Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:30:33 +0100, Robin wrote:
On 25/06/2018 10:12, T i m wrote: snip So, a right brainer would take these sorts of things and then try to look for a scientific / mathematic solution as to why this is. A left brainer would jump to a conclusion based on their lack of understanding and then look for information to support their denial (from other left brainers typically). ;-) I don't think it helps to introduce another myth[1] - let alone a mirror image of the usual one [1] http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/neuromyth6.htm sigh Back to my 'real world' right brainer approach ... Do you think we fully understand the inner workings of the human brain Robin? Do you concede that the brain *is* made up of two physically separate hemispheres that are only joined together at one point? Do you concede that is someone has a stroke, they typically lose different functions, depending on what side it occurs in? Do you concede that most people are 'handed' and will have a dominant hand / leg / eye [1]? Do you concede that there are many studies that have proven that certain things *are* either typically permanently centred or even focused in one hemisphere or the other. Do you understand the concept of 'brain lateralisation / dominance' and what that actually means ITRW? So, rather than reading (and believing) the opinions of someone who may well be a (closed mind) left brainer in denial g, how about reading some *real* medical science on the matter? "The notion of different hemispheric thinking styles is based on an erroneous premise: each brain hemisphere is specialised and therefore each must function independently with a different thinking style." Bwhahahahaha! Whoosh! ;-) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767540/ Cheers, T i m [1] If you don't know which brain driven dominant eye is, try this experiment. With both eyes open and arm outstretched, point with one finger and a small object in the distance. Holding your arm still, close each eye in turn and note which one leaves the object in alignment with your finger and (therefore) which one doesn't. The one that stays aligned is your 'lead / dominant' eye. Now, assuming a reasonably balanced quality of vision in both eyes, do you think it's the actual eye that is taking control over the other or that maybe that hemisphere of the brain that is being 'dominant'? Quiz for you then. Are our sight functions lateralised? Are our smell functions lateralised? Are our hearing functions lateralised? Are our taste functions lateralised? And if not, why not? |
#82
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , Jeff writes "Chris Hogg" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 15:50:06 +1000, "Jeff" wrote: Yes, but it is the distance between the axle and the road that determines the rotation rate. If the length of the perimeter of the tyre is say 1.5 metres, and the vehicle is travelling at 150 km/hr, that means the tyre rotates 100000 times per hour, or 1666.6 rpm, assuming no slippage between tyre and road or tyre and rim. There's no getting around that, and there's no mention of state of inflation, shape of the tyre or axle to road distance. Yes, but it is the distance between the axle and the road that determines the rotation rate. Why? Because that's how the physics works. And that should be obvious from what happens with wheels with no tyre, with different diameter wheels. Long time since 'O' level maths but I suspect the relationship between the radius and the perimeter only works for a perfect circle. Irrelevant to what determines the rotation rate of the wheel. And it is very easy to actually measure if the rotation rate of the wheel does in fact vary with the distance between the axle and the road. when you vary the pressure in the tyre. Not clear if any OBD2 system does in fact report the rotation rate of each wheel using the ABS sensor on each wheel, but if they do, that would be very easy to do the experiment with. |
#83
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:35:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: snip Seems lots on here can't understand the concept of one wheel running at different RPM from the others. Perhaps they only ever drive in a straight line. Have you noticed any links between the inability to understand this concept and their known stance on Brexit? I'd say that from my quick poll (and you know how reliable they are g) so far it's 100%. ;-) I wonder if the reason they don't like the EU is because it's much closer to the edge of the world (we in Great Britain are in the middle of the flat world obviously)? Maybe there is something to this whole l/r brain dominance thing after all. ;-) Cheers, T i m |
#84
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote: Dave Plowman wrote: Huge wrote: The - Bits - Of - The - Tyre - Not - In - Contact - With - The - Road - Are - Irrelevant. The - Only - Thing - That - Matters - Is - The - Diameter - Of - The - Circle - Whose - Radius - Is - The - Distance - From - The - Axle - To. The - Road. You should have used caps, Huge. For those whose physics are still at kindergarten level. Except there isn't a single distance from the centre of the axle to all parts of the tyre in contact with the road ... the average distance perhaps? Quite. Not the average radius of the tyre, but the average of the part in contact with the road. Which will, of course squirm around a bit. One reason why an under inflated tyre wears out more quickly. -- *No hand signals. Driver on Viagra* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#85
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
"Jeff" wrote in message
