >>>>> because it doesn't jibe with his world view. ("Reality is biased against
On 14 Jun 2025 13:30:03 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I'm curious about what happened.
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer
is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken,
you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days
after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to
rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery
for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I
won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate
from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin
shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just >>>>>>>>>> unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are
rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
In the US you?re seem to be the outlier regarding pedestrians deaths, ie
other countries the trend to down.
It looks to be if any even more hostile for pedestrians in the US with wide
At any rate, those unavoidable crashes on bikes on streets and roads
are primary reason I don't ride there much any more.
junctions/roads and right turning traffic, and essentially missing >>>>>>>> pavement, aka infrastructure. Vs bikes which are faster and all that.
Hence I guess the walking and cycling rates, both usage and injuries. Which
are trending down/up in direct opposite to UK/Europe etc.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
I've been involved in accidents while driving, and some while
bicycling, but I've never had even had a "close call" while walking. >>>>>>> Krygowski's comment about walking crashes" was because of his need to >>>>>>> rationalize Juniors accident. Truth is that walking "crashes" are most
likly to occur when the walker is walking where the law says he >>>>>>> shouldn't be walking.
Which is absolutely a car centric political move, aka car companies >>>>>> lobbying to have jaywalking law passed.
That and other laws/design choices make walking a much less useable for
utility, I?ve walked to get a few groceries then sat in cafe before >>>>>> returning home. All very easy, much easier than car or bike.
I?d assume that pedestrian deaths are kinda binary ie one is fine or not.
the right wing.")
There are roughly 1000 bike fatalities per year in the U.S. vs. about >>>>> 7000 pedestrian fatalities. Most sources say cycling is safer per mile >>>>> traveled than pedestrian travel.
Indeed though considering how poorly provided for pedestrians seem to be in
the US and that the rate is rising compared to other 1st world etc places,
that?s a relatively low bar really!
Would seem a slight increase in rate. Which is broadly what one would >>>> expect I guess.
Absolutely it?s clearly not a high risk method of travel, though as ever >>>> risk and how comfortable it may feel are two different things.
Roger Merriman
As I said, most pedestrian accidents happen where the pedistrian is
not supposed to be, as dictated by law. Not so with bicycle accidents. >>>
Obey the law, reduce the risk.
cars crossing as you are despite the sigh for you to go as US is very much >> about car design.
Go for a walk about your neighbourhood and look really look at the
pavements and crossings.
Other places tend not to have jaywalking laws and have big bustling city?s >> and big roads but have lower fatalities rate and one that is getting lower >> US is the outlier in that it?s increasing.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Like I said elsewhere, location and circumstance are relevant. Just
looking at total numbers and total miles traveled produces irrelevant conclusions, that "some ignorant people" accept because it fits their agenda.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Without engaging this argument myself (meh) people do
compare both per mile and per hour, and the population sizes
are mostly conjecture anyway. (Who's a cyclist? Who's a
pedestrian?) so any conclusion at all will be challenged.
On 6/17/2025 4:53 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
It’s not used for technical purposes so probably not! And is a much older >> system, so the idea of having the stone that all others must conform to is >> unlikely to be a thing.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used to
have an actual kilogram?)
Pity! It would be fun to go to a museum and see THE stone! ;-)
On 6/17/2025 4:53 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
It’s not used for technical purposes so probably not! And is a much older >> system, so the idea of having the stone that all others must conform
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used to
have an actual kilogram?)
to is
unlikely to be a thing.
Pity! It would be fun to go to a museum and see THE stone! ;-)
On 6/17/2025 1:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones."7 stone", not "7 stones".
Huh. OK, I can try to remember that too.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used toNo idea. Different scales of weight for different items was once
have an actual kilogram?)
considered natural. Troy ounces and pounds still survive. 12 Troy
ounces per pound, of course. "Grain" for gunpowder or drugs is also
still in use, although in the case of drugs I think it's mostly just
aspirin labels.
The SI system is _so_ much more logical!
Although users often make the inverse of our usual force vs. mass
mistake, by using kilograms as a measure of force.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 6/17/2025 1:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones."7 stone", not "7 stones".
Huh. OK, I can try to remember that too.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used to >>>> have an actual kilogram?)No idea. Different scales of weight for different items was once
considered natural. Troy ounces and pounds still survive. 12 Troy
ounces per pound, of course. "Grain" for gunpowder or drugs is also
still in use, although in the case of drugs I think it's mostly just
aspirin labels.
The SI system is _so_ much more logical!
Although users often make the inverse of our usual force vs. mass
mistake, by using kilograms as a measure of force.
True, ordinary everyday SI users almost always use Kg as a unit of
either mass or weight interchangeably. Maybe when we live on different planets the difference will be more intuitive.
On 6/17/2025 3:40 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
Hey, we could be measuring in Slugs....
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/slug.html
Yep, that unit of mass is part of the charmingly agricultural U.S. or
British system of units.
For the insufficiently educated: Weight is not the same thing as
mass. They really should have different units. Failure to recognize
that "pounds" refers to weight instead of mass can easily lead to a calculated answer that's off by a factor of more than 32.
On 6/18/2025 11:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:13 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 6/17/2025 1:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones."7 stone", not "7 stones".
Huh. OK, I can try to remember that too.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used to >>>>>> have an actual kilogram?)No idea. Different scales of weight for different items was once
considered natural. Troy ounces and pounds still survive. 12 Troy
ounces per pound, of course. "Grain" for gunpowder or drugs is also >>>>> still in use, although in the case of drugs I think it's mostly just >>>>> aspirin labels.
The SI system is _so_ much more logical!
Although users often make the inverse of our usual force vs. mass
mistake, by using kilograms as a measure of force.
True, ordinary everyday SI users almost always use Kg as a unit of
either mass or weight interchangeably. Maybe when we live on different
planets the difference will be more intuitive.
Like sidereal time.
Is there a problem here at roughly sea level on earth where weight vs
mass discrepancy is significant? I really don't know.
The problem arises in engineering calculations - things like "How much
force will be required to accelerate this component at this given >acceleration?" An example might be the force a valve spring must exert
to close an intake valve on time.
As Radey said, engineers working with U.S. units usually distinguish
force and mass by use of the terms "pounds force (lbf)" and "pounds
mass (lbm)" where the "f" and "m" are subscripts. And then they use the >poorly understood (by students, anyway) conversion factor
32.2 lbm*ft/(lbf*s^2) to work out the correct units.
(A conversion factor is an algebraic expression with a value of one. For >example, twelve inches = one foot expressed as a fractional conversion
factor is (12 inches/1 foot) Since numerator equals denominator, its
value is one - it doesn't change the magnitude of an answer - but it can
be used to change the answer's form.)
Here's a simple example: What would be the acceleration of a 1 lbm
object if a 1 pound force were applied to it?
Using F=m*a and solving for acceleration gives a = F/m
And plugging in a = 1 lb / 1 lb gives an answer of one...
somethings?Maybe one ft/s^2? That would be a typical freshman mistake.
But keeping track of units properly, the calculation should be
a = 1 lbf/1 lbm, and the units are not working out to ft/s^2. So apply
the conversion factor:
a=(1 lbf / 1 lbm) * 32.2 (lbm*ft)/(lbf*s^2)
which leads to units cancelling properly in the overall numerator and >denominator, leaving the answer as a = 32.2 ft/s^2
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
On 6/18/2025 11:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:13 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 6/17/2025 1:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones."7 stone", not "7 stones".
Huh. OK, I can try to remember that too.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere,No idea. Different scales of weight for different
like they used to
have an actual kilogram?)
items was once
considered natural. Troy ounces and pounds still
survive. 12 Troy
ounces per pound, of course. "Grain" for gunpowder or
drugs is also
still in use, although in the case of drugs I think
it's mostly just
aspirin labels.
The SI system is _so_ much more logical!
Although users often make the inverse of our usual force
vs. mass
mistake, by using kilograms as a measure of force.
True, ordinary everyday SI users almost always use Kg as
a unit of
either mass or weight interchangeably. Maybe when we
live on different
planets the difference will be more intuitive.
Like sidereal time.
Is there a problem here at roughly sea level on earth
where weight vs mass discrepancy is significant? I really
don't know.
The problem arises in engineering calculations - things like
"How much force will be required to accelerate this
component at this given acceleration?" An example might be
the force a valve spring must exert to close an intake valve
on time.
As Radey said, engineers working with U.S. units usually
distinguish force and mass by use of the terms "pounds force
(lbf)" and "pounds mass (lbm)" where the "f" and "m" are
subscripts. And then they use the poorly understood (by
students, anyway) conversion factor
32.2 lbm*ft/(lbf*s^2) to work out the correct units.
(A conversion factor is an algebraic expression with a value
of one. For example, twelve inches = one foot expressed as a
fractional conversion factor is (12 inches/1 foot)Â Since
numerator equals denominator, its value is one - it doesn't
change the magnitude of an answer - but it can be used to
change the answer's form.)
Here's a simple example: What would be the acceleration of a
1 lbm object if a 1 pound force were applied to it?
Using F=m*a and solving for acceleration gives a = F/m
And plugging in a = 1 lb / 1 lb gives an answer of one...
somethings?Maybe one ft/s^2? That would be a typical
freshman mistake.
But keeping track of units properly, the calculation should be
a = 1 lbf/1 lbm, and the units are not working out to ft/
s^2. So apply the conversion factor:
a=(1 lbf / 1 lbm) * 32.2 (lbm*ft)/(lbf*s^2)
which leads to units cancelling properly in the overall
numerator and denominator, leaving the answer as a = 32.2
ft/s^2
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting
on its mass, it accelerates downward at one "gee."
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:13 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 6/17/2025 1:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones."7 stone", not "7 stones".
Huh. OK, I can try to remember that too.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used to >>>>>>> have an actual kilogram?)No idea. Different scales of weight for different items was once >>>>>> considered natural. Troy ounces and pounds still survive. 12 Troy >>>>>> ounces per pound, of course. "Grain" for gunpowder or drugs is also >>>>>> still in use, although in the case of drugs I think it's mostly just >>>>>> aspirin labels.
The SI system is _so_ much more logical!
Although users often make the inverse of our usual force vs. mass
mistake, by using kilograms as a measure of force.
True, ordinary everyday SI users almost always use Kg as a unit of
either mass or weight interchangeably. Maybe when we live on different >>>> planets the difference will be more intuitive.
Like sidereal time.
Is there a problem here at roughly sea level on earth where weight vs
mass discrepancy is significant? I really don't know.
The problem arises in engineering calculations - things like "How much >>force will be required to accelerate this component at this given >>acceleration?" An example might be the force a valve spring must exert
to close an intake valve on time.
As Radey said, engineers working with U.S. units usually distinguish
force and mass by use of the terms "pounds force (lbf)" and "pounds
mass (lbm)" where the "f" and "m" are subscripts. And then they use the >>poorly understood (by students, anyway) conversion factor
32.2 lbm*ft/(lbf*s^2) to work out the correct units.
(A conversion factor is an algebraic expression with a value of one. For >>example, twelve inches = one foot expressed as a fractional conversion >>factor is (12 inches/1 foot) Since numerator equals denominator, its
value is one - it doesn't change the magnitude of an answer - but it can
be used to change the answer's form.)
Here's a simple example: What would be the acceleration of a 1 lbm
object if a 1 pound force were applied to it?
Using F=m*a and solving for acceleration gives a = F/m
And plugging in a = 1 lb / 1 lb gives an answer of one...
somethings?Maybe one ft/s^2? That would be a typical freshman mistake.
But keeping track of units properly, the calculation should be
a = 1 lbf/1 lbm, and the units are not working out to ft/s^2. So apply
the conversion factor:
a=(1 lbf / 1 lbm) * 32.2 (lbm*ft)/(lbf*s^2)
which leads to units cancelling properly in the overall numerator and >>denominator, leaving the answer as a = 32.2 ft/s^2
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:13 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 6/17/2025 1:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones."7 stone", not "7 stones".
Huh. OK, I can try to remember that too.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used to >>>>>>>> have an actual kilogram?)No idea. Different scales of weight for different items was once >>>>>>> considered natural. Troy ounces and pounds still survive. 12 Troy >>>>>>> ounces per pound, of course. "Grain" for gunpowder or drugs is also >>>>>>> still in use, although in the case of drugs I think it's mostly just >>>>>>> aspirin labels.
The SI system is _so_ much more logical!
Although users often make the inverse of our usual force vs. mass
mistake, by using kilograms as a measure of force.
True, ordinary everyday SI users almost always use Kg as a unit of
either mass or weight interchangeably. Maybe when we live on different >>>>> planets the difference will be more intuitive.
Like sidereal time.
Is there a problem here at roughly sea level on earth where weight vs
mass discrepancy is significant? I really don't know.
The problem arises in engineering calculations - things like "How much >>>force will be required to accelerate this component at this given >>>acceleration?" An example might be the force a valve spring must exert
to close an intake valve on time.
As Radey said, engineers working with U.S. units usually distinguish >>>force and mass by use of the terms "pounds force (lbf)" and "pounds
mass (lbm)" where the "f" and "m" are subscripts. And then they use the >>>poorly understood (by students, anyway) conversion factor
32.2 lbm*ft/(lbf*s^2) to work out the correct units.
(A conversion factor is an algebraic expression with a value of one. For >>>example, twelve inches = one foot expressed as a fractional conversion >>>factor is (12 inches/1 foot) Since numerator equals denominator, its >>>value is one - it doesn't change the magnitude of an answer - but it can >>>be used to change the answer's form.)
Here's a simple example: What would be the acceleration of a 1 lbm
object if a 1 pound force were applied to it?
Using F=m*a and solving for acceleration gives a = F/m
And plugging in a = 1 lb / 1 lb gives an answer of one... >>>somethings?Maybe one ft/s^2? That would be a typical freshman mistake.
But keeping track of units properly, the calculation should be
a = 1 lbf/1 lbm, and the units are not working out to ft/s^2. So apply >>>the conversion factor:
a=(1 lbf / 1 lbm) * 32.2 (lbm*ft)/(lbf*s^2)
which leads to units cancelling properly in the overall numerator and >>>denominator, leaving the answer as a = 32.2 ft/s^2
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass, >>>it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass, >>>>it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass, >>>>>it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:13 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 6/17/2025 1:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones."7 stone", not "7 stones".
Huh. OK, I can try to remember that too.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used toNo idea. Different scales of weight for different items was once >>>>>>>> considered natural. Troy ounces and pounds still survive. 12 Troy >>>>>>>> ounces per pound, of course. "Grain" for gunpowder or drugs is also >>>>>>>> still in use, although in the case of drugs I think it's mostly just >>>>>>>> aspirin labels.
have an actual kilogram?)
The SI system is _so_ much more logical!
Although users often make the inverse of our usual force vs. mass >>>>>>> mistake, by using kilograms as a measure of force.
True, ordinary everyday SI users almost always use Kg as a unit of >>>>>> either mass or weight interchangeably. Maybe when we live on different >>>>>> planets the difference will be more intuitive.
Like sidereal time.
Is there a problem here at roughly sea level on earth where weight vs >>>>> mass discrepancy is significant? I really don't know.
The problem arises in engineering calculations - things like "How much >>>> force will be required to accelerate this component at this given
acceleration?" An example might be the force a valve spring must exert >>>> to close an intake valve on time.
As Radey said, engineers working with U.S. units usually distinguish
force and mass by use of the terms "pounds force (lbf)" and "pounds
mass (lbm)" where the "f" and "m" are subscripts. And then they use the >>>> poorly understood (by students, anyway) conversion factor
32.2 lbm*ft/(lbf*s^2) to work out the correct units.
(A conversion factor is an algebraic expression with a value of one. For >>>> example, twelve inches = one foot expressed as a fractional conversion >>>> factor is (12 inches/1 foot) Since numerator equals denominator, its
value is one - it doesn't change the magnitude of an answer - but it can >>>> be used to change the answer's form.)
Here's a simple example: What would be the acceleration of a 1 lbm
object if a 1 pound force were applied to it?
Using F=m*a and solving for acceleration gives a = F/m
And plugging in a = 1 lb / 1 lb gives an answer of one...
somethings?Maybe one ft/s^2? That would be a typical freshman mistake. >>>>
But keeping track of units properly, the calculation should be
a = 1 lbf/1 lbm, and the units are not working out to ft/s^2. So apply >>>> the conversion factor:
a=(1 lbf / 1 lbm) * 32.2 (lbm*ft)/(lbf*s^2)
which leads to units cancelling properly in the overall numerator and
denominator, leaving the answer as a = 32.2 ft/s^2
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass, >>>> it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/19/2025 1:46 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:13 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 6/17/2025 1:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones."7 stone", not "7 stones".
