That's nice, and also explains what is wrong with computer programmers. I am part of the REAL WORLD, and I like to push its limits. Works, too!
janneman said:
At the end of 80'th I developed my own OS for 8086 CPU, it was called Margarita. Functionality was close to what Microsoft started selling half a decade later, but mine run on 4.7 MHz PC with 512 mB of memory, 10 MB of HDD, and an installation media was 1 floppy of 1.2 MB. How? Because I started from the conception, carefully designed modules, interfaces, and optimized everything with end results in mind. It was very similar to design of hardware except I did not need to search for available parts observing their characters; I could build my "bricks" from "clay".
However, there were no copyrights nor patents for software then in USSR...
Magura said:
I disagree. Let me give you one example why this system is unstable: If you want to go to the right (for example) you first have to turn the steering wheel into the opposite direction. This is precisely the reason why it's so difficult to follow a straight line.
Edmond Stuart said:
Not quite so. I used to do trial biking, and if you have no room for going a bit in the opposite direction, all you have to do, is to put your foot out in the direction you want to go.
Besides that, you're right.
Magura 🙂
Edmond Stuart said:
Hmmm. If I want to go to the right, I lean over to the right, and THEN I turn the steering handle to the right to bring the bike back under my center of gravity to avoid falling over...
Edit: this leaning over is equivalent of Magura putting out his foot 😉
Jan Didden
Edmond Stuart said:
It is easier to follow a straight line if do not touch a steering wheel at all.
However, if to use Lobachevsky's geometry to define what a straight line is, ... 😉
janneman said:
That's wrong. You have to change the center point of gravity, and that is as Edmond stated, done by unconciously turning the bars in the opposite direction.
Magura 🙂
Magura said:
It seems to me Janneman runs a bike practically, unlike both of you theoreticians. 😉
Magura said:
Well, I just conciously lean over (that moves the COG over to the direction I want to go in) and then turn the bars in the same direction.
Jan Didden
Magura said:
At first, admittedly, I didn't see it that way, but it's really a nice analogue. 🙂
Magura said:
True, cause else he would have crashed
So, the global feedback by controlling of the mass center won.
😀
john curl said:
But in this particular case, the theory has been confirmed by reality.
Magura 🙂
absolutely OT
That will be my next project: transferring my bike to a non-Euclidean one. 😀
Wavebourn said:
That will be my next project: transferring my bike to a non-Euclidean one. 😀
I don't think the coriolis effect is local feedback. It's more like inertia. Capacitance in electronic parlance. You need to charge/discharge that capacitance to change the direction of that wheel. If you can't do it fast enough (or if your speed is too low) you get into slew rate limiting and your output (actual direction) doesn't follow the input (desired direction). You also fall over. 😀
Nighty-nighty,
Jan Didden
Nighty-nighty,
Jan Didden
Re: Double blind test of bikes
It happens quite often in audiophile reviews. 😀
(Imagining a double blind test of bikes...)
Edmond Stuart said:
It happens quite often in audiophile reviews. 😀
(Imagining a double blind test of bikes...)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.