... Yes, but it is the distance between the axle and the road that determines the rotation rate. Why? Because that's how the physics works. And that should be obvious from what happens with wheels with no tyre, with different diameter wheels. Long time since 'O' level maths but I suspect the relationship between the radius and the perimeter only works for a perfect circle. Irrelevant to what determines the rotation rate of the wheel. True, but the easiest way to visualise the rotation rate for a unit distance travelled is to divide the distance travelled by the circumference to give the number of wheel revolutions. However... it all hinges on what the *effective* circumference is: it is the circumference of an imaginary circle with the same radius as the distance between centre of the axle and road surface, which will be less than the no-load radius because the tyre is slightly flattened where it comes in contact with the road. I presume this means that if you took a piece of string and passed it round the circumference of a tyre this value would be smaller than the no-load circumference because the part that is in contact with the road will be a flat rather than a curved profile. This assumes that the radius of the rest of the tyre doesn't increase significantly when a load is applied to the tyre - presumably this is constrained by the steel reinforcing belts in the tyre. I wonder how much smaller the in-contact radius is than the no-load radius: what sort of proportion is the reduction, typically? I'll have to measure the actual distance from the centre of the hubcap to the ground, and then jack the wheel up until it first touches the road and measure again. Note that you can't measure to a part of the car body because of compression of springs :-) |
#86
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
Huge wrote:
Andy Burns wrote: there isn't a single distance from the centre of the axle to all parts of the tyre in contact with the road ... the average distance perhaps? This is really, really simple. Why are you all making it so complicated? (It's the *shortest* distance, obviously. Just draw a bloody diagram.) The diagram I linked to yesterday seems suitable http://the-contact-patch.com/book/road/c2020-the-contact-patch#figure-ERr The radius of the orange arc showing effective rolling radius is inbetween the length of OQ and OP, what makes it "obvious" to you that the shortest distance applies? |
#87
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
In article , Andy Burns
writes The Natural Philosopher wrote: Andy Burns wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Why would there be monitors on steering angle? For the stability control system. All to modern for me. It's because there are so many inputs available to the electronics, wheel speeds, steering angle, yaw rate, accelerometer(s), that figuring out a flat tyre has just become another part of TCB to the ABS unit. Never seen steering angle sensed yet on any car I've driven. I thought you have/had a Disco? Surprising if such a relatively high centre of mass vehicle didn't have stability control (or whatever LR call it) Discos have been around for a long time. -- bert |
#88
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:52:30 +0100, "NY" wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message news This means that it must be accurately measurable so when a 32 psi tyre drops it's pressure to 24 psi (23?), it should raise the alarm. I've found that it triggers the alarm at a much smaller reduction than 25%. Our Honda developed a very slow puncture and when I checked the tyres, one was about 0.2 bar (3 psi) lower than it should have been. I was just suggesting what I understood to be the maximum pressure drop threshold before such a system *must* indicate. It's good to see RW systems are much better than that. ;-) The instructions for calibrating cycle speedos require you to measure the *loaded* rolling circumference of the wheel bearing the speed sensor (when it would be easier just to put a tape round the wheel). How much does the radius of a bike tyre (at the point of contact) decrease when you sit on the bike. I think that depends on the type of bike / tyre to some degree (balloon / racing skin etc). It's difficult to tell when I'm the one sitting on the bike so I don't get a side-on view. Video from your phone? I think my speedo actually recommends measuring the (unloaded) circumference by marking a point on the tyre that is in contact with the ground and rolling the wheel along the ground until the point is next in contact. Agreed. But I agree that *if possible* you should try to measure the radius under load and *assume* that the whole tyre is that radius. You can do it yourself under load. Put the valve at the bottom and pus something on the ground to align with the valve (screwdriver, tape and pen mark etc). Then sit on the bike and walk it in a straight line whilst keeping as much weight off your feet as possible. Stop when you see the valve near the bottom, get off, adjust the wheel more accurately if required (by moving the bike forward or backward slightly) and make the second mark. Measure between said marks. I've heard is suggested that there is *significant* error between a brand new tyre and one with a worn tread, though I'd have thought that it was negligible. An extreme of that was replacing non-full profile 12" wheels on our Escort based kitcar with full (80) profile tyres on 14" wheels. I believe the rolling circumference increased by 30%. https://www.halfordsautocentres.com/...pth-and-safety says that a new tyre has about 8 mm tread. If you use it until the tread is 2 mm, and assuming the same pressure in both cases, then the radius has reduced by 6 mm in a total radius of 635 (for my car's 215/65/15 tyres) so about 1%. I wonder how much the effective radius varies for an under-inflated tyre, assuming the trigger level for a sensor is 25% loss of pressure. (25% *maximum* pre triggering) ... On these iTPMS's I thought I heard mention of 'calibrating' the system to what would be considered 'normal' (tyre pressure, tyre size, wear status) and so the alarm would be a function of that? I know the prescribed pressures in the rears (particularly) of our vehicles can vary quite a bit because of load / speed etc. Any sensor has to be able to distinguish between expected change in radius due to tyre wear and unexpected due to loss of pressure. Sure, but if it only triggers at say a 10% variation and tyre wear would only ever cause a 1% variation you should be good to go. ;-) Cheers, T i m |