Huh. OK, I can try to remember that too.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used toNo idea. Different scales of weight for different items was once >>>>>>>>> considered natural. Troy ounces and pounds still survive. 12 Troy >>>>>>>>> ounces per pound, of course. "Grain" for gunpowder or drugs is also >>>>>>>>> still in use, although in the case of drugs I think it's mostly just >>>>>>>>> aspirin labels.
have an actual kilogram?)
The SI system is _so_ much more logical!
Although users often make the inverse of our usual force vs. mass >>>>>>>> mistake, by using kilograms as a measure of force.
True, ordinary everyday SI users almost always use Kg as a unit of >>>>>>> either mass or weight interchangeably. Maybe when we live on different >>>>>>> planets the difference will be more intuitive.
Like sidereal time.
Is there a problem here at roughly sea level on earth where weight vs >>>>>> mass discrepancy is significant? I really don't know.
The problem arises in engineering calculations - things like "How much >>>>> force will be required to accelerate this component at this given
acceleration?" An example might be the force a valve spring must exert >>>>> to close an intake valve on time.
As Radey said, engineers working with U.S. units usually distinguish >>>>> force and mass by use of the terms "pounds force (lbf)" and "pounds >>>>> mass (lbm)" where the "f" and "m" are subscripts. And then they use the >>>>> poorly understood (by students, anyway) conversion factor
32.2 lbm*ft/(lbf*s^2) to work out the correct units.
(A conversion factor is an algebraic expression with a value of one. For >>>>> example, twelve inches = one foot expressed as a fractional conversion >>>>> factor is (12 inches/1 foot) Since numerator equals denominator, its >>>>> value is one - it doesn't change the magnitude of an answer - but it can >>>>> be used to change the answer's form.)
Here's a simple example: What would be the acceleration of a 1 lbm
object if a 1 pound force were applied to it?
Using F=m*a and solving for acceleration gives a = F/m
And plugging in a = 1 lb / 1 lb gives an answer of one...
somethings?Maybe one ft/s^2? That would be a typical freshman mistake. >>>>>
But keeping track of units properly, the calculation should be
a = 1 lbf/1 lbm, and the units are not working out to ft/s^2. So apply >>>>> the conversion factor:
a=(1 lbf / 1 lbm) * 32.2 (lbm*ft)/(lbf*s^2)
which leads to units cancelling properly in the overall numerator and >>>>> denominator, leaving the answer as a = 32.2 ft/s^2
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass, >>>>> it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Why? For similar paragraphs in my field I can do that all
day long extemporaneously. As can Mr Shouman. Or anyone in
his own skilled field.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass, >>>>>> it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>> professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass, >>>>>>it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:25:57 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 1:46 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:13 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 6/17/2025 1:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones. >>>>>>>>>> "7 stone", not "7 stones".
Huh. OK, I can try to remember that too.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used toNo idea. Different scales of weight for different items was once >>>>>>>>>> considered natural. Troy ounces and pounds still survive. 12 Troy >>>>>>>>>> ounces per pound, of course. "Grain" for gunpowder or drugs is also
have an actual kilogram?)
still in use, although in the case of drugs I think it's mostly just >>>>>>>>>> aspirin labels.
The SI system is _so_ much more logical!
Although users often make the inverse of our usual force vs. mass >>>>>>>>> mistake, by using kilograms as a measure of force.
True, ordinary everyday SI users almost always use Kg as a unit of >>>>>>>> either mass or weight interchangeably. Maybe when we live on different
planets the difference will be more intuitive.
Like sidereal time.
Is there a problem here at roughly sea level on earth where weight vs >>>>>>> mass discrepancy is significant? I really don't know.
The problem arises in engineering calculations - things like "How much >>>>>> force will be required to accelerate this component at this given
acceleration?" An example might be the force a valve spring must exert >>>>>> to close an intake valve on time.
As Radey said, engineers working with U.S. units usually distinguish >>>>>> force and mass by use of the terms "pounds force (lbf)" and "pounds >>>>>> mass (lbm)" where the "f" and "m" are subscripts. And then they use the >>>>>> poorly understood (by students, anyway) conversion factor
32.2 lbm*ft/(lbf*s^2) to work out the correct units.
(A conversion factor is an algebraic expression with a value of one. For >>>>>> example, twelve inches = one foot expressed as a fractional conversion >>>>>> factor is (12 inches/1 foot) Since numerator equals denominator, its >>>>>> value is one - it doesn't change the magnitude of an answer - but it can >>>>>> be used to change the answer's form.)
Here's a simple example: What would be the acceleration of a 1 lbm >>>>>> object if a 1 pound force were applied to it?
Using F=m*a and solving for acceleration gives a = F/m
And plugging in a = 1 lb / 1 lb gives an answer of one...
somethings?Maybe one ft/s^2? That would be a typical freshman mistake. >>>>>>
But keeping track of units properly, the calculation should be
a = 1 lbf/1 lbm, and the units are not working out to ft/s^2. So apply >>>>>> the conversion factor:
a=(1 lbf / 1 lbm) * 32.2 (lbm*ft)/(lbf*s^2)
which leads to units cancelling properly in the overall numerator and >>>>>> denominator, leaving the answer as a = 32.2 ft/s^2
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass, >>>>>> it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>> professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Why? For similar paragraphs in my field I can do that all
day long extemporaneously. As can Mr Shouman. Or anyone in
his own skilled field.
Well, he is good at remembering stuff being a learn by rote guy, I
just don't believe he could write it out without help.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/12/2025 12:38 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
People seem to think that fast tires have low rolling resistance butWhose tests? Drum tests particularly one with smaller drums will give a
that
is hardly the case In the rolling resistance tests 25 mm tires have
lower
rolling resistance than 28's. And high pressure 23 mm lower still,
Remember that they claim that their setup has bumps etc to correct
rolling resistace for road conditions but that can't be the case.
less realistic model of tarmac.
Vittoria Corsa is rated as lowest rolling resistance but in myBoth are designed to be fast road tyres, so you?d expect fairly close
experience
Michelin Pro5's are faster. Also I find that setting pressure below the
Silca pressure calculator increases the speed if not taken to extremes. >>>
performance between brands. And road is much more homogeneous than gravel >> or MTB
I find TPU innertubes to be unbelievably expensive and flat very easily. >>> I see no advantage to them. While Latex tubes do increase speed, theyIn my relatively short experience of TPU tubes, is that they offer same
have to be pumped up every ride. In cold weather I can ride a butyl tube >>> for a week before pumping them up again.
amount of puncture resistance aka zero if it gets through the tyre, it?s >> game over.
They do feel noticeably nicer vs Butyl tubes, are yes more expensive and >> more tedious to fix, though that would depend on how many punctures
someone
gets I used to get 1 every year or less. So it?s a 10 over a year at
worst.
Tubeless is nasty to work with. The tires are more expensive and
harder to mount.
Absolutely can be, the ongoing maintenance is why I run it on one bike
and
not all of them. While I?m a fan it?s not the best option 100% of the
time.
As with life need to fact check and be sure one understands let alone
The informaion we are being fed is lacking accuracy and incomplete
leaving you to have to experiment yourself.
that
for example tyre choices for example for my gravel bike each ride I do
would favour different tyre choices.
I?m fairly sure that for my uses bigger tyres into XC MTB sizes would
perform better for me most of the time.
Roger Merriman
I ride faster on my 25mm road bike Conti GP5000
s on the rim brake Habanero. I ride slower on the 32MM Conti's I have on the disc brake Habby. I have no stats or ways to measure except how fast
I ride on any given ride. Lately the fatter 32 mms seem to me to be a
bit heavy and roll with more balancing require by me. I have no idea why.
It may have something to do with the road surface. One reason 32s can be faster than 25s is if the road surface is on the rough side. If you've
been riding on new pavement lately, the 32's don't offer much advantage.
Of course inflation pressures have a lot to do with it. You might want
to experiment with the pressures, and don't forget to consider that your gauge may be off too. The pump I keep in my car pump somehow become
offset by 20 PSI with no warning. I should just toss it because I have
three more floor pumps that are all good, I just have a real hard time throwing away usable cycling parts and equipment (Much to my wife's
chagrin).
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat underinflated. Put
another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
On 6/19/2025 2:55 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:Why? because you could never do it? FFS what a narcissistic jackass you
Well, he is good at remembering stuff being a learn by rote guy, I
just don't believe he could write it out without help.
--
On 6/19/2025 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:25:57 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 1:46 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:13 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 6/17/2025 1:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones. >>>>>>>>>>> "7 stone", not "7 stones".
Huh. OK, I can try to remember that too.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like they used toNo idea. Different scales of weight for different items was once >>>>>>>>>>> considered natural. Troy ounces and pounds still survive. 12 Troy >>>>>>>>>>> ounces per pound, of course. "Grain" for gunpowder or drugs is also
have an actual kilogram?)
still in use, although in the case of drugs I think it's mostly just
aspirin labels.
The SI system is _so_ much more logical!
Although users often make the inverse of our usual force vs. mass >>>>>>>>>> mistake, by using kilograms as a measure of force.
True, ordinary everyday SI users almost always use Kg as a unit of >>>>>>>>> either mass or weight interchangeably. Maybe when we live on different
planets the difference will be more intuitive.
Like sidereal time.
Is there a problem here at roughly sea level on earth where weight vs >>>>>>>> mass discrepancy is significant? I really don't know.
The problem arises in engineering calculations - things like "How much >>>>>>> force will be required to accelerate this component at this given >>>>>>> acceleration?" An example might be the force a valve spring must exert >>>>>>> to close an intake valve on time.
As Radey said, engineers working with U.S. units usually distinguish >>>>>>> force and mass by use of the terms "pounds force (lbf)" and "pounds >>>>>>> mass (lbm)" where the "f" and "m" are subscripts. And then they use the >>>>>>> poorly understood (by students, anyway) conversion factor
32.2 lbm*ft/(lbf*s^2) to work out the correct units.
(A conversion factor is an algebraic expression with a value of one. For
example, twelve inches = one foot expressed as a fractional conversion >>>>>>> factor is (12 inches/1 foot) Since numerator equals denominator, its >>>>>>> value is one - it doesn't change the magnitude of an answer - but it can
be used to change the answer's form.)
Here's a simple example: What would be the acceleration of a 1 lbm >>>>>>> object if a 1 pound force were applied to it?
Using F=m*a and solving for acceleration gives a = F/m
And plugging in a = 1 lb / 1 lb gives an answer of one...
somethings?Maybe one ft/s^2? That would be a typical freshman mistake. >>>>>>>
But keeping track of units properly, the calculation should be
a = 1 lbf/1 lbm, and the units are not working out to ft/s^2. So apply >>>>>>> the conversion factor:
a=(1 lbf / 1 lbm) * 32.2 (lbm*ft)/(lbf*s^2)
which leads to units cancelling properly in the overall numerator and >>>>>>> denominator, leaving the answer as a = 32.2 ft/s^2
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>> professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Why? For similar paragraphs in my field I can do that all
day long extemporaneously. As can Mr Shouman. Or anyone in
his own skilled field.
Well, he is good at remembering stuff being a learn by rote guy, I
just don't believe he could write it out without help.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Not at all clear to me.
I see no reason to believe he doesn't know his professional
field, as I assume do you as well.
On 6/19/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>> professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Both can be true, and usually are.
Without a grounding in principle, the things you observe
(for technical problems) have no meaning.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass, >>>>>>>it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
If only you knew how force, mass, and acceleration worked you could
also write out an explanation similar to that of Prof. Krygowski.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass, >>>>>>it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:20:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>> professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>> That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Both can be true, and usually are.
Without a grounding in principle, the things you observe
(for technical problems) have no meaning.
I have a good memory and I can recite stuff I learned many years ago,
but analyzing that stuff to know what it means is another thing.
Hint: A few romantic lines from Chaucer's "Knight's Tale" or the first
few lines from the Cantebury Tales are pretty good for convincing a
fair young maiden to have another glass of wine. I've had more than
one fair lady (including my wife) look at me in awe when I expained it
was Chaucer. Of course you have to do it in old english.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:27:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>> professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>> That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
If only you knew how force, mass, and acceleration worked you could
also write out an explanation similar to that of Prof. Krygowski.
And I'd probably get it wrong. I'd say, "Who cares?" Krygowski would
have to very sure he got all the commas and brackets exactly right.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/19/2025 3:53 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:Of course he would, because in mathematical expressions grouping is
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:27:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on >>>>>>>>> its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any
engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer >>>>>>> will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>> That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
If only you knew how force, mass, and acceleration worked you could
also write out an explanation similar to that of Prof. Krygowski.
And I'd probably get it wrong. I'd say, "Who cares?" Krygowski would
have to very sure he got all the commas and brackets exactly right.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass, >>>>>>>it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is >learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and
paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to
change the topic.
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all
did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of
things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a
good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For
example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality.
I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but
most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my
comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results
of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book
or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that
match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds
mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: ><https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the
grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook.
Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a
book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One
from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how
things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're
doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for
you to know how things work without first knowing first learning?
On 6/19/2025 3:50 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:20:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>>> professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>> That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Both can be true, and usually are.
Without a grounding in principle, the things you observe
(for technical problems) have no meaning.
I have a good memory and I can recite stuff I learned many years ago,
but analyzing that stuff to know what it means is another thing.
Hint: A few romantic lines from Chaucer's "Knight's Tale" or the first
few lines from the Cantebury Tales are pretty good for convincing a
fair young maiden to have another glass of wine. I've had more than
one fair lady (including my wife) look at me in awe when I expained it
was Chaucer. Of course you have to do it in old english.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
No less complex than basic physics, computer code in various
languages or drug interactions for a pharmacist...
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:27:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman >>>>><shouman@comcast.net> wrote:(...)
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>>professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
If only you knew how force, mass, and acceleration worked you could
also write out an explanation similar to that of Prof. Krygowski.
And I'd probably get it wrong. I'd say, "Who cares?"
Krygowski would
have to very sure he got all the commas and brackets exactly right.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:53:00 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:27:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman >>>>>><shouman@comcast.net> wrote:(...)
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>>>professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>>have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>>That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
If only you knew how force, mass, and acceleration worked you could
also write out an explanation similar to that of Prof. Krygowski.
And I'd probably get it wrong. I'd say, "Who cares?"
I care. I don't like half baked explanations. The problem is all
such explanations are half baked because they don't take into
consideration forces, masses and accelerations that only are important
in unique situations. Newtonian mechanics worked quite well, until >scientists discovered relativistic and quantum effects. It's really
hard to claim something is right or wrong when all the calculations
result in probabilities instead of fixed numbers.
Krygowski would
have to very sure he got all the commas and brackets exactly right.
Why? Nobody else does that. Most people do their best and hope they
got it right. Very few people provide rigorous proofs and copious
citations that agree with their conclusions. I do my best to provide
URL's from sources that either agree with my assertions or offer more
detail on a topic that might help someone understand the topic. If
people only posted things that they knew and could prove were
absolutely correct, we would have nothing posted in rec.bicycles.tech.
I've certainly produced my share of wrong information, incorrect
analysis, bad conclusions and arithmetic errors. I do not consider
these to be problems if I correct my mistakes (and apologize to the
group). They are problems if the author goes into defensive mode and >performs damage control using contrived facts and data.
At this point, the usual solution is to ask an expert. However, that
doesn't work very well: ><https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt>
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman >>>>><shouman@comcast.net> wrote:(...)
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>>professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is >>learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and
paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to
change the topic.
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all
did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of
things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a
good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For
example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality.
I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but
most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >>Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my >>comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results
of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book
or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that
match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds
mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: >><https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the
grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook.
Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a >>book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One
from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how
things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're
doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for
you to know how things work without first knowing first learning?
https://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
On 6/19/2025 4:59 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book
or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that
match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds
mass.
Our timid tricycle rider is welcome to try such a search. But that >explanation is something I've given in front of classes of students for >decades. It's fundamental and important knowledge for Engineering
Mechanics courses, and until it's well explained, it does confuse students.
(I remember my undergraduate study partners asking "But what _is_
'g-sub-c'?" i.e. the conversion factor relating pounds mass and pounds
force.
My only difficulty in typing that was deciding the best way to represent >multiple levels of units in ASCII text without confusing those
unfamiliar with the terms.
The Florida guy really needs to seek therapy. His obsession with me is
way past making him look foolish, and is getting uncontrollable.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman >>>>>><shouman@comcast.net> wrote:(...)
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>>>professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>>have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>>That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is >>>learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and >>>paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to >>>change the topic.
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all
did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of
things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a
good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For
example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality.