#89
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
bert wrote:
Andy Burns wrote: I thought you have/had a Disco? Surprising if such a relatively high centre of mass vehicle didn't have stability control (or whatever LR call it) Discos have been around for a long time. I had a quick search and at least from Disco3 onwards they have a steering angle sensor, I couldn't see anything either way about earlier models. |
#90
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
"Huge" wrote in message
... The diagram I linked to yesterday seems suitable http://the-contact-patch.com/book/road/c2020-the-contact-patch#figure-ERr Because it's wrong. In this context, the relevant dimension is O - Q. How could it be otherwise? I'm afraid this seems so obvious to me that I cannot find ways to explain it. Yes, in Figure 6, I don't understand why the effective radius is not the distance OQ. Or OP-z, if you prefer. I presume they are allowing for the fact that the radius varies between maximum OP (at the edge of the contact patch) and a minimum OQ (at the centre of the contact patch), and that the effective radius is somewhere between the two and not the minimum OQ. |
#91
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:00:05 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote: In article , Huge wrote: snip One revolution of the wheel has to equal one passage of the tire's circumference along the road (since the tire does not slip around the rim and assuming no slip on the road). It does not though, obviously (or iTPMS systems wouldn't work). How could it be otherwise? Science. Talk of "effective radius" is not relevant. To you unfortunately it seems. To people who understand these things it's key. Cheers, T i m |
#92
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
Tim Streater wrote:
One revolution of the wheel has to equal one passage of the tire's circumference along the road (since the tire does not slip around the rim and assuming no slip on the road). How could it be otherwise? Talk of "effective radius" is not relevant. So are saying the circumference remains constant, hence the rpm remains constant, hence iTPMS cannot work? |
#93
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:05:03 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:
snip and there's no mention of state of inflation, But there should be as that's a key variable that affects the effective 'perimeter length. ;-) But as others have pointed out in this thread, it's less than 1%. Or are you saying that 1% is what the argument is about? I'm not stating anything so specific Chris but yes, that could possibly be the sort of numbers we are talking about. How does that relate ITRW. Well, a tyre that is running at a lower pressure will rotate more time that will relate to a whole mile in every 100. The point being that 1% doesn't sound like much but a mile is quite a way (especially if you are walking with a flat spare to a garage). ;-). ;-) shape of the tyre or axle to road distance. No, but there should be as the shape of the tyre is instrumental in the calculation. If the perimeter of the tyre makes one revolution, the vehicle moves forward by 1.5 metres in my example, regardless of the shape of the tyre. It could be oval, or even square with each side 0.375 metres, but only in Michael Bentine's world :-), but the vehicle still only moves forward 1.5 metres per revolution of the tyre, and with a square tyre the axle to ground distance would be changing all the time (giving a very uncomfortable ride!) Ok, try this (and try to go with the concept rather than the details for now). Imagine because how a tyre is constructed, steel wires laid using a parallelogram pattern that 'pantographs' (think pantograph on an electric train that gets wider as it gets lower) where it touches the ground and that causes it to widen (width) but because the material it is widening by has to come from somewhere, it also shrinks (length = circumference). So, there is a traveling 'shortening' of the 'effective circumference' that is partially dependant on the *amount* the flexing happens and that is down to the pressure. On a solid tyre it wouldn't be because you have removed that variable. Do you also deny the change in tyre diameter on a dragster (and therefore rpm / mph)? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YViiNxnQTr8 So dragsters use big tyres; Yes but you are missing how the size (change) is relevant here. so do earth moving scrapes and dumpers, even bigger than those on the dragster. https://tinyurl.com/y9krjyv8 See above. Big tyres rotate more slowly that small tyres, for the same road speed, except for that dragster where there was rather a lot of slippage! There shouldn't be (and the point of having a 'burn out') (I bet it stank! Yes. ;-) Must cost a fortune; Yes. ;-( why do they do it?) To get the rubber hot to give more traction and a better launch. I don't see your point. I know. As others have said, I'm sorry I don't seem able to transfer the understanding. ;-( What about this. Imagine some lunar rover module where the 'tyre' is made up of many completely independent segments. With the vehicle up on jacks you might measure the effective circumference of the wheel as the measurement made with a tape drawn around it. But put it under load and with it standing on one (sprung) segment. the RW radius of that segment at that time under that load will be less. Imagine that reduction in radius being passed round the wheel segment by segment and you could then see (hopefully) that the effective circumference would be calculable from the loaded radius and it *would* be very different from the unloaded one. Join those segments together on the outside by something plastic, like say thin balloon rubber and nothing really changes. Join them with something heavier but with the similar ability to 'give' and you have a pneumatic car tyre. ;-) But the 'give' in a car tyre, as has been said here by others, is less than 1% between hard and soft, over and under inflated. Yes ... ? Is that the difference you're considering? No, I don't think it is, or the iTPMS might not be able to deal with tyre wear (even though they could from a programming POV etc).. If so, then OK I agree with you, a change in tyre pressure will result in a small 1% change in perimeter length, and will result in a small 1% change in RPM for a given road speed. See above (I think it's bigger). But I got the impression a much bigger difference was being assumed/discussed. As long as you are happy with the fact that it does and why, is all that matters Chris. ;-) Cheers, T i m |
#94
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:04:58 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote: Tim Streater wrote: One revolution of the wheel has to equal one passage of the tire's circumference along the road (since the tire does not slip around the rim and assuming no slip on the road). How could it be otherwise? Talk of "effective radius" is not relevant. So are saying the circumference remains constant, hence the rpm remains constant, hence iTPMS cannot work? Yup, he is (obviously), but he's a fanatic Brexiteer so since when has logic / fact / reason influenced his thinking. ;-) Cheers, T i m |
#95
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 25/06/2018 11:04, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:30:33 +0100, Robin wrote: On 25/06/2018 10:12, T i m wrote: snip So, a right brainer would take these sorts of things and then try to look for a scientific / mathematic solution as to why this is. A left brainer would jump to a conclusion based on their lack of understanding and then look for information to support their denial (from other left brainers typically). ;-) I don't think it helps to introduce another myth[1] - let alone a mirror image of the usual one [1] http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/neuromyth6.htm sigh Back to my 'real world' right brainer approach ... skip long list of leading questions [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767540/ I did not say there are no asymmetries between the hemispheres. I do say that IMLE your generalisation is not shared by the practising neurosurgeons, neurologists and neuropsychologists I've heard comment on the matter. You may of course be better qualified than them or have access to better advice. But there are many others who agree with the OECD. I am told functional MRI is particularly persuasive in this regard[2]. But I don't really expect to persuade you. The left-brain/right-brain myth has become a metaphor for different ways of thinking which may never die. And it is of course also a wonderful way to peddle pseudo-psychology - or cast aspersions. [1] though I must say I thought calling the corpus callosum a "point" a bit like saying there's only a few dozen lines for calls across the Atlantic [2] : eg http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0071275 "we demonstrate that ...do not result in a subject-specific global brain lateralization difference that favors one network over the other (i.e. left-brained or right-brained). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3743825/ "Yet our analyses suggest that an individual brain is not €œleft-brained€ or €œright-brained€ as a global property, but that asymmetric lateralization is a property of individual nodes or local subnetworks, and that different aspects of the left-dominant network and right-dominant network may show relatively greater or lesser lateralization within an individual. " -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
#96
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 25/06/2018 12:00, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge wrote: On 2018-06-25, Andy Burns wrote: Huge wrote: Andy Burns wrote: there isn't a single distance from the centre of the axle to all parts of the tyre in contact with the road ... the average distance perhaps? This is really, really simple. Why are you all making it so complicated? (It's the *shortest* distance, obviously. Just draw a bloody diagram.) The diagram I linked to yesterday seems suitable http://the-contact-patch.com/book/road/c2020-the-contact-patch#figure-ERr Because it's wrong. In this context, the relevant dimension is O - Q. How could it be otherwise? One revolution of the wheel has to equal one passage of the tire's circumference along the road (since the tire does not slip around the rim and assuming no slip on the road). How could it be otherwise? Talk of "effective radius" is not relevant. If by "effective radius" you mean the rolling radius it is the only relevant measure to combine with the angular velocity in order to arrive at the speed of the vehicle[1]. If you dispute that please post your equation. Or of course you could admit that by circumference you mean the rolling circumference - defined as 2 x Pi x the rolling radius - which changes with pressure. -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
#97
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote: Tim Streater wrote: One revolution of the wheel has to equal one passage of the tire's circumference along the road (since the tire does not slip around the rim and assuming no slip on the road). How could it be otherwise? Talk of "effective radius" is not relevant. So are saying the circumference remains constant, hence the rpm remains constant, hence iTPMS cannot work? If you were to measure the speed of rotation of the wheel at any single point on it, that would vary depending on where it was to the road contact point. Virtually no drive mechanism transmits a perfectly uniform speed from input to output. There is invariably a degree of 'chatter'. -- *ONE NICE THING ABOUT EGOTISTS: THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#98
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
Dave Plowman wrote:
If you were to measure the speed of rotation of the wheel at any single point on it that would vary depending on where it was to the road contact point. The ABS sensor will measure the speed multiple times (e.g. 48) per revolution of the drive shaft, not just a single point. Virtually no drive mechanism transmits a perfectly uniform speed from input to output. There is invariably a degree of 'chatter'. The TPMS operates over a longer period of time, probably minutes rather than seconds, so over many revolutions of the wheel, likely the numbers will get averaged out before it decides one wheel is turning faster than the others enough to flag it up. |
#99
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
... The TPMS operates over a longer period of time, probably minutes rather than seconds, so over many revolutions of the wheel, likely the numbers will get averaged out before it decides one wheel is turning faster than the others enough to flag it up. It *has* to integrate over a fairly long time and number of rotations to avoid it being triggered every time the car turns a corner and the outer wheel rotates faster than the inner wheel. I would imagine (and I've not done the calculations) that the difference in rotational speed between inner and outer wheel on a bend will be significantly more than the difference in rotational speed between a correctly-inflated and an under-inflated wheel, so any TPMS has to average out this large difference in order to be able to detect a much smaller one. |
#100
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 25/06/18 11:39, bert wrote:
In article , Andy Burns writes The Natural Philosopher wrote: Andy Burns wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Why would there be monitors on steering angle? For the stability control system. All to modern for me. It's because there are so many inputs available to the electronics, wheel speeds, steering angle, yaw rate, accelerometer(s), that figuring out a flat tyre has just become another part of TCB to the ABS unit. Never seen steering angle sensed yet on any car I've driven. I thought you have/had a Disco? Surprising if such a relatively high centre of mass vehicle didn't have stability control (or whatever LR call it) Discos have been around for a long time. defenders and freelanders never a disco -- €œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism (or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans, about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a 'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,' a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian utopia of 1984.€ Vaclav Klaus |
#101
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 25/06/2018 15:05, NY wrote:
It *has* to integrate over a fairly long time and number of rotations to avoid it being triggered every time the car turns a corner and the outer wheel rotates faster than the inner wheel. Or, given that it knows the steering wheel angle, it might chose to ignore readings during turns. I would imagine (and I've not done the calculations) that the difference in rotational speed between inner and outer wheel on a bend will be significantly more than the difference in rotational speed between a correctly-inflated and an under-inflated wheel I'd say much greater so any TPMS has to average out this large difference in order to be able to detect a much smaller one. |
#102
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:58:54 +0100, Robin wrote:
snip I did not say there are no asymmetries between the hemispheres. Ok ... I do say that IMLE your generalisation is not shared by the practising neurosurgeons, neurologists and neuropsychologists I've heard comment on the matter. Assuming you fully understand whatever you are determine to be 'my generalisation' etc? You may of course be better qualified than them or have access to better advice. Nope, but the information in the scientific, peer tested link I provided seemed to? But there are many others who agree with the OECD. I'm sure there are ... like the flat-worlders still out there. ;-) I am told functional MRI is particularly persuasive in this regard[2]. But I don't really expect to persuade you. You don't need to Robin as 1) it doesn't really matter to you what I 'believe' and 2) it doesn't matter to me what you believe (or think I believe) either. The left-brain/right-brain myth Ok. Do you think we (not me of course), fully understand how the human brain / mind / memory etc works? Do you think you do maybe? has become a metaphor for different ways of thinking which may never die. It's true that I sometimes like to use it when thinking out loud to differentiate different types of people, how they think and therefore why they might say the things they do. nd it is of course also a wonderful way to peddle pseudo-psychology For you to say such authoritatively you would have to be in a position to counter all the evidence supporting that brain lateralisation does exist (and it does). - or cast aspersions. If the cap fits? [1] though I must say I thought calling the corpus callosum a "point" a bit like saying there's only a few dozen lines for calls across the Atlantic A good example of a 'left brainer' / literal interpretation on my very simple yet accurate statement. eg. If you look at the comparative land masses of the UK and the USA and then the size of ALL the cables between them, they wouldn't even register on that scale. [2] : eg http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0071275 "we demonstrate that ...do not result in a subject-specific global brain lateralization difference that favors one network over the other (i.e. left-brained or right-brained). Yet different people demonstrate different characteristics that seem to fall into specific groupings? Have you not noticed a link between those who do and don't understand the topic of this thread and their position on Brexit for example? Could it be that someone willing to completely ignore the feelings of between 1/2 and 2/3rds of the electorate might consider others differently to someone who wouldn't? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3743825/ "Yet our analyses suggest that an individual brain is not “left-brained” or “right-brained” as a global property, but that asymmetric lateralization is a property of individual nodes or local subnetworks, Yup? and that different aspects of the left-dominant network and right-dominant network may show relatively greater or lesser lateralization within an individual. " Bingo. Sorry, what that supposed to disprove my basic concept Robin? ;-) OK, try this. Do you feel that women are generally more empathetic than men (and if they are, why that might be)? If you do then you have already accepted that people can be different and based on specific criteria (re EQ in this context) and probably on a testable (and even measurable, MRI etc) scale. So, if you have a stroke in the left side of your brain, why are you statically more likely to have problems with speech than people who have a stroke in the right hemisphere? If both hemispheres (typically) dealt with the exact same things at the same level why wouldn't it be 50:50? Cheers, T i m |
#103
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
Tim Streater wrote:
Andy Burns wrote: So are saying the circumference remains constant, hence the rpm remains constant, hence iTPMS cannot work? The steel cords may stretch a little, but that's all. Without that, the circumference *must* stay constant. The steel belts aren't parallel to the circumference, they're on a low angle diagonally, so they can bunch-up or space-out with the distortion of the tyre as it revolves, so the change in circumference can be more than just you'd get by stretching them, though it still only needs to be small to be measurable. |
#104
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:16:44 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote: In article , Andy Burns wrote: Tim Streater wrote: One revolution of the wheel has to equal one passage of the tire's circumference along the road (since the tire does not slip around the rim and assuming no slip on the road). How could it be otherwise? Talk of "effective radius" is not relevant. So are saying the circumference remains constant, hence the rpm remains constant, hence iTPMS cannot work? The steel cords may stretch a little, but that's all. They don't stretch, they *move*, along with the rubber. Without that, the circumference *must* stay constant. What's that ... is the penny slowly dropping? ;-) Cheers, T i m |
#105
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: OK. But that's what what has been being argued about at least in this portion of the thread. People keep talking about the centre of the wheel being closer to the road, which it is, and taking the centre-road distance as a radius and computing a new circumference based on that, which would be considerably more than 1% different from that for an inflated tire. Which is what matters when computing the speed of the wheel with a flat tyre against one with a fully inflated tyre, or the figures for that. -- *Age is a very high price to pay for maturity. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#106
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 24/06/18 08:03, Richard wrote:
On 23/06/18 17:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote: No. Since no wheel is circular using radious as a concept is plain wrong. At best you can calcualate a '*radius it would be if it were round*,' from the actual circumference. The use of radius is completely right. The circumference doesn't change. The centre of the instantaneous circle moves closer to the radius. The tyre is a three dimensional structure and this debate is being conducted in a two dimensional manner. I hope no one ebver emp;loys you in an engineering capacity. The use of radius is meaningless. The the tyre is not round. Go and get a technical education -- "It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere" |
#107
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 24/06/18 16:16, DerbyBorn wrote:
The hight of the axle is reduced - therefore the effective radius is reduced and therefore its effective circumference. The part of the tire not in contact with the ground is irrelevant. Another benighted idiot. Really catching em out tonight. -- "It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere" |
#109
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 24/06/18 22:18, Jeff wrote:
And yet if you consider a solid wheel, no tyre, it is the distance between the axle and the road that determines the rate at which it rotates at the same speed of the car over the ground. Yes. So when a wheel with tyre sees a reduction in the distance between the axle and the road due to a lower pressure in the tyre, you get the same change in the rotation rate of the wheel which is easy to measure with the ABS sensor on that wheel. No. Once yopu put a non circular tyre on, you vannot talk about radius. What counts is the distance round whatever shape the tread is. Al;l of that has to be in contact with the road during one wheel revolution unelss the tyre slips on the rim -- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx |
#110
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news No. The effective radious first of all is almost ********. But if you mean te circumferenmce divided by 2 PI then that will only change with pressure, as the belts strech, Not with loading. Otherwise p[eole would be travvling 30% slower when their tyres were flat, for the same speedo reading They *will* be travelling slower - you've got that right. But not by anywhere near as much as 30%. |
#111
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 25/06/18 06:50, Jeff wrote:
"Tjoepstil" wrote in message news On 24/06/18 22:18, Jeff wrote: So when a wheel with tyre sees a reduction in the distance between the axle and the road due to a lower pressure in the tyre, you get the same change in the rotation rate of the wheel which is easy to measure with the ABS sensor on that wheel. No, you don't. Yes you do, as you should be able to see with a rim with no tyre at all. As the rim diameter changes, the rotation rate will obviously change. Thats becausd in that case the wehel is in fact round. Ther is a perfect relatinship between circumgerencve and radious Once iuy has a non round tyre on, your assumptions are invalid. a tyre and wheel is not a sun and planet reduction gear, It is a rack and pinion tho. the tyre is not rotating relative to the wheel, Correct. ergo every revolution of the wheel one circumference of tyre must move along the road. Yes, but it is the distance between the axle and the road that determines the rotation rate. No it isn't. it is NOT a sun and planet gear. It is a squashy tyre on a wheel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNy4sdDJg2o Look at the video 8:45 in and see what YOU are describing happening. If you think thats how a flat tyre behaves god help you. The ABS sensors do not detectÂ* a massive change in radius, but a small change in circumference due to the tread shrinking very slightly. They actually detect the substantial change in the rotation rate the is due to the substantial change in the distance between the axle and the road. There are no substantial changes. Ther is a very small change due to elsatyicity of the tread belt. You know this is true otherwise speedos would be massively variable with tyre pressure and wheel loading They are not. -- All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is fully understood. |
#112
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 25/06/18 09:47, Jeff wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message ... On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 15:50:06 +1000, "Jeff" wrote: Yes, but it is the distance between the axle and the road that determines the rotation rate. If the length of the perimeter of the tyre is say 1.5 metres, and the vehicle is travelling at 150 km/hr, that means the tyre rotates 100000 times per hour, or 1666.6 rpm, assuming no slippage between tyre and road or tyre and rim. There's no getting around that, and there's no mention of state of inflation, shape of the tyre or axle to road distance. Yes, but it is the distance between the axle and the road that determines the rotation rate. No it is not. -- "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch". Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14 |
#113
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 25/06/18 09:57, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Jeff writes "Chris Hogg" wrote in message ... On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 15:50:06 +1000, "Jeff" wrote: Yes, but it is the distance between the axle and the road that determines the rotation rate. If the length of the perimeter of the tyre is say 1.5 metres, and the vehicle is travelling at 150 km/hr, that means the tyre rotates 100000 times per hour, or 1666.6 rpm, assuming no slippage between tyre and road or tyre and rim. There's no getting around that, and there's no mention of state of inflation, shape of the tyre or axle to road distance. Yes, but it is the distance between the axle and the road that determines the rotation rate. Why? Long time since 'O' level maths but I suspect the relationship between the radius and the perimeter only works for a perfect circle. Go to the top of the class. What is the radius of an egg? -- "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch". Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14 |
#114
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 25/06/18 10:02, Huge wrote:
On 2018-06-25, Tim Lamb wrote: In message , Jeff writes "Chris Hogg" wrote in message ... On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 15:50:06 +1000, "Jeff" wrote: Yes, but it is the distance between the axle and the road that determines the rotation rate. If the length of the perimeter of the tyre is say 1.5 metres, and the vehicle is travelling at 150 km/hr, that means the tyre rotates 100000 times per hour, or 1666.6 rpm, assuming no slippage between tyre and road or tyre and rim - There's no getting around that, and there's no mention of state of inflation, shape of the tyre or axle to road distance. Yes, but it is the distance between the axle and the road that determines the rotation rate. Why? Long time since 'O' level maths but I suspect the relationship between the radius and the perimeter only works for a perfect circle. I'll type this slowly for the hard of thinking. The - Bits - Of - The - Tyre - Not - In - Contact - With - The - Road - Are - Irrelevant. The - Only - Thing - That - Matters - Is - The - Diameter - Of - The - Circle - Whose - Radius - Is - The - Distance - From - The - Axle - To. The - Road. I'll type this slowly for the hard of thinking. The - Bits - Of - The - Tyre - Not - In - Contact - With - The - Road - Are - Irrelevant. The - Only - Thing - That - Matters - Is - The - Circumference-of-The-Non-Round-Tyre -- "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch". Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14 |
#115
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 24/06/18 22:18, Jeff wrote: And yet if you consider a solid wheel, no tyre, it is the distance between the axle and the road that determines the rate at which it rotates at the same speed of the car over the ground. Yes. So when a wheel with tyre sees a reduction in the distance between the axle and the road due to a lower pressure in the tyre, you get the same change in the rotation rate of the wheel which is easy to measure with the ABS sensor on that wheel. No. Once yopu put a non circular tyre on, you vannot talk about radius. What counts is the distance round whatever shape the tread is. Al;l of that has to be in contact with the road during one wheel revolution unelss the tyre slips on the rim But if you were to label part of the tread with a line continuing radially up the sidewall to the centre, that line would not remain a straight line; it would curve one way as the labelled part approaches the road surface and then the other way as it leaves it; this happens because the plies of the steel belt move towards or away from each other as the tyre rotates. Not by a noticeable amount; probably by an amount that is hard even to measure. The tyre is no longer a perfect circle but a circle with a flat on the side which is contact with the road at this precise instant. The distortion of the sidewalls, both rotationally and as the bulge "travels" around the tyre as the tyre rotates, is the reason that tyres get hot. The lower the pressure, the more distortion and the more heating - to a point that the tyre softens, melts and bursts. |