I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but >>>most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >>>Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my >>>comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results
of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book
or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that >>>match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds >>>mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: >>><https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the
grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook. >>>Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a >>>book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One
from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how >>>things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're >>>doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for >>>you to know how things work without first knowing first learning?
https://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
Yes, that's fine background information. You were the one who
introduced rote learning to this discussion. I'm trying to determine
why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of
pounds force and pounds mass.
Here are two of my questions that you ignored. I obviously can't
demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide.
That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions,
beliefs, opinions etc. I do care how they derived or calculated those >convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
1. Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by
cut and paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an
attempt to change the topic.
2. If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know
how things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what
you're doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it
possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first >learning?
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:03:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 3:50 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:20:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>>> That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Both can be true, and usually are.
Without a grounding in principle, the things you observe
(for technical problems) have no meaning.
I have a good memory and I can recite stuff I learned many years ago,
but analyzing that stuff to know what it means is another thing.
Hint: A few romantic lines from Chaucer's "Knight's Tale" or the first
few lines from the Cantebury Tales are pretty good for convincing a
fair young maiden to have another glass of wine. I've had more than
one fair lady (including my wife) look at me in awe when I expained it
was Chaucer. Of course you have to do it in old english.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
No less complex than basic physics, computer code in various
languages or drug interactions for a pharmacist...
I disagree. There's no complexity in that at all. It's no different
than "roses are red, violets are blue...." It's no different than
playing or singing music. I have no idea where and how it's stored,
but when I lay my hands and fingers on the keyboard, they know where
to go. Strange thing is that I can't play the keyboard or the guitar
and sing at the same time. I've been told that both functions use the
same little chunk of brain. That has limited my entertainment value.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/19/2025 4:34 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:03:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 3:50 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:20:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 6/19/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>>>> That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>> would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Both can be true, and usually are.
Without a grounding in principle, the things you observe
(for technical problems) have no meaning.
I have a good memory and I can recite stuff I learned many years ago,
but analyzing that stuff to know what it means is another thing.
Hint: A few romantic lines from Chaucer's "Knight's Tale" or the first >>>> few lines from the Cantebury Tales are pretty good for convincing a
fair young maiden to have another glass of wine. I've had more than
one fair lady (including my wife) look at me in awe when I expained it >>>> was Chaucer. Of course you have to do it in old english.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
No less complex than basic physics, computer code in various
languages or drug interactions for a pharmacist...
I disagree. There's no complexity in that at all. It's no different
than "roses are red, violets are blue...." It's no different than
playing or singing music. I have no idea where and how it's stored,
but when I lay my hands and fingers on the keyboard, they know where
to go. Strange thing is that I can't play the keyboard or the guitar
and sing at the same time. I've been told that both functions use the
same little chunk of brain. That has limited my entertainment value.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Memorizing physics formulae or a part in a Shakespeare play
or Indy winners in order by year or the infield fly rule or
your favorite music for keyboard or Japanese kana are all,
literally, the exact same thing; rote memory.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:31:35 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:53:00 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:27:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman >>>>>>><shouman@comcast.net> wrote:(...)
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>>>>professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>>>have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>>>That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
If only you knew how force, mass, and acceleration worked you could >>>>also write out an explanation similar to that of Prof. Krygowski.
And I'd probably get it wrong. I'd say, "Who cares?"
I care. I don't like half baked explanations. The problem is all
such explanations are half baked because they don't take into
consideration forces, masses and accelerations that only are important
in unique situations. Newtonian mechanics worked quite well, until >>scientists discovered relativistic and quantum effects. It's really
hard to claim something is right or wrong when all the calculations
result in probabilities instead of fixed numbers.
Krygowski would
have to very sure he got all the commas and brackets exactly right.
Why? Nobody else does that. Most people do their best and hope they
got it right. Very few people provide rigorous proofs and copious >>citations that agree with their conclusions. I do my best to provide
URL's from sources that either agree with my assertions or offer more >>detail on a topic that might help someone understand the topic. If
people only posted things that they knew and could prove were
absolutely correct, we would have nothing posted in rec.bicycles.tech.
I've certainly produced my share of wrong information, incorrect
analysis, bad conclusions and arithmetic errors. I do not consider
these to be problems if I correct my mistakes (and apologize to the
group). They are problems if the author goes into defensive mode and >>performs damage control using contrived facts and data.
At this point, the usual solution is to ask an expert. However, that >>doesn't work very well: >><https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt>
Like I said, I don't care.. I assume people know what I meant even if
I spelled it wrong and left out a word... and if they don't, I don't
care about that either.
On the other hand, Krygowski has to know he got every punctuation mark
just right.
I do that, with great difficulty in my books, but in casual
conversions, it just doesn't matter to me. If a person doesn't
understand and needs to know, they can ask, but mostly they don't care >either.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:47:33 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:31:35 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:53:00 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:27:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman >>>>>>>><shouman@comcast.net> wrote:(...)
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>>>>have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>>>>That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>>mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>>Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
If only you knew how force, mass, and acceleration worked you could >>>>>also write out an explanation similar to that of Prof. Krygowski.
And I'd probably get it wrong. I'd say, "Who cares?"
I care. I don't like half baked explanations. The problem is all
such explanations are half baked because they don't take into >>>consideration forces, masses and accelerations that only are important
in unique situations. Newtonian mechanics worked quite well, until >>>scientists discovered relativistic and quantum effects. It's really
hard to claim something is right or wrong when all the calculations >>>result in probabilities instead of fixed numbers.
Krygowski would
have to very sure he got all the commas and brackets exactly right.
Why? Nobody else does that. Most people do their best and hope they
got it right. Very few people provide rigorous proofs and copious >>>citations that agree with their conclusions. I do my best to provide >>>URL's from sources that either agree with my assertions or offer more >>>detail on a topic that might help someone understand the topic. If >>>people only posted things that they knew and could prove were
absolutely correct, we would have nothing posted in rec.bicycles.tech. >>>I've certainly produced my share of wrong information, incorrect >>>analysis, bad conclusions and arithmetic errors. I do not consider
these to be problems if I correct my mistakes (and apologize to the >>>group). They are problems if the author goes into defensive mode and >>>performs damage control using contrived facts and data.
At this point, the usual solution is to ask an expert. However, that >>>doesn't work very well: >>><https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt>
Like I said, I don't care.. I assume people know what I meant even if
I spelled it wrong and left out a word... and if they don't, I don't
care about that either.
Oh. I didn't know that I was expected to read between the lines
instead of your one-line replies. Some quotes from RBT for 2025: ><https://www.novabbs.com/tech/search.php>
"I don't care much for any any organised religion."
"I don't care what you believe."
"I don't care what you do and say unless your posts are dripping with >narcissism."
"I don't know and I don't care."
"I don't care if you remain astonished"
"My position is that I don't care what other adults do regarding
bicycle helmets"
"Funny thing, I don't care that you don't care whether I value your >opinions."
"I don;t knoe and I don't care who wrote it."
"I don't care about the moon rocket"
Not bad. 9 "I don't care's" in 5.5 months is easily tolerated. It
does make me wonder if you care about anything. However, that doesn't
matter because I don't care.
On the other hand, Krygowski has to know he got every punctuation mark
just right.
I can't speak for Frank, but I spend the extra few seconds it takes to
feed my rants to a spelling checker. That's because few people bother
to read the opinions from someone who makes reading more difficult for
them. If I posted my first draft of everything I write, I would
probably be considered illiterate, insane or terminally sloppy. I
still make plenty of mistakes but I also use all the tools available
to reduce the number of errors to a tolerable level.
I do that, with great difficulty in my books, but in casual
conversions, it just doesn't matter to me. If a person doesn't
understand and needs to know, they can ask, but mostly they don't care >>either.
If they cared enough to read your books or engage with you in casual >conversation, you could at least make an effort to reciprocate. If
someone engages in a casual discussion with me, and mentions that they
don't care, I usually walk away and find someone else who doesn't
waste my time.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman >>>>>>><shouman@comcast.net> wrote:(...)
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>>>>professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>>>have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>>>That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is >>>>learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and >>>>paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to >>>>change the topic.
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all
did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of >>>>things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a >>>>good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For
example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality.
I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but >>>>most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >>>>Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my >>>>comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results >>>>of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book >>>>or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that >>>>match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds >>>>mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: >>>><https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the >>>>grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook. >>>>Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a >>>>book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One >>>>from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how >>>>things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're >>>>doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for >>>>you to know how things work without first knowing first learning?
https://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
Yes, that's fine background information. You were the one who
introduced rote learning to this discussion. I'm trying to determine
why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of
pounds force and pounds mass.
Here are two of my questions that you ignored. I obviously can't
demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide.
That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions,
beliefs, opinions etc. I do care how they derived or calculated those >>convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
1. Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by
cut and paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an
attempt to change the topic.
2. If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know
how things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what
you're doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it
possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first >>learning?
I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back
when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just
quoted the researcher's conclusions.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:06:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 4:34 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:03:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 3:50 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:20:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/19/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>>>>> That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work. >>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Both can be true, and usually are.
Without a grounding in principle, the things you observe
(for technical problems) have no meaning.
I have a good memory and I can recite stuff I learned many years ago, >>>>> but analyzing that stuff to know what it means is another thing.
Hint: A few romantic lines from Chaucer's "Knight's Tale" or the first >>>>> few lines from the Cantebury Tales are pretty good for convincing a
fair young maiden to have another glass of wine. I've had more than >>>>> one fair lady (including my wife) look at me in awe when I expained it >>>>> was Chaucer. Of course you have to do it in old english.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
No less complex than basic physics, computer code in various
languages or drug interactions for a pharmacist...
I disagree. There's no complexity in that at all. It's no different
than "roses are red, violets are blue...." It's no different than
playing or singing music. I have no idea where and how it's stored,
but when I lay my hands and fingers on the keyboard, they know where
to go. Strange thing is that I can't play the keyboard or the guitar
and sing at the same time. I've been told that both functions use the
same little chunk of brain. That has limited my entertainment value.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Memorizing physics formulae or a part in a Shakespeare play
or Indy winners in order by year or the infield fly rule or
your favorite music for keyboard or Japanese kana are all,
literally, the exact same thing; rote memory.
No argument there.. Some aspects of computer programming depends on
rote knowlege, too, but writing software, IOW, problem solving,
generally requires analytical ability and what they call meaningfull learning.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/19/2025 6:21 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:06:58 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 4:34 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:03:46 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 3:50 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:20:34 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its
weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written
extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any
practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the
proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize
everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I
was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing
potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized
everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how
things work.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Both can be true, and usually are.
Without a grounding in principle, the things you observe
(for technical problems) have no meaning.
I have a good memory and I can recite stuff I learned
many years ago,
but analyzing that stuff to know what it means is
another thing.
Hint: A few romantic lines from Chaucer's "Knight's
Tale" or the first
few lines from the Cantebury Tales are pretty good for
convincing a
fair young maiden to have another glass of wine. I've
had more than
one fair lady (including my wife) look at me in awe
when I expained it
was Chaucer. Of course you have to do it in old english.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
No less complex than basic physics, computer code in
various
languages or drug interactions for a pharmacist...
I disagree. There's no complexity in that at all. It's
no different
than "roses are red, violets are blue...." It's no
different than
playing or singing music. I have no idea where and how
it's stored,
but when I lay my hands and fingers on the keyboard,
they know where
to go. Strange thing is that I can't play the keyboard
or the guitar
and sing at the same time. I've been told that both
functions use the
same little chunk of brain. That has limited my
entertainment value.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Memorizing physics formulae or a part in a Shakespeare play
or Indy winners in order by year or the infield fly rule or
your favorite music for keyboard or Japanese kana are all,
literally, the exact same thing; rote memory.
No argument there.. Some aspects of computer programming
depends on
rote knowlege, too, but writing software, IOW, problem
solving,
generally requires analytical ability and what they call
meaningfull
learning.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Yes that's true.
But Fermi couldn't advance knowledge without first
understanding basic physics.
You'll counter that John Lenin never learned music theory
and could neither read nor write musical notation all his
short life. That's also true.
But learning basic theory and principle helps immensely for
those of us who are not geniuses.
On 6/19/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>> professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Both can be true, and usually are.
Without a grounding in principle, the things you observe
(for technical problems) have no meaning.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>wrote:Yes, that's fine background information. You were the one who
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman >>>>>>>><shouman@comcast.net> wrote:(...)
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>>>>have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>>>>That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>>mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>>Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is >>>>>learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and >>>>>paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to >>>>>change the topic.
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all >>>>>did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of >>>>>things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a >>>>>good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For >>>>>example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality. >>>>>I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but >>>>>most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >>>>>Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my >>>>>comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results >>>>>of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book >>>>>or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that >>>>>match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds >>>>>mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the >>>>>calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: >>>>><https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the >>>>>grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook. >>>>>Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a >>>>>book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One >>>>>from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how >>>>>things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're >>>>>doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for >>>>>you to know how things work without first knowing first learning?
https://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/ >>>
introduced rote learning to this discussion. I'm trying to determine
why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of >>>pounds force and pounds mass.
Here are two of my questions that you ignored. I obviously can't
demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide. >>>That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions,
beliefs, opinions etc. I do care how they derived or calculated those >>>convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
1. Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by
cut and paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an
attempt to change the topic.
2. If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know
how things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what
you're doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it
possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first >>>learning?
I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back
when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just >>quoted the researcher's conclusions.
You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again
with a "one-liner". That's fine. I can't force you to answer.
I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers
conclusions. However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning
because it would be too much for most readers. I simply reference the >researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at
their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my
comments. I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research
that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.
Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you? How about
someone else's data? Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by
expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and >conclusions?
I know enough statistics to get myself into trouble. I
would be hard pressed to perform a proper statistical analysis on a
research paper. If you ask Frank to do that, are you prepared to do
the same? How's your statistics experience?
It's difficult for me to guess(tm) what actually happened from your
one-line description. Frank probably cited a reference that had done
some research involving cycling. Knowing Frank, it was probably about >bicycle infrastructure. That's a very controversial topic, that has
as many opinions as there are researchers. Frank probably posted a
link to a research report that agreed with his point of view. With
minimal effort, I could probably find a research report with opposite
or alternative points of view. Or, I could massage the data to
reflect my point of view. What were you expecting? Faulty data or
faulty conclusions?
Anyway, I don't see why you don't appreciate learning by rote. It's
just another way of learning. I learned to play piano by wrote.
Same with anything I had to learn that require practice. I didn't
really understand what I was expected to do until after I performed it
by rote. Those who chose to look deeper eventually learned to what
the composer was trying to do and how it worked. First, I learned how
to do it by brute force (rote). Later came understanding, not the
other way around.
On 6/19/2025 3:53 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:27:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>>> professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>> That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
If only you knew how force, mass, and acceleration worked you could
also write out an explanation similar to that of Prof. Krygowski.
And I'd probably get it wrong. I'd say, "Who cares?" Krygowski would
have to very sure he got all the commas and brackets exactly right.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That's true, which is why knowing that is important to him.
Maybe not important to you.
For simple machining, one needs to know basic geometry to
calculate cutting speed for turning or boring and you also
need to know optimal cutting speed constants for whatever
material(s) you have. It's possible to sorta try different
speeds and see how it goes but that's impractical if you are
not in a position to chuck several pieces in the scrap bin
along the way.
People do have amazing memory capacities which occasionally--
astound me. For example, a guy I thought was not one of the
brightest. I was nearby when he was discussing baseball with
someone else and he could recount plays from 30, 40 years
ago, along with the player stats before and after that game.
And many iterations of those plays. Depends on what's
important to you.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:54:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:Yes, that's fine background information. You were the one who
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>> wrote:I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is >>>>>> learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and >>>>>> paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to >>>>>> change the topic.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>>>>> That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work. >>>>>>
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all >>>>>> did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of
things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a >>>>>> good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For
example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality. >>>>>> I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but >>>>>> most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >>>>>> Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my >>>>>> comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results >>>>>> of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book >>>>>> or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that >>>>>> match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds >>>>>> mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the
grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook. >>>>>> Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a >>>>>> book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One >>>>> >from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how >>>>>> things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're >>>>>> doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for >>>>>> you to know how things work without first knowing first learning?
https://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/ >>>>
introduced rote learning to this discussion. I'm trying to determine
why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of
pounds force and pounds mass.
Here are two of my questions that you ignored. I obviously can't
demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide.
That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions,
beliefs, opinions etc. I do care how they derived or calculated those >>>> convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
1. Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by
cut and paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an
attempt to change the topic.
I thought it was obvious that I was unimpressed by what I thought was
cut and paste..
2. If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know
how things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what
you're doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it
possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first
learning?
As for " learn by knowing how things work," what I should have said
was that I learn by analyzing how things work. I am, as you might
have noticed, not very good at explaining myself. That's probably due
to me not being particularly interested in explaining myself.