#116
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 25/06/18 10:48, Huge wrote:
In article , Tjoepstil wrote: The ABS sensors do not detect a massive change in radius, but a small change in circumference [...] Ahh, so having a puncture causes the local space-time to become non-Euclidian? No, it doesn't. How does that work? I think Huge, you are probably too stupid to understand -- "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch". Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14 |
#117
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 18:06:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: snip But if you mean te circumferenmce divided by 2 PI then that will only change with pressure, as the belts strech, Not with loading Nope, also changes *because* of loading. Otherwise p[eole would be travvling 30% slower when their tyres were flat, That would be advised, or possibly 100% slower! for the same speedo reading Well, probably not 30% but slower for sure. Higher pressures will (also 'of course') change the *profile* of the tyre (as can be seen by the tyre wear) and so the effective circumference (and the actual (unloaded) circumference). Not because of any steel belts *stretching* but because the tyre changes shape (from wide and small to narrow and tall) ... hey, we could call it 'pantographing'. ;-) The outcome is similar to a racing motorbike where when the bike is upright the driven wheel is maximum diameter but when leant over the diameter changes (smaller) and to the revs would go up for the same road speed. Same tyre, different results under different circumstances. I wonder if Turnip will ever get it and how he will get out of the position he is currently in? Should be fun ... ;-) Cheers, T i m |
#118
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 25/06/18 10:49, Huge wrote:
On 2018-06-25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Huge wrote: I'll type this slowly for the hard of thinking. The - Bits - Of - The - Tyre - Not - In - Contact - With - The - Road - Are - Irrelevant. The - Only - Thing - That - Matters - Is - The - Diameter - Of - The - Circle - Whose - Radius - Is - The - Distance - From - The - Axle - To. The - Road. You should have used caps, Huge. For those whose physics are still at kindergarten level. If they'll let me know where they are, I could go round (!) and try and pummel it into their heads? Well Huge, I am afraid you are the one at kindergarten level I guess it goes with remaoning. What I am saying is 100% correct and is borne out by tshe papers on the subject and by the you tube video I linked to. -- Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public. |
#119
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 25/06/18 10:50, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote: Huge wrote: The - Bits - Of - The - Tyre - Not - In - Contact - With - The - Road - Are - Irrelevant. The - Only - Thing - That - Matters - Is - The - Diameter - Of - The - Circle - Whose - Radius - Is - The - Distance - From - The - Axle - To. The - Road. You should have used caps, Huge. For those whose physics are still at kindergarten level. Except there isn't a single distance from the centre of the axle to all parts of the tyre in contact with the road ... the average distance perhaps? Even that doesn't work. Huges simple minded O level fizzix cant cope with the reality of an elastically coupled non-circular tyre attached in a non slip fashion to a wheel. This is the sort of thinking that creates climate Beleivers - people who THINK they know a little bit of science .... -- In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act. - George Orwell |
#120
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Does a tyre change its CIRCUMFERENCE when underinflated?
On 25/06/18 10:58, Huge wrote:
On 2018-06-25, Andy Burns wrote: Dave Plowman wrote: Huge wrote: The - Bits - Of - The - Tyre - Not - In - Contact - With - The - Road - Are - Irrelevant. The - Only - Thing - That - Matters - Is - The - Diameter - Of - The - Circle - Whose - Radius - Is - The - Distance - From - The - Axle - To. The - Road. You should have used caps, Huge. For those whose physics are still at kindergarten level. Except there isn't a single distance from the centre of the axle to all parts of the tyre in contact with the road ... the average distance perhaps? Oh, FFS. This is really, really simple. Why are you all making it so complicated? (It's the *shortest* distance, obviously. Just draw a bloody diagram.) Because it is not simple. Only you are simple. It is in fact fiendishly complicated. And the short cut is to forget radius and think only of circumgference If you think in terms of radius you will get it all wrong Because the rim of the wheel is moving slower than you think, because the tyre is flexing as it goes round. -- In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act. - George Orwell |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
How the heck do you weld around a circumference? | Metalworking | |||
How the heck do you weld around a circumference? | Metalworking | |||
How the heck do you weld around a circumference? | Metalworking | |||
Wherein LaStinque Bollmann Proudly Wipes Its Boogers All Over (and Under) Its Own Face,- | Home Repair | |||
How do I chamfer the inner circumference of a Hole? | Woodworking |