Below, I was responding to how the term "learn by rote" got into the discussion...
I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back
when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just
quoted the researcher's conclusions.
You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again
with a "one-liner". That's fine. I can't force you to answer.
I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers
conclusions. However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning
because it would be too much for most readers. I simply reference the
researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at
their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my
comments. I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research
that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.
I usually ignore the researcher's conclusions. I will, if I'm
interested, analyses it for myself. I may look to see who they are and
see what their agenda is so I can determine their bias insofar as the collection and presentation of data. Often I can't see who they are,
but there are some things to be learned simply by noting what they're researching and how they define and label it.
I should say that more often than not I'll simply ignore those
"studies." People don't spend time and money on them unless they have
an agenda, which I'm not going to be interested in.
Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you? How about
someone else's data? Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by
expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and
conclusions?
No, actually I challenged him to explain his statement about the
pretend study I presented being like similar to the study he
presented.
I know enough statistics to get myself into trouble. I
would be hard pressed to perform a proper statistical analysis on a
research paper. If you ask Frank to do that, are you prepared to do
the same? How's your statistics experience?
One needn't be an expert in statistics to note that because sometimes
people with guns in their homes get shot doesn't mean that having a
gun in the house makes it more likely to get shot.
It's difficult for me to guess(tm) what actually happened from your
one-line description. Frank probably cited a reference that had done
some research involving cycling. Knowing Frank, it was probably about
bicycle infrastructure. That's a very controversial topic, that has
as many opinions as there are researchers. Frank probably posted a
link to a research report that agreed with his point of view. With
minimal effort, I could probably find a research report with opposite
or alternative points of view. Or, I could massage the data to
reflect my point of view. What were you expecting? Faulty data or
faulty conclusions?
Actually, I'm not interested in studies involving cycling, nor am I interested in defending my contradictory opinions. I'm also not
interested in seeing/hearing someone else defend their opinions, other
than, prhaps for analyzing their thought processes.
Anyway, I don't see why you don't appreciate learning by rote. It's
just another way of learning. I learned to play piano by wrote.
Actually I do appreciate it and I mentioned a number of things I've
learned by rote. When I say someone is a "learn by rote" person I'm
saying their primary learning process is rote, and thus, they're poor
problem solvers.
Same with anything I had to learn that require practice. I didn't
really understand what I was expected to do until after I performed it
by rote. Those who chose to look deeper eventually learned to what
the composer was trying to do and how it worked. First, I learned how
to do it by brute force (rote). Later came understanding, not the
other way around.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/19/2025 7:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:54:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>> wrote:Yes, that's fine background information. You were the one who
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryderhttps://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/ >>>>>
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is >>>>>>> learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and >>>>>>> paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to >>>>>>> change the topic.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>>>> Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work. >>>>>>>
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all >>>>>>> did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of >>>>>>> things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a >>>>>>> good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For
example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality. >>>>>>> I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but >>>>>>> most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >>>>>>> Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my >>>>>>> comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results >>>>>>> of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book >>>>>>> or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that >>>>>>> match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds >>>>>>> mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: >>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the >>>>>>> grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook. >>>>>>> Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a >>>>>>> book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One >>>>>> >from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how >>>>>>> things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're >>>>>>> doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for >>>>>>> you to know how things work without first knowing first learning? >>>>>>
introduced rote learning to this discussion. I'm trying to determine >>>>> why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of
pounds force and pounds mass.
Here are two of my questions that you ignored. I obviously can't
demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide. >>>>> That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions,
beliefs, opinions etc. I do care how they derived or calculated those >>>>> convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
1. Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by
cut and paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an
attempt to change the topic.
I thought it was obvious that I was unimpressed by what I thought was
cut and paste..
2. If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know
how things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what
you're doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it
possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first >>>>> learning?
As for " learn by knowing how things work," what I should have said
was that I learn by analyzing how things work. I am, as you might
have noticed, not very good at explaining myself. That's probably due
to me not being particularly interested in explaining myself.
Below, I was responding to how the term "learn by rote" got into the
discussion...
I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back
when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just >>>> quoted the researcher's conclusions.
You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again
with a "one-liner". That's fine. I can't force you to answer.
I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers
conclusions. However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning
because it would be too much for most readers. I simply reference the
researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at
their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my
comments. I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research
that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.
I usually ignore the researcher's conclusions. I will, if I'm
interested, analyses it for myself. I may look to see who they are and
see what their agenda is so I can determine their bias insofar as the
collection and presentation of data. Often I can't see who they are,
but there are some things to be learned simply by noting what they're
researching and how they define and label it.
I should say that more often than not I'll simply ignore those
"studies." People don't spend time and money on them unless they have
an agenda, which I'm not going to be interested in.
Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you? How about
someone else's data? Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by
expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and
conclusions?
No, actually I challenged him to explain his statement about the
pretend study I presented being like similar to the study he
presented.
I know enough statistics to get myself into trouble. I
would be hard pressed to perform a proper statistical analysis on a
research paper. If you ask Frank to do that, are you prepared to do
the same? How's your statistics experience?
One needn't be an expert in statistics to note that because sometimes
people with guns in their homes get shot doesn't mean that having a
gun in the house makes it more likely to get shot.
It's difficult for me to guess(tm) what actually happened from your
one-line description. Frank probably cited a reference that had done
some research involving cycling. Knowing Frank, it was probably about
bicycle infrastructure. That's a very controversial topic, that has
as many opinions as there are researchers. Frank probably posted a
link to a research report that agreed with his point of view. With
minimal effort, I could probably find a research report with opposite
or alternative points of view. Or, I could massage the data to
reflect my point of view. What were you expecting? Faulty data or
faulty conclusions?
Actually, I'm not interested in studies involving cycling, nor am I
interested in defending my contradictory opinions. I'm also not
interested in seeing/hearing someone else defend their opinions, other
than, prhaps for analyzing their thought processes.
Anyway, I don't see why you don't appreciate learning by rote. It's
just another way of learning. I learned to play piano by wrote.
Actually I do appreciate it and I mentioned a number of things I've
learned by rote. When I say someone is a "learn by rote" person I'm
saying their primary learning process is rote, and thus, they're poor
problem solvers.
Same with anything I had to learn that require practice. I didn't
really understand what I was expected to do until after I performed it
by rote. Those who chose to look deeper eventually learned to what
the composer was trying to do and how it worked. First, I learned how
to do it by brute force (rote). Later came understanding, not the
other way around.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I may not have understood your position yet.
Without a grounding in the basic principles/ rules/ laws/
formulae of any given field you really cannot solve problems
with any efficiency, at least not the problems previously
solved by others who wrote those formulae for you.
Th best defense attorneys are brilliantly creative (some
might say to an absurdly unreal level) but their success
(and billing rate) is firmly grounded in a diligent thorough
understanding of the Statutes and untold numbers of prior
case decisions in all their picayune detail.
'Reinventing the wheel' and all that is a hard (and
unnecessary) slog.
On 6/19/2025 6:21 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:06:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 4:34 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:03:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 6/19/2025 3:50 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:20:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
On 6/19/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>>>> Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work. >>>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Both can be true, and usually are.
Without a grounding in principle, the things you observe
(for technical problems) have no meaning.
I have a good memory and I can recite stuff I learned many years ago, >>>>>> but analyzing that stuff to know what it means is another thing.
Hint: A few romantic lines from Chaucer's "Knight's Tale" or the first >>>>>> few lines from the Cantebury Tales are pretty good for convincing a >>>>>> fair young maiden to have another glass of wine. I've had more than >>>>>> one fair lady (including my wife) look at me in awe when I expained it >>>>>> was Chaucer. Of course you have to do it in old english.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
No less complex than basic physics, computer code in various
languages or drug interactions for a pharmacist...
I disagree. There's no complexity in that at all. It's no different
than "roses are red, violets are blue...." It's no different than
playing or singing music. I have no idea where and how it's stored,
but when I lay my hands and fingers on the keyboard, they know where
to go. Strange thing is that I can't play the keyboard or the guitar
and sing at the same time. I've been told that both functions use the
same little chunk of brain. That has limited my entertainment value.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Memorizing physics formulae or a part in a Shakespeare play
or Indy winners in order by year or the infield fly rule or
your favorite music for keyboard or Japanese kana are all,
literally, the exact same thing; rote memory.
No argument there.. Some aspects of computer programming depends on
rote knowlege, too, but writing software, IOW, problem solving,
generally requires analytical ability and what they call meaningfull
learning.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Yes that's true.
But Fermi couldn't advance knowledge without first
understanding basic physics.
You'll counter that John Lenin never learned music theory
and could neither read nor write musical notation all his
short life. That's also true.
But learning basic theory and principle helps immensely for
those of us who are not geniuses.
On 6/19/2025 7:19 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
If they cared enough to read your books or engage with you in casual
conversation, you could at least make an effort to reciprocate.
Based on what we've seen here, nobody reads his books, and he avoids >conversation with others; and I'm sure others avoid conversation with
him. We're engaging in "conversation" only to the minimum needed to
rebut his idiocy.
Like most trolls, when someone doesn't respond to his trolling, he amps
up his output and/or he pretends being ignored is a victory.
I'd feel sorry for this psychological cripple if he weren't so willfully >obnoxious.
On 6/19/2025 7:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/19/2025 6:21 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:06:58 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 4:34 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:03:46 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 3:50 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:20:34 -0500, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its
weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written
extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any
practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the
proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize
everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I
was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing
potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized
everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how
things work.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Both can be true, and usually are.
Without a grounding in principle, the things you observe
(for technical problems) have no meaning.
I have a good memory and I can recite stuff I learned
many years ago,
but analyzing that stuff to know what it means is
another thing.
Hint: A few romantic lines from Chaucer's "Knight's
Tale" or the first
few lines from the Cantebury Tales are pretty good for
convincing a
fair young maiden to have another glass of wine. I've
had more than
one fair lady (including my wife) look at me in awe
when I expained it
was Chaucer. Of course you have to do it in old english.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
No less complex than basic physics, computer code in
various
languages or drug interactions for a pharmacist...
I disagree. There's no complexity in that at all. It's
no different
than "roses are red, violets are blue...." It's no
different than
playing or singing music. I have no idea where and how
it's stored,
but when I lay my hands and fingers on the keyboard,
they know where
to go. Strange thing is that I can't play the keyboard
or the guitar
and sing at the same time. I've been told that both
functions use the
same little chunk of brain. That has limited my
entertainment value.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Memorizing physics formulae or a part in a Shakespeare play
or Indy winners in order by year or the infield fly rule or
your favorite music for keyboard or Japanese kana are all,
literally, the exact same thing; rote memory.
No argument there.. Some aspects of computer programming
depends on
rote knowlege, too, but writing software, IOW, problem
solving,
generally requires analytical ability and what they call
meaningfull
learning.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Yes that's true.
But Fermi couldn't advance knowledge without first
understanding basic physics.
You'll counter that John Lenin never learned music theory
and could neither read nor write musical notation all his
short life. That's also true.
But learning basic theory and principle helps immensely for
those of us who are not geniuses.
oops Lennon sorry.
On 6/19/2025 7:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:54:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>> wrote:Yes, that's fine background information. You were the one who
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryderhttps://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/ >>>>>
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is >>>>>>> learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and >>>>>>> paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to >>>>>>> change the topic.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>>>> Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work. >>>>>>>
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all >>>>>>> did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of >>>>>>> things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a >>>>>>> good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For
example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality. >>>>>>> I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but >>>>>>> most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >>>>>>> Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my >>>>>>> comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results >>>>>>> of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book >>>>>>> or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that >>>>>>> match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds >>>>>>> mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: >>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the >>>>>>> grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook. >>>>>>> Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a >>>>>>> book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One >>>>>> >from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how >>>>>>> things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're >>>>>>> doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for >>>>>>> you to know how things work without first knowing first learning? >>>>>>
introduced rote learning to this discussion. I'm trying to determine >>>>> why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of
pounds force and pounds mass.
Here are two of my questions that you ignored. I obviously can't
demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide. >>>>> That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions,
beliefs, opinions etc. I do care how they derived or calculated those >>>>> convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
1. Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by
cut and paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an
attempt to change the topic.
I thought it was obvious that I was unimpressed by what I thought was
cut and paste..
2. If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know
how things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what
you're doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it
possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first >>>>> learning?
As for " learn by knowing how things work," what I should have said
was that I learn by analyzing how things work. I am, as you might
have noticed, not very good at explaining myself. That's probably due
to me not being particularly interested in explaining myself.
Below, I was responding to how the term "learn by rote" got into the
discussion...
I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back
when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just >>>> quoted the researcher's conclusions.
You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again
with a "one-liner". That's fine. I can't force you to answer.
I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers
conclusions. However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning
because it would be too much for most readers. I simply reference the
researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at
their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my
comments. I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research
that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.
I usually ignore the researcher's conclusions. I will, if I'm
interested, analyses it for myself. I may look to see who they are and
see what their agenda is so I can determine their bias insofar as the
collection and presentation of data. Often I can't see who they are,
but there are some things to be learned simply by noting what they're
researching and how they define and label it.
I should say that more often than not I'll simply ignore those
"studies." People don't spend time and money on them unless they have
an agenda, which I'm not going to be interested in.
Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you? How about
someone else's data? Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by
expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and
conclusions?
No, actually I challenged him to explain his statement about the
pretend study I presented being like similar to the study he
presented.
I know enough statistics to get myself into trouble. I
would be hard pressed to perform a proper statistical analysis on a
research paper. If you ask Frank to do that, are you prepared to do
the same? How's your statistics experience?
One needn't be an expert in statistics to note that because sometimes
people with guns in their homes get shot doesn't mean that having a
gun in the house makes it more likely to get shot.
It's difficult for me to guess(tm) what actually happened from your
one-line description. Frank probably cited a reference that had done
some research involving cycling. Knowing Frank, it was probably about
bicycle infrastructure. That's a very controversial topic, that has
as many opinions as there are researchers. Frank probably posted a
link to a research report that agreed with his point of view. With
minimal effort, I could probably find a research report with opposite
or alternative points of view. Or, I could massage the data to
reflect my point of view. What were you expecting? Faulty data or
faulty conclusions?
Actually, I'm not interested in studies involving cycling, nor am I
interested in defending my contradictory opinions. I'm also not
interested in seeing/hearing someone else defend their opinions, other
than, prhaps for analyzing their thought processes.
Anyway, I don't see why you don't appreciate learning by rote. It's
just another way of learning. I learned to play piano by wrote.
Actually I do appreciate it and I mentioned a number of things I've
learned by rote. When I say someone is a "learn by rote" person I'm
saying their primary learning process is rote, and thus, they're poor
problem solvers.
Same with anything I had to learn that require practice. I didn't
really understand what I was expected to do until after I performed it
by rote. Those who chose to look deeper eventually learned to what
the composer was trying to do and how it worked. First, I learned how
to do it by brute force (rote). Later came understanding, not the
other way around.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I may not have understood your position yet.
Without a grounding in the basic principles/ rules/ laws/
formulae of any given field you really cannot solve problems
with any efficiency, at least not the problems previously
solved by others who wrote those formulae for you.
Th best defense attorneys are brilliantly creative (some
might say to an absurdly unreal level) but their success
(and billing rate) is firmly grounded in a diligent thorough
understanding of the Statutes and untold numbers of prior
case decisions in all their picayune detail.
'Reinventing the wheel' and all that is a hard (and
unnecessary) slog.
On Thu Jun 12 14:32:57 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 12:38 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 6/12/2025 7:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
People seem to think that fast tires have low rolling resistance but >>>>> thatWhose tests? Drum tests particularly one with smaller drums will give a >>>> less realistic model of tarmac.
is hardly the case In the rolling resistance tests 25 mm tires have
lower
rolling resistance than 28's. And high pressure 23 mm lower still,
Remember that they claim that their setup has bumps etc to correct
rolling resistace for road conditions but that can't be the case.
Vittoria Corsa is rated as lowest rolling resistance but in myBoth are designed to be fast road tyres, so you?d expect fairly close
experience
Michelin Pro5's are faster. Also I find that setting pressure below the >>>>> Silca pressure calculator increases the speed if not taken to extremes. >>>>>
performance between brands. And road is much more homogeneous than gravel >>>> or MTB
I find TPU innertubes to be unbelievably expensive and flat very easily. >>>>> I see no advantage to them. While Latex tubes do increase speed, they >>>>> have to be pumped up every ride. In cold weather I can ride a butyl tube >>>>> for a week before pumping them up again.In my relatively short experience of TPU tubes, is that they offer same >>>> amount of puncture resistance aka zero if it gets through the tyre, it?s >>>> game over.
They do feel noticeably nicer vs Butyl tubes, are yes more expensive and >>>> more tedious to fix, though that would depend on how many punctures
someone
gets I used to get 1 every year or less. So it?s a 10 over a year at
worst.
Tubeless is nasty to work with. The tires are more expensive and
harder to mount.
Absolutely can be, the ongoing maintenance is why I run it on one bike >>>> and
not all of them. While I?m a fan it?s not the best option 100% of the
time.
As with life need to fact check and be sure one understands let alone
The informaion we are being fed is lacking accuracy and incomplete
leaving you to have to experiment yourself.
that
for example tyre choices for example for my gravel bike each ride I do >>>> would favour different tyre choices.
I?m fairly sure that for my uses bigger tyres into XC MTB sizes would
perform better for me most of the time.
Roger Merriman
I ride faster on my 25mm road bike Conti GP5000
s on the rim brake Habanero. I ride slower on the 32MM Conti's I have on >>> the disc brake Habby. I have no stats or ways to measure except how fast >>> I ride on any given ride. Lately the fatter 32 mms seem to me to be a
bit heavy and roll with more balancing require by me. I have no idea why. >>>
It may have something to do with the road surface. One reason 32s can be
faster than 25s is if the road surface is on the rough side. If you've
been riding on new pavement lately, the 32's don't offer much advantage.
Of course inflation pressures have a lot to do with it. You might want
to experiment with the pressures, and don't forget to consider that your
gauge may be off too. The pump I keep in my car pump somehow become
offset by 20 PSI with no warning. I should just toss it because I have
three more floor pumps that are all good, I just have a real hard time
throwing away usable cycling parts and equipment (Much to my wife's
chagrin).
It sounds as if you're running the 32s somewhat underinflated. Put
another 10 PSI in and see what you think.
If you look these tires up on trhe rolling resistance site, 25 mm tires
at 100 psi are VERY low rolling resistance and as the tires get wider the rolling resistance goes up pretty drmatically. But out riding on real somewhat crackled pavement the wider tires come into their own. Riding
over logitudinl cracks I couldn't feel a thing while with 25's it would
try to jerk the bars out of my hands. There are some places on these
routes where the whole road is nothing but cracks with the pavgement
broken into hexigons for 50 feet of so. With 32's Gatorhardshells I could feel it but it had no effect on the direction of the bike which wasn't
the case with 28 mm Vittoria Corsa's. So it would be nice if I could out these wide tires on the bikes I usually ride.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>>> professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>> That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is
learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and
paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to
change the topic.
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all
did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of
things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a
good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For
example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality.
I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but
most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding.
Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my
comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results
of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book
or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that
match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds
mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the
grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook.
Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a
book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One
from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how
things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're
doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for
you to know how things work without first knowing first learning?
https://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, floriduh dumbass
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>>> That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is >>>> learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and
paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to
change the topic.
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all
did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of
things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a
good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For
example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality.
I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but
most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding.
Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my
comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results
of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book >>>> or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that
match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds
mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the
grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook.
Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a >>>> book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One
from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how
things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're
doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for >>>> you to know how things work without first knowing first learning?
https://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
Count me unimpressed by dumbass's cut and paste.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:36:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 7:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:54:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryderhttps://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is >>>>>>>> learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and >>>>>>>> paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to >>>>>>>> change the topic.
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>>>>> Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work. >>>>>>>>
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all >>>>>>>> did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of >>>>>>>> things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a >>>>>>>> good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For >>>>>>>> example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality. >>>>>>>> I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but >>>>>>>> most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >>>>>>>> Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my >>>>>>>> comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results >>>>>>>> of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book >>>>>>>> or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that >>>>>>>> match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds >>>>>>>> mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: >>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the >>>>>>>> grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook. >>>>>>>> Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a >>>>>>>> book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One >>>>>>> >from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how >>>>>>>> things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're >>>>>>>> doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for >>>>>>>> you to know how things work without first knowing first learning? >>>>>>>
Yes, that's fine background information. You were the one who
introduced rote learning to this discussion. I'm trying to determine >>>>>> why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of >>>>>> pounds force and pounds mass.
Here are two of my questions that you ignored. I obviously can't
demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide. >>>>>> That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions,
beliefs, opinions etc. I do care how they derived or calculated those >>>>>> convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
1. Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by >>>>>> cut and paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an
attempt to change the topic.
I thought it was obvious that I was unimpressed by what I thought was
cut and paste..
2. If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know >>>>>> how things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what
you're doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it
possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first >>>>>> learning?
As for " learn by knowing how things work," what I should have said
was that I learn by analyzing how things work. I am, as you might
have noticed, not very good at explaining myself. That's probably due
to me not being particularly interested in explaining myself.
Below, I was responding to how the term "learn by rote" got into the
discussion...
I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back
when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just >>>>> quoted the researcher's conclusions.
You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again
with a "one-liner". That's fine. I can't force you to answer.
I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers
conclusions. However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning
because it would be too much for most readers. I simply reference the >>>> researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at
their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my
comments. I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research
that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.
I usually ignore the researcher's conclusions. I will, if I'm
interested, analyses it for myself. I may look to see who they are and
see what their agenda is so I can determine their bias insofar as the
collection and presentation of data. Often I can't see who they are,
but there are some things to be learned simply by noting what they're
researching and how they define and label it.
I should say that more often than not I'll simply ignore those
"studies." People don't spend time and money on them unless they have
an agenda, which I'm not going to be interested in.
Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you? How about
someone else's data? Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by
expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and
conclusions?
No, actually I challenged him to explain his statement about the
pretend study I presented being like similar to the study he
presented.
I know enough statistics to get myself into trouble. I
would be hard pressed to perform a proper statistical analysis on a
research paper. If you ask Frank to do that, are you prepared to do
the same? How's your statistics experience?
One needn't be an expert in statistics to note that because sometimes
people with guns in their homes get shot doesn't mean that having a
gun in the house makes it more likely to get shot.
It's difficult for me to guess(tm) what actually happened from your
one-line description. Frank probably cited a reference that had done
some research involving cycling. Knowing Frank, it was probably about >>>> bicycle infrastructure. That's a very controversial topic, that has
as many opinions as there are researchers. Frank probably posted a
link to a research report that agreed with his point of view. With
minimal effort, I could probably find a research report with opposite
or alternative points of view. Or, I could massage the data to
reflect my point of view. What were you expecting? Faulty data or
faulty conclusions?
Actually, I'm not interested in studies involving cycling, nor am I
interested in defending my contradictory opinions. I'm also not
interested in seeing/hearing someone else defend their opinions, other
than, prhaps for analyzing their thought processes.
Anyway, I don't see why you don't appreciate learning by rote. It's
just another way of learning. I learned to play piano by wrote.
Actually I do appreciate it and I mentioned a number of things I've
learned by rote. When I say someone is a "learn by rote" person I'm
saying their primary learning process is rote, and thus, they're poor
problem solvers.
Same with anything I had to learn that require practice. I didn't
really understand what I was expected to do until after I performed it >>>> by rote. Those who chose to look deeper eventually learned to what
the composer was trying to do and how it worked. First, I learned how >>>> to do it by brute force (rote). Later came understanding, not the
other way around.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I may not have understood your position yet.
Without a grounding in the basic principles/ rules/ laws/
formulae of any given field you really cannot solve problems
with any efficiency, at least not the problems previously
solved by others who wrote those formulae for you.
Th best defense attorneys are brilliantly creative (some
might say to an absurdly unreal level) but their success
(and billing rate) is firmly grounded in a diligent thorough
understanding of the Statutes and untold numbers of prior
case decisions in all their picayune detail.
'Reinventing the wheel' and all that is a hard (and
unnecessary) slog.
Lawers must first know the basic principles.... but most good
lawyers, especially courtroom lawyers are problem solvers, which
requires more than what you can learn from books.
I believe the movers and shakers of the world have learned both ways,
rote learning and meaningful learning.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 19:22:32 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 6:21 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:06:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 4:34 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:03:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/19/2025 3:50 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:20:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 6/19/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>>>>> Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work. >>>>>>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Both can be true, and usually are.
Without a grounding in principle, the things you observe
(for technical problems) have no meaning.
I have a good memory and I can recite stuff I learned many years ago, >>>>>>> but analyzing that stuff to know what it means is another thing. >>>>>>>
Hint: A few romantic lines from Chaucer's "Knight's Tale" or the first >>>>>>> few lines from the Cantebury Tales are pretty good for convincing a >>>>>>> fair young maiden to have another glass of wine. I've had more than >>>>>>> one fair lady (including my wife) look at me in awe when I expained it >>>>>>> was Chaucer. Of course you have to do it in old english.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
No less complex than basic physics, computer code in various
languages or drug interactions for a pharmacist...
I disagree. There's no complexity in that at all. It's no different
than "roses are red, violets are blue...." It's no different than
playing or singing music. I have no idea where and how it's stored,
but when I lay my hands and fingers on the keyboard, they know where >>>>> to go. Strange thing is that I can't play the keyboard or the guitar >>>>> and sing at the same time. I've been told that both functions use the >>>>> same little chunk of brain. That has limited my entertainment value. >>>>>
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Memorizing physics formulae or a part in a Shakespeare play
or Indy winners in order by year or the infield fly rule or
your favorite music for keyboard or Japanese kana are all,
literally, the exact same thing; rote memory.
No argument there.. Some aspects of computer programming depends on
rote knowlege, too, but writing software, IOW, problem solving,
generally requires analytical ability and what they call meaningfull
learning.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Yes that's true.
But Fermi couldn't advance knowledge without first
understanding basic physics.
You'll counter that John Lenin never learned music theory
and could neither read nor write musical notation all his
short life. That's also true.
But learning basic theory and principle helps immensely for
those of us who are not geniuses.
I think you misunderstand.. I know learning by rote is an important
part of the learning process, but for the individuals I refer to as
"learn by rote" people, it's pretty much the only thing. That leaves
them being book smart vs being street smart. Book smart people may be
able to rattle off all kinds of information, while street smart people
just get things done.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:36:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 7:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:54:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryderhttps://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is >>>>>>>> learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and >>>>>>>> paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to >>>>>>>> change the topic.
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>>>>> Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work. >>>>>>>>
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all >>>>>>>> did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of >>>>>>>> things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a >>>>>>>> good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For >>>>>>>> example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality. >>>>>>>> I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but >>>>>>>> most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >>>>>>>> Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my >>>>>>>> comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results >>>>>>>> of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book >>>>>>>> or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that >>>>>>>> match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds >>>>>>>> mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: >>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the >>>>>>>> grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook. >>>>>>>> Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a >>>>>>>> book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One >>>>>>> >from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how >>>>>>>> things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're >>>>>>>> doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for >>>>>>>> you to know how things work without first knowing first learning? >>>>>>>
Yes, that's fine background information. You were the one who
introduced rote learning to this discussion. I'm trying to determine >>>>>> why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of >>>>>> pounds force and pounds mass.
Here are two of my questions that you ignored. I obviously can't
demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide. >>>>>> That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions,
beliefs, opinions etc. I do care how they derived or calculated those >>>>>> convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
1. Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by >>>>>> cut and paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an
attempt to change the topic.
I thought it was obvious that I was unimpressed by what I thought was
cut and paste..
2. If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know >>>>>> how things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what
you're doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it
possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first >>>>>> learning?
As for " learn by knowing how things work," what I should have said
was that I learn by analyzing how things work. I am, as you might
have noticed, not very good at explaining myself. That's probably due
to me not being particularly interested in explaining myself.
Below, I was responding to how the term "learn by rote" got into the
discussion...
I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back
when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just >>>>> quoted the researcher's conclusions.
You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again
with a "one-liner". That's fine. I can't force you to answer.
I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers
conclusions. However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning
because it would be too much for most readers. I simply reference the >>>> researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at
their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my
comments. I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research
that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.
I usually ignore the researcher's conclusions. I will, if I'm
interested, analyses it for myself. I may look to see who they are and
see what their agenda is so I can determine their bias insofar as the
collection and presentation of data. Often I can't see who they are,
but there are some things to be learned simply by noting what they're
researching and how they define and label it.
I should say that more often than not I'll simply ignore those
"studies." People don't spend time and money on them unless they have
an agenda, which I'm not going to be interested in.
Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you? How about
someone else's data? Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by
expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and
conclusions?
No, actually I challenged him to explain his statement about the
pretend study I presented being like similar to the study he
presented.
I know enough statistics to get myself into trouble. I
would be hard pressed to perform a proper statistical analysis on a
research paper. If you ask Frank to do that, are you prepared to do
the same? How's your statistics experience?
One needn't be an expert in statistics to note that because sometimes
people with guns in their homes get shot doesn't mean that having a
gun in the house makes it more likely to get shot.
It's difficult for me to guess(tm) what actually happened from your
one-line description. Frank probably cited a reference that had done
some research involving cycling. Knowing Frank, it was probably about >>>> bicycle infrastructure. That's a very controversial topic, that has
as many opinions as there are researchers. Frank probably posted a
link to a research report that agreed with his point of view. With
minimal effort, I could probably find a research report with opposite
or alternative points of view. Or, I could massage the data to
reflect my point of view. What were you expecting? Faulty data or
faulty conclusions?
Actually, I'm not interested in studies involving cycling, nor am I
interested in defending my contradictory opinions. I'm also not
interested in seeing/hearing someone else defend their opinions, other
than, prhaps for analyzing their thought processes.
Anyway, I don't see why you don't appreciate learning by rote. It's
just another way of learning. I learned to play piano by wrote.
Actually I do appreciate it and I mentioned a number of things I've
learned by rote. When I say someone is a "learn by rote" person I'm
saying their primary learning process is rote, and thus, they're poor
problem solvers.
Same with anything I had to learn that require practice. I didn't
really understand what I was expected to do until after I performed it >>>> by rote. Those who chose to look deeper eventually learned to what
the composer was trying to do and how it worked. First, I learned how >>>> to do it by brute force (rote). Later came understanding, not the
other way around.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I may not have understood your position yet.
Without a grounding in the basic principles/ rules/ laws/
formulae of any given field you really cannot solve problems
with any efficiency, at least not the problems previously
solved by others who wrote those formulae for you.
Th best defense attorneys are brilliantly creative (some
might say to an absurdly unreal level) but their success
(and billing rate) is firmly grounded in a diligent thorough
understanding of the Statutes and untold numbers of prior
case decisions in all their picayune detail.
'Reinventing the wheel' and all that is a hard (and
unnecessary) slog.
Yare But...--
Do you thing old Leonardo got them books out (your subject) before he
got busy painting that old girl's picture? (:-)
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:36:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 7:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:54:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryderhttps://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is >>>>>>>> learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and >>>>>>>> paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to >>>>>>>> change the topic.
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>>>>> Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work. >>>>>>>>
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all >>>>>>>> did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of >>>>>>>> things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a >>>>>>>> good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For >>>>>>>> example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality. >>>>>>>> I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but >>>>>>>> most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >>>>>>>> Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my >>>>>>>> comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results >>>>>>>> of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book >>>>>>>> or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that >>>>>>>> match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds >>>>>>>> mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: >>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the >>>>>>>> grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook. >>>>>>>> Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a >>>>>>>> book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One >>>>>>> >from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how >>>>>>>> things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're >>>>>>>> doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for >>>>>>>> you to know how things work without first knowing first learning? >>>>>>>
Yes, that's fine background information. You were the one who
introduced rote learning to this discussion. I'm trying to determine >>>>>> why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of >>>>>> pounds force and pounds mass.
Here are two of my questions that you ignored. I obviously can't
demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide. >>>>>> That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions,
beliefs, opinions etc. I do care how they derived or calculated those >>>>>> convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
1. Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by >>>>>> cut and paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an
attempt to change the topic.
I thought it was obvious that I was unimpressed by what I thought was
cut and paste..
2. If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know >>>>>> how things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what
you're doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it
possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first >>>>>> learning?
As for " learn by knowing how things work," what I should have said
was that I learn by analyzing how things work. I am, as you might
have noticed, not very good at explaining myself. That's probably due
to me not being particularly interested in explaining myself.
Below, I was responding to how the term "learn by rote" got into the
discussion...
I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back
when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just >>>>> quoted the researcher's conclusions.
You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again
with a "one-liner". That's fine. I can't force you to answer.
I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers
conclusions. However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning
because it would be too much for most readers. I simply reference the >>>> researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at
their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my
comments. I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research
that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.
I usually ignore the researcher's conclusions. I will, if I'm
interested, analyses it for myself. I may look to see who they are and
see what their agenda is so I can determine their bias insofar as the
collection and presentation of data. Often I can't see who they are,
but there are some things to be learned simply by noting what they're
researching and how they define and label it.
I should say that more often than not I'll simply ignore those
"studies." People don't spend time and money on them unless they have
an agenda, which I'm not going to be interested in.
Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you? How about
someone else's data? Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by
expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and
conclusions?
No, actually I challenged him to explain his statement about the
pretend study I presented being like similar to the study he
presented.
I know enough statistics to get myself into trouble. I
would be hard pressed to perform a proper statistical analysis on a
research paper. If you ask Frank to do that, are you prepared to do
the same? How's your statistics experience?
One needn't be an expert in statistics to note that because sometimes
people with guns in their homes get shot doesn't mean that having a
gun in the house makes it more likely to get shot.
It's difficult for me to guess(tm) what actually happened from your
one-line description. Frank probably cited a reference that had done
some research involving cycling. Knowing Frank, it was probably about >>>> bicycle infrastructure. That's a very controversial topic, that has
as many opinions as there are researchers. Frank probably posted a
link to a research report that agreed with his point of view. With
minimal effort, I could probably find a research report with opposite
or alternative points of view. Or, I could massage the data to
reflect my point of view. What were you expecting? Faulty data or
faulty conclusions?
Actually, I'm not interested in studies involving cycling, nor am I
interested in defending my contradictory opinions. I'm also not
interested in seeing/hearing someone else defend their opinions, other
than, prhaps for analyzing their thought processes.
Anyway, I don't see why you don't appreciate learning by rote. It's
just another way of learning. I learned to play piano by wrote.
Actually I do appreciate it and I mentioned a number of things I've
learned by rote. When I say someone is a "learn by rote" person I'm
saying their primary learning process is rote, and thus, they're poor
problem solvers.
Same with anything I had to learn that require practice. I didn't
really understand what I was expected to do until after I performed it >>>> by rote. Those who chose to look deeper eventually learned to what
the composer was trying to do and how it worked. First, I learned how >>>> to do it by brute force (rote). Later came understanding, not the
other way around.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I may not have understood your position yet.
Without a grounding in the basic principles/ rules/ laws/
formulae of any given field you really cannot solve problems
with any efficiency, at least not the problems previously
solved by others who wrote those formulae for you.
Th best defense attorneys are brilliantly creative (some
might say to an absurdly unreal level) but their success
(and billing rate) is firmly grounded in a diligent thorough
understanding of the Statutes and untold numbers of prior
case decisions in all their picayune detail.
'Reinventing the wheel' and all that is a hard (and
unnecessary) slog.
Yare But...
Do you thing old Leonardo got them books out (your subject) before he
got busy painting that old girl's picture? (:-)
--
cheers,
John B.
On 6/20/2025 3:41 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:36:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 7:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:54:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryderhttps://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>>>>>> Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work. >>>>>>>>>
learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and >>>>>>>>> paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to >>>>>>>>> change the topic.
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all >>>>>>>>> did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of >>>>>>>>> things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a >>>>>>>>> good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For >>>>>>>>> example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality. >>>>>>>>> I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but >>>>>>>>> most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >>>>>>>>> Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my >>>>>>>>> comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results >>>>>>>>> of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book
or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that >>>>>>>>> match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds >>>>>>>>> mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: >>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the >>>>>>>>> grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook. >>>>>>>>> Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a
book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One >>>>>>>> >from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how >>>>>>>>> things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're >>>>>>>>> doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for
you to know how things work without first knowing first learning? >>>>>>>>
Yes, that's fine background information. You were the one who
introduced rote learning to this discussion. I'm trying to determine >>>>>>> why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of >>>>>>> pounds force and pounds mass.
Here are two of my questions that you ignored. I obviously can't >>>>>>> demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide. >>>>>>> That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions,
beliefs, opinions etc. I do care how they derived or calculated those >>>>>>> convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
1. Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by >>>>>>> cut and paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an >>>>>>> attempt to change the topic.
I thought it was obvious that I was unimpressed by what I thought was
cut and paste..
2. If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know >>>>>>> how things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what >>>>>>> you're doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it >>>>>>> possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first >>>>>>> learning?
As for " learn by knowing how things work," what I should have said
was that I learn by analyzing how things work. I am, as you might
have noticed, not very good at explaining myself. That's probably due
to me not being particularly interested in explaining myself.
Below, I was responding to how the term "learn by rote" got into the
discussion...
I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back >>>>>> when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just >>>>>> quoted the researcher's conclusions.
You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again
with a "one-liner". That's fine. I can't force you to answer.
I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers
conclusions. However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning >>>>> because it would be too much for most readers. I simply reference the >>>>> researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at >>>>> their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my
comments. I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research >>>>> that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.
I usually ignore the researcher's conclusions. I will, if I'm
interested, analyses it for myself. I may look to see who they are and >>>> see what their agenda is so I can determine their bias insofar as the
collection and presentation of data. Often I can't see who they are,
but there are some things to be learned simply by noting what they're
researching and how they define and label it.
I should say that more often than not I'll simply ignore those
"studies." People don't spend time and money on them unless they have
an agenda, which I'm not going to be interested in.
Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you? How about >>>>> someone else's data? Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by
expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and >>>>> conclusions?
No, actually I challenged him to explain his statement about the
pretend study I presented being like similar to the study he
presented.
I know enough statistics to get myself into trouble. I
would be hard pressed to perform a proper statistical analysis on a
research paper. If you ask Frank to do that, are you prepared to do >>>>> the same? How's your statistics experience?
One needn't be an expert in statistics to note that because sometimes
people with guns in their homes get shot doesn't mean that having a
gun in the house makes it more likely to get shot.
It's difficult for me to guess(tm) what actually happened from your
one-line description. Frank probably cited a reference that had done >>>>> some research involving cycling. Knowing Frank, it was probably about >>>>> bicycle infrastructure. That's a very controversial topic, that has >>>>> as many opinions as there are researchers. Frank probably posted a
link to a research report that agreed with his point of view. With
minimal effort, I could probably find a research report with opposite >>>>> or alternative points of view. Or, I could massage the data to
reflect my point of view. What were you expecting? Faulty data or
faulty conclusions?
Actually, I'm not interested in studies involving cycling, nor am I
interested in defending my contradictory opinions. I'm also not
interested in seeing/hearing someone else defend their opinions, other >>>> than, prhaps for analyzing their thought processes.
Anyway, I don't see why you don't appreciate learning by rote. It's >>>>> just another way of learning. I learned to play piano by wrote.
Actually I do appreciate it and I mentioned a number of things I've
learned by rote. When I say someone is a "learn by rote" person I'm
saying their primary learning process is rote, and thus, they're poor
problem solvers.
Same with anything I had to learn that require practice. I didn't
really understand what I was expected to do until after I performed it >>>>> by rote. Those who chose to look deeper eventually learned to what
the composer was trying to do and how it worked. First, I learned how >>>>> to do it by brute force (rote). Later came understanding, not the
other way around.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I may not have understood your position yet.
Without a grounding in the basic principles/ rules/ laws/
formulae of any given field you really cannot solve problems
with any efficiency, at least not the problems previously
solved by others who wrote those formulae for you.
Th best defense attorneys are brilliantly creative (some
might say to an absurdly unreal level) but their success
(and billing rate) is firmly grounded in a diligent thorough
understanding of the Statutes and untold numbers of prior
case decisions in all their picayune detail.
'Reinventing the wheel' and all that is a hard (and
unnecessary) slog.
Lawers must first know the basic principles.... but most good
lawyers, especially courtroom lawyers are problem solvers, which
requires more than what you can learn from books.
I believe the movers and shakers of the world have learned both ways,
rote learning and meaningful learning.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Yes, exactly and I think we actually agree.
Without a grounding in basic principles one gains only a
small understanding from experience.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:07:26 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:41 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:36:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 7:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:54:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryderhttps://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineeringIOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>>>>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>>>>>>> Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work. >>>>>>>>>>
learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and >>>>>>>>>> paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to >>>>>>>>>> change the topic.
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all >>>>>>>>>> did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of >>>>>>>>>> things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a >>>>>>>>>> good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For >>>>>>>>>> example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality.
I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but
most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >>>>>>>>>> Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my >>>>>>>>>> comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results
of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book
or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that >>>>>>>>>> match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds
mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the >>>>>>>>>> calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the >>>>>>>>>> grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook. >>>>>>>>>> Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a
book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One >>>>>>>>> >from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how >>>>>>>>>> things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're >>>>>>>>>> doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for
you to know how things work without first knowing first learning? >>>>>>>>>
Yes, that's fine background information. You were the one who >>>>>>>> introduced rote learning to this discussion. I'm trying to determine >>>>>>>> why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of >>>>>>>> pounds force and pounds mass.
Here are two of my questions that you ignored. I obviously can't >>>>>>>> demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide. >>>>>>>> That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions, >>>>>>>> beliefs, opinions etc. I do care how they derived or calculated those >>>>>>>> convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
1. Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by >>>>>>>> cut and paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an >>>>>>>> attempt to change the topic.
I thought it was obvious that I was unimpressed by what I thought was >>>>> cut and paste..
2. If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know >>>>>>>> how things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what >>>>>>>> you're doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it >>>>>>>> possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first >>>>>>>> learning?
As for " learn by knowing how things work," what I should have said
was that I learn by analyzing how things work. I am, as you might
have noticed, not very good at explaining myself. That's probably due >>>>> to me not being particularly interested in explaining myself.
Below, I was responding to how the term "learn by rote" got into the >>>>> discussion...
I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back >>>>>>> when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just >>>>>>> quoted the researcher's conclusions.
You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again >>>>>> with a "one-liner". That's fine. I can't force you to answer.
I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers
conclusions. However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning >>>>>> because it would be too much for most readers. I simply reference the >>>>>> researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at >>>>>> their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my
comments. I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research >>>>>> that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.
I usually ignore the researcher's conclusions. I will, if I'm
interested, analyses it for myself. I may look to see who they are and >>>>> see what their agenda is so I can determine their bias insofar as the >>>>> collection and presentation of data. Often I can't see who they are, >>>>> but there are some things to be learned simply by noting what they're >>>>> researching and how they define and label it.
I should say that more often than not I'll simply ignore those
"studies." People don't spend time and money on them unless they have >>>>> an agenda, which I'm not going to be interested in.
Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you? How about >>>>>> someone else's data? Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by >>>>>> expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and >>>>>> conclusions?
No, actually I challenged him to explain his statement about the
pretend study I presented being like similar to the study he
presented.
I know enough statistics to get myself into trouble. I
would be hard pressed to perform a proper statistical analysis on a >>>>>> research paper. If you ask Frank to do that, are you prepared to do >>>>>> the same? How's your statistics experience?
One needn't be an expert in statistics to note that because sometimes >>>>> people with guns in their homes get shot doesn't mean that having a
gun in the house makes it more likely to get shot.
It's difficult for me to guess(tm) what actually happened from your >>>>>> one-line description. Frank probably cited a reference that had done >>>>>> some research involving cycling. Knowing Frank, it was probably about >>>>>> bicycle infrastructure. That's a very controversial topic, that has >>>>>> as many opinions as there are researchers. Frank probably posted a >>>>>> link to a research report that agreed with his point of view. With >>>>>> minimal effort, I could probably find a research report with opposite >>>>>> or alternative points of view. Or, I could massage the data to
reflect my point of view. What were you expecting? Faulty data or >>>>>> faulty conclusions?
Actually, I'm not interested in studies involving cycling, nor am I
interested in defending my contradictory opinions. I'm also not
interested in seeing/hearing someone else defend their opinions, other >>>>> than, prhaps for analyzing their thought processes.
Anyway, I don't see why you don't appreciate learning by rote. It's >>>>>> just another way of learning. I learned to play piano by wrote.
Actually I do appreciate it and I mentioned a number of things I've
learned by rote. When I say someone is a "learn by rote" person I'm
saying their primary learning process is rote, and thus, they're poor >>>>> problem solvers.
Same with anything I had to learn that require practice. I didn't >>>>>> really understand what I was expected to do until after I performed it >>>>>> by rote. Those who chose to look deeper eventually learned to what >>>>>> the composer was trying to do and how it worked. First, I learned how >>>>>> to do it by brute force (rote). Later came understanding, not the >>>>>> other way around.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I may not have understood your position yet.
Without a grounding in the basic principles/ rules/ laws/
formulae of any given field you really cannot solve problems
with any efficiency, at least not the problems previously
solved by others who wrote those formulae for you.
Th best defense attorneys are brilliantly creative (some
might say to an absurdly unreal level) but their success
(and billing rate) is firmly grounded in a diligent thorough
understanding of the Statutes and untold numbers of prior
case decisions in all their picayune detail.
'Reinventing the wheel' and all that is a hard (and
unnecessary) slog.
Lawers must first know the basic principles.... but most good
lawyers, especially courtroom lawyers are problem solvers, which
requires more than what you can learn from books.
I believe the movers and shakers of the world have learned both ways,
rote learning and meaningful learning.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Yes, exactly and I think we actually agree.
Without a grounding in basic principles one gains only a
small understanding from experience.
Indeed. One would not do well in anything without knowing language
and/or what we called the multiplication tables. Both are exmples of
rote learning, and there are much more in that catagory. On the other
hand, without analytic and reasoning skills, that basic knowledge
won't accomplish much... well, they could be useful to pass on to
students.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 6/20/2025 10:46 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:07:26 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:41 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:36:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 6/19/2025 7:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:54:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryderhttps://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineeringIOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work. >>>>>>>>>>>
learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and
paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to
change the topic.
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all >>>>>>>>>>> did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of >>>>>>>>>>> things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a
good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For >>>>>>>>>>> example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality.
I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but
most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my
comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results
of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied from a book
or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that
match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds
mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the >>>>>>>>>>> calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: >>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the >>>>>>>>>>> grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook.
Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a
book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One >>>>>>>>>> >from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how >>>>>>>>>>> things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're
doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it possible for
you to know how things work without first knowing first learning? >>>>>>>>>>
Yes, that's fine background information. You were the one who >>>>>>>>> introduced rote learning to this discussion. I'm trying to determine >>>>>>>>> why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of >>>>>>>>> pounds force and pounds mass.
Here are two of my questions that you ignored. I obviously can't >>>>>>>>> demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide. >>>>>>>>> That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions, >>>>>>>>> beliefs, opinions etc. I do care how they derived or calculated those
convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
1. Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by >>>>>>>>> cut and paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an >>>>>>>>> attempt to change the topic.
I thought it was obvious that I was unimpressed by what I thought was >>>>>> cut and paste..
2. If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know >>>>>>>>> how things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what >>>>>>>>> you're doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it >>>>>>>>> possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first >>>>>>>>> learning?
As for " learn by knowing how things work," what I should have said >>>>>> was that I learn by analyzing how things work. I am, as you might >>>>>> have noticed, not very good at explaining myself. That's probably due >>>>>> to me not being particularly interested in explaining myself.
Below, I was responding to how the term "learn by rote" got into the >>>>>> discussion...
I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back >>>>>>>> when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just >>>>>>>> quoted the researcher's conclusions.
You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again >>>>>>> with a "one-liner". That's fine. I can't force you to answer.
I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers
conclusions. However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning >>>>>>> because it would be too much for most readers. I simply reference the >>>>>>> researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at >>>>>>> their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my >>>>>>> comments. I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research >>>>>>> that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.
I usually ignore the researcher's conclusions. I will, if I'm
interested, analyses it for myself. I may look to see who they are and >>>>>> see what their agenda is so I can determine their bias insofar as the >>>>>> collection and presentation of data. Often I can't see who they are, >>>>>> but there are some things to be learned simply by noting what they're >>>>>> researching and how they define and label it.
I should say that more often than not I'll simply ignore those
"studies." People don't spend time and money on them unless they have >>>>>> an agenda, which I'm not going to be interested in.
Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you? How about >>>>>>> someone else's data? Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by >>>>>>> expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and >>>>>>> conclusions?
No, actually I challenged him to explain his statement about the
pretend study I presented being like similar to the study he
presented.
I know enough statistics to get myself into trouble. I
would be hard pressed to perform a proper statistical analysis on a >>>>>>> research paper. If you ask Frank to do that, are you prepared to do >>>>>>> the same? How's your statistics experience?
One needn't be an expert in statistics to note that because sometimes >>>>>> people with guns in their homes get shot doesn't mean that having a >>>>>> gun in the house makes it more likely to get shot.
It's difficult for me to guess(tm) what actually happened from your >>>>>>> one-line description. Frank probably cited a reference that had done >>>>>>> some research involving cycling. Knowing Frank, it was probably about >>>>>>> bicycle infrastructure. That's a very controversial topic, that has >>>>>>> as many opinions as there are researchers. Frank probably posted a >>>>>>> link to a research report that agreed with his point of view. With >>>>>>> minimal effort, I could probably find a research report with opposite >>>>>>> or alternative points of view. Or, I could massage the data to
reflect my point of view. What were you expecting? Faulty data or >>>>>>> faulty conclusions?
Actually, I'm not interested in studies involving cycling, nor am I >>>>>> interested in defending my contradictory opinions. I'm also not
interested in seeing/hearing someone else defend their opinions, other >>>>>> than, prhaps for analyzing their thought processes.
Anyway, I don't see why you don't appreciate learning by rote. It's >>>>>>> just another way of learning. I learned to play piano by wrote.
Actually I do appreciate it and I mentioned a number of things I've >>>>>> learned by rote. When I say someone is a "learn by rote" person I'm >>>>>> saying their primary learning process is rote, and thus, they're poor >>>>>> problem solvers.
Same with anything I had to learn that require practice. I didn't >>>>>>> really understand what I was expected to do until after I performed it >>>>>>> by rote. Those who chose to look deeper eventually learned to what >>>>>>> the composer was trying to do and how it worked. First, I learned how >>>>>>> to do it by brute force (rote). Later came understanding, not the >>>>>>> other way around.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I may not have understood your position yet.
Without a grounding in the basic principles/ rules/ laws/
formulae of any given field you really cannot solve problems
with any efficiency, at least not the problems previously
solved by others who wrote those formulae for you.
Th best defense attorneys are brilliantly creative (some
might say to an absurdly unreal level) but their success
(and billing rate) is firmly grounded in a diligent thorough
understanding of the Statutes and untold numbers of prior
case decisions in all their picayune detail.
'Reinventing the wheel' and all that is a hard (and
unnecessary) slog.
Lawers must first know the basic principles.... but most good
lawyers, especially courtroom lawyers are problem solvers, which
requires more than what you can learn from books.
I believe the movers and shakers of the world have learned both ways,
rote learning and meaningful learning.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Yes, exactly and I think we actually agree.
Without a grounding in basic principles one gains only a
small understanding from experience.
Indeed. One would not do well in anything without knowing language
and/or what we called the multiplication tables. Both are exmples of
rote learning, and there are much more in that catagory. On the other
hand, without analytic and reasoning skills, that basic knowledge
won't accomplish much... well, they could be useful to pass on to
students.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Extend that thought.
The formulae cited by Mr Krygowski are as much a part of his
life as the English alphabet or multiplication tables are to
yours. He knows them fully and as well as you know the
music you play. Life is just better when we've incorporated
that sort of basic knowledge in order to approach new problems.
I'm as critical as anyone of the hollow sham of most modern
education rackets, producing unskilled, uninformed, indolent
unemployables at great cost. That's entirely different from
a discussion of learning.
On 6/20/2025 1:15 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I'm not saying he doesn't know engineering principles, I'm saying that
being the kind of person I believe him to be, I don't believe he'd
risk putting all of that out there for everyone to see without being
100% sure that everything was perfect.
I'm shaking my head here in disbelief.
Now our timid tricyclist seems to be criticizing me because my post on
pounds force and pounds mass was too correct! He demands I make mistakes
to, somehow, prove that I know my professional information.
This guy is really, really illogical and strange - and obsessed.
On 6/20/2025 1:15 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I'm not saying he doesn't know engineering principles, I'm saying that
being the kind of person I believe him to be, I don't believe he'd
risk putting all of that out there for everyone to see without being
100% sure that everything was perfect.
I'm shaking my head here in disbelief.
Now our timid tricyclist seems to be criticizing me because my post on
pounds force and pounds mass was too correct! He demands I make mistakes
to, somehow, prove that I know my professional information.
This guy is really, really illogical and strange - and obsessed.
On 6/20/2025 4:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2025 1:15 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:As if there was something wrong with wanting to make sure the
I'm not saying he doesn't know engineering principles, I'm saying that
being the kind of person I believe him to be, I don't believe he'd
risk putting all of that out there for everyone to see without being
100% sure that everything was perfect.
I'm shaking my head here in disbelief.
Now our timid tricyclist seems to be criticizing me because my post on
pounds force and pounds mass was too correct! He demands I make mistakes
to, somehow, prove that I know my professional information.
This guy is really, really illogical and strange - and obsessed.
information you provide is correct..
Well given his kunich-esque propensity for ignoring facts and making >assumptions, I guess it's a way for him to protect his fragile ego..."I
don't care if it's wrong, it's what I believe".....
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the >>>>>>> shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho
"Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to
rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're
thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( .
Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate
from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin
shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are
rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
On 6/19/2025 3:53 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:27:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:And I'd probably get it wrong. I'd say, "Who cares?" Krygowski would
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting
on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>>> professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>> That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
If only you knew how force, mass, and acceleration worked you could
also write out an explanation similar to that of Prof. Krygowski.
have to very sure he got all the commas and brackets exactly right.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That's true, which is why knowing that is important to him. Maybe not important to you.
For simple machining, one needs to know basic geometry to calculate
cutting speed for turning or boring and you also need to know optimal
cutting speed constants for whatever material(s) you have. It's
possible to sorta try different speeds and see how it goes but that's impractical if you are not in a position to chuck several pieces in
the scrap bin along the way.
People do have amazing memory capacities which occasionally astound
me. For example, a guy I thought was not one of the brightest. I was
nearby when he was discussing baseball with someone else and he could
recount plays from 30, 40 years ago, along with the player stats
before and after that game. And many iterations of those plays.
Depends on what's important to you.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:19:09 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:25:57 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 1:46 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:13 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 6/17/2025 1:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones. >>>>>>>>>>>> "7 stone", not "7 stones".
Huh. OK, I can try to remember that too.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like >>>>>>>>>>>>> they used toNo idea. Different scales of weight for different items was once >>>>>>>>>>>> considered natural. Troy ounces and pounds still survive. 12 Troy
have an actual kilogram?)
ounces per pound, of course. "Grain" for gunpowder or drugs is also
still in use, although in the case of drugs I think it's mostly just
aspirin labels.
The SI system is _so_ much more logical!
Although users often make the inverse of our usual force vs. mass >>>>>>>>>>> mistake, by using kilograms as a measure of force.
True, ordinary everyday SI users almost always use Kg as a unit of >>>>>>>>>> either mass or weight interchangeably. Maybe when we live >>>>>>>>>> on different
planets the difference will be more intuitive.
Like sidereal time.
Is there a problem here at roughly sea level on earth where weight vs >>>>>>>>> mass discrepancy is significant? I really don't know.
The problem arises in engineering calculations - things like "How much >>>>>>>> force will be required to accelerate this component at this given >>>>>>>> acceleration?" An example might be the force a valve spring must exert >>>>>>>> to close an intake valve on time.
As Radey said, engineers working with U.S. units usually distinguish >>>>>>>> force and mass by use of the terms "pounds force (lbf)" and "pounds >>>>>>>> mass (lbm)" where the "f" and "m" are subscripts. And then they use the
poorly understood (by students, anyway) conversion factor
32.2 lbm*ft/(lbf*s^2) to work out the correct units.
(A conversion factor is an algebraic expression with a value of one. For
example, twelve inches = one foot expressed as a fractional conversion >>>>>>>> factor is (12 inches/1 foot) Since numerator equals denominator, its >>>>>>>> value is one - it doesn't change the magnitude of an answer - but it can
be used to change the answer's form.)
Here's a simple example: What would be the acceleration of a 1 lbm >>>>>>>> object if a 1 pound force were applied to it?
Using F=m*a and solving for acceleration gives a = F/m
And plugging in a = 1 lb / 1 lb gives an answer of one...
somethings?Maybe one ft/s^2? That would be a typical freshman mistake. >>>>>>>>
But keeping track of units properly, the calculation should be >>>>>>>> a = 1 lbf/1 lbm, and the units are not working out to ft/s^2. So apply >>>>>>>> the conversion factor:
a=(1 lbf / 1 lbm) * 32.2 (lbm*ft)/(lbf*s^2)
which leads to units cancelling properly in the overall numerator and >>>>>>>> denominator, leaving the answer as a = 32.2 ft/s^2
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>> professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Why? For similar paragraphs in my field I can do that all
day long extemporaneously. As can Mr Shouman. Or anyone in
his own skilled field.
Well, he is good at remembering stuff being a learn by rote guy, I
just don't believe he could write it out without help.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Not at all clear to me.
I see no reason to believe he doesn't know his professional
field, as I assume do you as well.
I wite a lot of algebraic expressions in my programming and I know how
easy it is to misplace a comma or a bracket.
I'm pretty sure he knows the information, but writing out a lengthy
algebraic expression from memory is rough. Knowing him, I don't
believe he's take the chance of getting it wrong. Me? I don't worry
about that, but he's not a risk taker.
Am 14.06.2025 um 10:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the >>>>>>>> shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho
"Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're
thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( .
Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate
from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin
shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are
rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
Cars can get out of control and mount the sidewalk.
Cyclists on the sidewalk can hit a pedestrian from behind.
On 6/20/2025 10:46 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:07:26 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:41 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Indeed. One would not do well in anything without knowing language
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:36:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 6/19/2025 7:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:54:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryderhttps://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff LiebermannI didn't mention rote learning by repetition without
<jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any engineeringIOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
professor should be able to do the same. Any
practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and >>>>>>>>>>>>> calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work. >>>>>>>>>>>
understanding. Is
learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and
paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to
change the topic.
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all >>>>>>>>>>> did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of >>>>>>>>>>> things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a
good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For >>>>>>>>>>> example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality.
I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but
most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding. >>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my
comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results
of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied >>>>>>>>>>> from a book
or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that
match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds
mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the >>>>>>>>>>> calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: >>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the >>>>>>>>>>> grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook.
Also, if you've ever read something that was partly
plagiarized from a
book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One >>>>>>>>>> >from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how >>>>>>>>>>> things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're
doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it >>>>>>>>>>> possible for
you to know how things work without first knowing first learning? >>>>>>>>>>
Yes, that's fine background information. You were the one who >>>>>>>>> introduced rote learning to this discussion. I'm trying to determine >>>>>>>>> why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of >>>>>>>>> pounds force and pounds mass.
Here are two of my questions that you ignored. I obviously can't >>>>>>>>> demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide. >>>>>>>>> That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions, >>>>>>>>> beliefs, opinions etc. I do care how they derived or calculated those
convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
1. Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by >>>>>>>>> cut and paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an >>>>>>>>> attempt to change the topic.
I thought it was obvious that I was unimpressed by what I thought was >>>>>> cut and paste..
2. If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know >>>>>>>>> how things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what >>>>>>>>> you're doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it >>>>>>>>> possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first >>>>>>>>> learning?
As for " learn by knowing how things work," what I should have said >>>>>> was that I learn by analyzing how things work. I am, as you might >>>>>> have noticed, not very good at explaining myself. That's probably due >>>>>> to me not being particularly interested in explaining myself.
Below, I was responding to how the term "learn by rote" got into the >>>>>> discussion...
I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back >>>>>>>> when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just >>>>>>>> quoted the researcher's conclusions.
You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again >>>>>>> with a "one-liner". That's fine. I can't force you to answer.
I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers
conclusions. However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning >>>>>>> because it would be too much for most readers. I simply reference the >>>>>>> researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at >>>>>>> their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my >>>>>>> comments. I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research >>>>>>> that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.
I usually ignore the researcher's conclusions. I will, if I'm
interested, analyses it for myself. I may look to see who they are and >>>>>> see what their agenda is so I can determine their bias insofar as the >>>>>> collection and presentation of data. Often I can't see who they are, >>>>>> but there are some things to be learned simply by noting what they're >>>>>> researching and how they define and label it.
I should say that more often than not I'll simply ignore those
"studies." People don't spend time and money on them unless they have >>>>>> an agenda, which I'm not going to be interested in.
Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you? How about >>>>>>> someone else's data? Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by >>>>>>> expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and >>>>>>> conclusions?
No, actually I challenged him to explain his statement about the
pretend study I presented being like similar to the study he
presented.
I know enough statistics to get myself into trouble. I
would be hard pressed to perform a proper statistical analysis on a >>>>>>> research paper. If you ask Frank to do that, are you prepared to do >>>>>>> the same? How's your statistics experience?
One needn't be an expert in statistics to note that because sometimes >>>>>> people with guns in their homes get shot doesn't mean that having a >>>>>> gun in the house makes it more likely to get shot.
It's difficult for me to guess(tm) what actually happened from your >>>>>>> one-line description. Frank probably cited a reference that had done >>>>>>> some research involving cycling. Knowing Frank, it was probably about >>>>>>> bicycle infrastructure. That's a very controversial topic, that has >>>>>>> as many opinions as there are researchers. Frank probably posted a >>>>>>> link to a research report that agreed with his point of view. With >>>>>>> minimal effort, I could probably find a research report with opposite >>>>>>> or alternative points of view. Or, I could massage the data to
reflect my point of view. What were you expecting? Faulty data or >>>>>>> faulty conclusions?
Actually, I'm not interested in studies involving cycling, nor am I >>>>>> interested in defending my contradictory opinions. I'm also not
interested in seeing/hearing someone else defend their opinions, other >>>>>> than, prhaps for analyzing their thought processes.
Anyway, I don't see why you don't appreciate learning by rote. It's >>>>>>> just another way of learning. I learned to play piano by wrote.
Actually I do appreciate it and I mentioned a number of things I've >>>>>> learned by rote. When I say someone is a "learn by rote" person I'm >>>>>> saying their primary learning process is rote, and thus, they're poor >>>>>> problem solvers.
Same with anything I had to learn that require practice. I didn't >>>>>>> really understand what I was expected to do until after I performed it >>>>>>> by rote. Those who chose to look deeper eventually learned to what >>>>>>> the composer was trying to do and how it worked. First, I learned how >>>>>>> to do it by brute force (rote). Later came understanding, not the >>>>>>> other way around.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I may not have understood your position yet.
Without a grounding in the basic principles/ rules/ laws/
formulae of any given field you really cannot solve problems
with any efficiency, at least not the problems previously
solved by others who wrote those formulae for you.
Th best defense attorneys are brilliantly creative (some
might say to an absurdly unreal level) but their success
(and billing rate) is firmly grounded in a diligent thorough
understanding of the Statutes and untold numbers of prior
case decisions in all their picayune detail.
'Reinventing the wheel' and all that is a hard (and
unnecessary) slog.
Lawers must first know the basic principles.... but most good
lawyers, especially courtroom lawyers are problem solvers, which
requires more than what you can learn from books.
I believe the movers and shakers of the world have learned both ways,
rote learning and meaningful learning.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Yes, exactly and I think we actually agree.
Without a grounding in basic principles one gains only a
small understanding from experience.
and/or what we called the multiplication tables. Both are exmples of
rote learning, and there are much more in that catagory. On the other
hand, without analytic and reasoning skills, that basic knowledge
won't accomplish much... well, they could be useful to pass on to
students.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Extend that thought.
The formulae cited by Mr Krygowski are as much a part of his life as
the English alphabet or multiplication tables are to yours. He knows
them fully and as well as you know the music you play. Life is just
better when we've incorporated that sort of basic knowledge in order
to approach new problems.
I'm as critical as anyone of the hollow sham of most modern education rackets, producing unskilled, uninformed, indolent unemployables at
great cost. That's entirely different from a discussion of learning.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:19:09 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/19/2025 2:55 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:25:57 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 6/19/2025 1:46 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/18/2025 11:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2025 10:13 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 6/17/2025 1:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
But OK, I can probably cram in that 98 pounds = 7 stones. >>>>>>>>>>>>> "7 stone", not "7 stones".
Huh. OK, I can try to remember that too.
(Do they have an actual stone stored away somewhere, like >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they used toNo idea. Different scales of weight for different items was once >>>>>>>>>>>>> considered natural. Troy ounces and pounds still survive. 12 Troy
have an actual kilogram?)
ounces per pound, of course. "Grain" for gunpowder or drugs is also
still in use, although in the case of drugs I think it's mostly just
aspirin labels.
The SI system is _so_ much more logical!
Although users often make the inverse of our usual force vs. mass >>>>>>>>>>>> mistake, by using kilograms as a measure of force.
True, ordinary everyday SI users almost always use Kg as a unit of >>>>>>>>>>> either mass or weight interchangeably. Maybe when we live >>>>>>>>>>> on different
planets the difference will be more intuitive.
Like sidereal time.
Is there a problem here at roughly sea level on earth where weight vs
mass discrepancy is significant? I really don't know.
The problem arises in engineering calculations - things like "How much
force will be required to accelerate this component at this given >>>>>>>>> acceleration?" An example might be the force a valve spring must exert
to close an intake valve on time.
As Radey said, engineers working with U.S. units usually distinguish >>>>>>>>> force and mass by use of the terms "pounds force (lbf)" and "pounds >>>>>>>>> mass (lbm)" where the "f" and "m" are subscripts. And then they use the
poorly understood (by students, anyway) conversion factor
32.2 lbm*ft/(lbf*s^2) to work out the correct units.
(A conversion factor is an algebraic expression with a value of one. For
example, twelve inches = one foot expressed as a fractional conversion
factor is (12 inches/1 foot) Since numerator equals denominator, its >>>>>>>>> value is one - it doesn't change the magnitude of an answer - but it can
be used to change the answer's form.)
Here's a simple example: What would be the acceleration of a 1 lbm >>>>>>>>> object if a 1 pound force were applied to it?
Using F=m*a and solving for acceleration gives a = F/m
And plugging in a = 1 lb / 1 lb gives an answer of one...
somethings?Maybe one ft/s^2? That would be a typical freshman mistake.
But keeping track of units properly, the calculation should be >>>>>>>>> a = 1 lbf/1 lbm, and the units are not working out to ft/s^2. So apply
the conversion factor:
a=(1 lbf / 1 lbm) * 32.2 (lbm*ft)/(lbf*s^2)
which leads to units cancelling properly in the overall numerator and >>>>>>>>> denominator, leaving the answer as a = 32.2 ft/s^2
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering >>>>>>> professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Why? For similar paragraphs in my field I can do that all
day long extemporaneously. As can Mr Shouman. Or anyone in
his own skilled field.
Well, he is good at remembering stuff being a learn by rote guy, I
just don't believe he could write it out without help.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Not at all clear to me.
I see no reason to believe he doesn't know his professional
field, as I assume do you as well.
I wite a lot of algebraic expressions in my programming and I know how
easy it is to misplace a comma or a bracket.
I'm pretty sure he knows the information, but writing out a lengthy
algebraic expression from memory is rough. Knowing him, I don't
believe he's take the chance of getting it wrong. Me? I don't worry
about that, but he's not a risk taker.
That's where you're almost certainly wrong. The reason I believe the >original post was written ad hoc is that doing anything else would have
been more work. All that was required was to remember some basic facts, >first that F = ma, and second that one pound mass subjected to one pound >force is accelerated at g ~= 32.2 ft/s^2.
If you needed a copy of the multiplication table would you try to find a
book that contained it?
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 6/19/2025 3:53 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:27:01 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:And I'd probably get it wrong. I'd say, "Who cares?" Krygowski would
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman(...)
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting >>>>>>>>>> on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same. Any practicing engineer will >>>>>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations? >>>>>> That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't, >>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
If only you knew how force, mass, and acceleration worked you could
also write out an explanation similar to that of Prof. Krygowski.
have to very sure he got all the commas and brackets exactly right.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That's true, which is why knowing that is important to him. Maybe not
important to you.
For simple machining, one needs to know basic geometry to calculate
cutting speed for turning or boring and you also need to know optimal
cutting speed constants for whatever material(s) you have. It's
possible to sorta try different speeds and see how it goes but that's
impractical if you are not in a position to chuck several pieces in
the scrap bin along the way.
For engineering calculations the units and dimensions absolutely have to agree, otherwise the calculation is nonsense. This is not a matter of elegance or style, it's a really basic check on correctness. Add
millimeters to acres and you get garbage.
People do have amazing memory capacities which occasionally astound
me. For example, a guy I thought was not one of the brightest. I was
nearby when he was discussing baseball with someone else and he could
recount plays from 30, 40 years ago, along with the player stats
before and after that game. And many iterations of those plays.
Depends on what's important to you.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 6/20/2025 10:46 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:07:26 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 6/20/2025 3:41 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Indeed. One would not do well in anything without knowing language
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:36:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/19/2025 7:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:54:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryderhttps://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff LiebermannI didn't mention rote learning by repetition without
<jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:(...)
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any engineeringIOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
professor should be able to do the same. Any
practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculations?
That seems a bit excessive. Do you memorize everything? I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs and calculations. If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work. >>>>>>>>>>>>
understanding. Is
learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and
paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an attempt to
change the topic.
Ok, I'll bite. Rote is just one of many ways people learn. We all
did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of >>>>>>>>>>>> things, etc. We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a
good way to begin learning. I still learn by rote today. For >>>>>>>>>>>> example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality.
I make no attempt to understand those facts. Some might be true, but
most are false. I do some research and develop some understanding.
Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little. If you've read my
comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results
of that research.
Do you have any proof of your claims? If Frank had copied >>>>>>>>>>>> from a book
or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that
match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds
mass. I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the >>>>>>>>>>>> calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing: >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the >>>>>>>>>>>> grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook.
Also, if you've ever read something that was partly
plagiarized from a
book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing. One
from the book and the other from the writer.
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how
things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what you're
doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it >>>>>>>>>>>> possible for
you to know how things work without first knowing first learning? >>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, that's fine background information. You were the one who >>>>>>>>>> introduced rote learning to this discussion. I'm trying to determine
why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of >>>>>>>>>> pounds force and pounds mass.
Here are two of my questions that you ignored. I obviously can't >>>>>>>>>> demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide. >>>>>>>>>> That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions, >>>>>>>>>> beliefs, opinions etc. I do care how they derived or calculated those
convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
1. Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by >>>>>>>>>> cut and paste or copying out of a book? That seems to me like an >>>>>>>>>> attempt to change the topic.
I thought it was obvious that I was unimpressed by what I thought was >>>>>>> cut and paste..
2. If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know >>>>>>>>>> how things work BEFORE you could learn something. If that's what >>>>>>>>>> you're doing, it's rather self contradictory. If not, how is it >>>>>>>>>> possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first >>>>>>>>>> learning?
As for " learn by knowing how things work," what I should have said >>>>>>> was that I learn by analyzing how things work. I am, as you might >>>>>>> have noticed, not very good at explaining myself. That's probably due >>>>>>> to me not being particularly interested in explaining myself.
Below, I was responding to how the term "learn by rote" got into the >>>>>>> discussion...
I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back >>>>>>>>> when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just
quoted the researcher's conclusions.
You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again >>>>>>>> with a "one-liner". That's fine. I can't force you to answer. >>>>>>>>
I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers >>>>>>>> conclusions. However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning >>>>>>>> because it would be too much for most readers. I simply reference the >>>>>>>> researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at >>>>>>>> their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my >>>>>>>> comments. I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research >>>>>>>> that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.
I usually ignore the researcher's conclusions. I will, if I'm
interested, analyses it for myself. I may look to see who they are and >>>>>>> see what their agenda is so I can determine their bias insofar as the >>>>>>> collection and presentation of data. Often I can't see who they are, >>>>>>> but there are some things to be learned simply by noting what they're >>>>>>> researching and how they define and label it.
I should say that more often than not I'll simply ignore those
"studies." People don't spend time and money on them unless they have >>>>>>> an agenda, which I'm not going to be interested in.
Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you? How about >>>>>>>> someone else's data? Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by >>>>>>>> expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and >>>>>>>> conclusions?
No, actually I challenged him to explain his statement about the >>>>>>> pretend study I presented being like similar to the study he
presented.
I know enough statistics to get myself into trouble. I
would be hard pressed to perform a proper statistical analysis on a >>>>>>>> research paper. If you ask Frank to do that, are you prepared to do >>>>>>>> the same? How's your statistics experience?
One needn't be an expert in statistics to note that because sometimes >>>>>>> people with guns in their homes get shot doesn't mean that having a >>>>>>> gun in the house makes it more likely to get shot.
It's difficult for me to guess(tm) what actually happened from your >>>>>>>> one-line description. Frank probably cited a reference that had done >>>>>>>> some research involving cycling. Knowing Frank, it was probably about >>>>>>>> bicycle infrastructure. That's a very controversial topic, that has >>>>>>>> as many opinions as there are researchers. Frank probably posted a >>>>>>>> link to a research report that agreed with his point of view. With >>>>>>>> minimal effort, I could probably find a research report with opposite >>>>>>>> or alternative points of view. Or, I could massage the data to >>>>>>>> reflect my point of view. What were you expecting? Faulty data or >>>>>>>> faulty conclusions?
Actually, I'm not interested in studies involving cycling, nor am I >>>>>>> interested in defending my contradictory opinions. I'm also not
interested in seeing/hearing someone else defend their opinions, other >>>>>>> than, prhaps for analyzing their thought processes.
Anyway, I don't see why you don't appreciate learning by rote. It's >>>>>>>> just another way of learning. I learned to play piano by wrote. >>>>>>>Actually I do appreciate it and I mentioned a number of things I've >>>>>>> learned by rote. When I say someone is a "learn by rote" person I'm >>>>>>> saying their primary learning process is rote, and thus, they're poor >>>>>>> problem solvers.
Same with anything I had to learn that require practice. I didn't >>>>>>>> really understand what I was expected to do until after I performed it >>>>>>>> by rote. Those who chose to look deeper eventually learned to what >>>>>>>> the composer was trying to do and how it worked. First, I learned how >>>>>>>> to do it by brute force (rote). Later came understanding, not the >>>>>>>> other way around.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I may not have understood your position yet.
Without a grounding in the basic principles/ rules/ laws/
formulae of any given field you really cannot solve problems
with any efficiency, at least not the problems previously
solved by others who wrote those formulae for you.
Th best defense attorneys are brilliantly creative (some
might say to an absurdly unreal level) but their success
(and billing rate) is firmly grounded in a diligent thorough
understanding of the Statutes and untold numbers of prior
case decisions in all their picayune detail.
'Reinventing the wheel' and all that is a hard (and
unnecessary) slog.
Lawers must first know the basic principles.... but most good
lawyers, especially courtroom lawyers are problem solvers, which
requires more than what you can learn from books.
I believe the movers and shakers of the world have learned both ways, >>>>> rote learning and meaningful learning.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Yes, exactly and I think we actually agree.
Without a grounding in basic principles one gains only a
small understanding from experience.
and/or what we called the multiplication tables. Both are exmples of
rote learning, and there are much more in that catagory. On the other
hand, without analytic and reasoning skills, that basic knowledge
won't accomplish much... well, they could be useful to pass on to
students.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Extend that thought.
The formulae cited by Mr Krygowski are as much a part of his life as
the English alphabet or multiplication tables are to yours. He knows
them fully and as well as you know the music you play. Life is just
better when we've incorporated that sort of basic knowledge in order
to approach new problems.
He has undoubtedly explained exactly the same thing literally
thousands of times. After a while practice does have an effect.
I'm as critical as anyone of the hollow sham of most modern education
rackets, producing unskilled, uninformed, indolent unemployables at
great cost. That's entirely different from a discussion of learning.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:22:50 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.06.2025 um 10:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the >>>>>>>>> shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho
"Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate >>>>> from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin
shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are >>>> rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
Cars can get out of control and mount the sidewalk.
Cyclists on the sidewalk can hit a pedestrian from behind.
Really rare..
Am 23.06.2025 um 16:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:22:50 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.06.2025 um 10:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the >>>>>>>>>> shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho
"Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate >>>>>> from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin >>>>>> shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are >>>>> rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
Cars can get out of control and mount the sidewalk.
Cyclists on the sidewalk can hit a pedestrian from behind.
Really rare..
So is the accident the Zen describes.
If i count Zen as somebody I know, I know one person run over like this
on a bike an one person run over as a pedestrian on a sidewalk (my aunt >permanently lost her taste; it's amazing that she still cooks like a
godess just guessing the amount of salt and spices she needs).
Rolf
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:22:50 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.06.2025 um 10:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the >>>>>>>>> shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho
"Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate >>>>> from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin
shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are >>>> rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
Cars can get out of control and mount the sidewalk.
Cyclists on the sidewalk can hit a pedestrian from behind.
Really rare..
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:22:50 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.06.2025 um 10:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the >>>>>>>>>> shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho
"Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate >>>>>> from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin >>>>>> shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are >>>>> rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
Cars can get out of control and mount the sidewalk.
Cyclists on the sidewalk can hit a pedestrian from behind.
Really rare..
I was fairly sure they it’s not, uk pedestrian deaths are around 400 with >about 40 deaths on pavements ie sidewalks.
Florida despite having a smaller population has around double the deaths, >considering how poorly pedestrians seem to be catered for in the US that’s >not particularly surprising, it’s possible that the % is lower simply as >there is less pavements/sidewalks.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On 23 Jun 2025 21:35:18 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:22:50 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.06.2025 um 10:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>>>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the >>>>>>>>>>> shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho >>>>>>>>>>> "Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>>
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate >>>>>>> from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin >>>>>>> shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are >>>>>> rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
Cars can get out of control and mount the sidewalk.
Cyclists on the sidewalk can hit a pedestrian from behind.
Really rare..
I was fairly sure they itÂ’s not, uk pedestrian deaths are around 400 with >> about 40 deaths on pavements ie sidewalks.
Florida despite having a smaller population has around double the deaths,
considering how poorly pedestrians seem to be catered for in the US thatÂ’s >> not particularly surprising, itÂ’s possible that the % is lower simply as
there is less pavements/sidewalks.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Pedestrian "accident" deaths occur at intersection crosswalks. You're
pretty safe on sidewalks.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 21:35:18 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:22:50 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.06.2025 um 10:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks.
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer >>>>>>>>>>>> is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho >>>>>>>>>>>> "Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>>>
I'm curious about what happened.
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate >>>>>>>> from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin >>>>>>>> shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are >>>>>>> rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
Cars can get out of control and mount the sidewalk.
Cyclists on the sidewalk can hit a pedestrian from behind.
Really rare..
I was fairly sure they it?s not, uk pedestrian deaths are around 400 with >>> about 40 deaths on pavements ie sidewalks.
Florida despite having a smaller population has around double the deaths, >>> considering how poorly pedestrians seem to be catered for in the US that?s >>> not particularly surprising, it?s possible that the % is lower simply as >>> there is less pavements/sidewalks.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Pedestrian "accident" deaths occur at intersection crosswalks. You're
pretty safe on sidewalks.
If other places such as uk have a 10% rate on sidewalks/pavement it’s
likely that US and Florida will have similar rate to assume otherwise is
just blind faith, particularly with the high pedestrian death rate, highest >in the US!
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 24 Jun 2025 07:32:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 23 Jun 2025 21:35:18 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:22:50 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 14.06.2025 um 10:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:41:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:22 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/13/2025 11:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2025 8:07 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 6/12/2025 5:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I'm curious about what happened.
On 6/12/2025 3:46 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:I don't think it's been mentioned here before, but thanks. >>>>>>>>>>
On 6/12/2025 3:23 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:Wow, I'd forgotten all about that. Sorry to hear it.
Zen how are you doing after the car hit seems like riding inside.
As well as can be expected. PT and Orthopedist said indoor trainer
is fine, but stop if I feel any pain. Cracked ribs have healed, the
shoulder sprain is slow going (In the words of the ortho >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Everything is where it should be and somehow nothing is broken, >>>>>>>>>>>>> you just crushed it). I passed the concussion protocol three days >>>>>>>>>>>>> after the hit (failed it a few hours after the hit). I have to >>>>>>>>>>>>> rehab the MCL to a certain level before they'll schedule surgery >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the ACL - Then it's another 6-9 months of rehab. They're >>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking early august time frame for the surgery....maybe. IOW I >>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be riding outside until next march at the earliest :( . >>>>>>>>>>>>
A pickup truck waited until I was just in front of him to accelerate >>>>>>>>> from a stop sign. I didn't even have time to hit the brakes. Garmin >>>>>>>>> shows me at about 23 mph at the time of impact.
https://www.strava.com/activities/14315468852
Again, sorry to hear it. There are some crashes that are just
unavoidable, just as with driving, walking, etc. Fortunately, they are >>>>>>>> rare. Hope you heal quickly.
Really??? unavoidable crashes while walking?
Cars can get out of control and mount the sidewalk.
Cyclists on the sidewalk can hit a pedestrian from behind.
Really rare..
I was fairly sure they it?s not, uk pedestrian deaths are around 400 with >>>> about 40 deaths on pavements ie sidewalks.
Florida despite having a smaller population has around double the deaths, >>>> considering how poorly pedestrians seem to be catered for in the US that?s >>>> not particularly surprising, it?s possible that the % is lower simply as >>>> there is less pavements/sidewalks.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Pedestrian "accident" deaths occur at intersection crosswalks. You're
pretty safe on sidewalks.
If other places such as uk have a 10% rate on sidewalks/pavement itÂ’s
likely that US and Florida will have similar rate to assume otherwise is
just blind faith, particularly with the high pedestrian death rate, highest >> in the US!
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Walking on pavement is another thing. You're pretty safe on sidewalks.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:33:34 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,833 |
| Posted today: | 1 |