My point was that heat loss/energy loss from flex in steel was extemely low - low enough that most engineers consider it trivial in a bike frame. Yes, there is of course some - but don't use that to loose site of the big picture!
Mike Kone in Boulder CO
At 03:03 PM 6/2/02 EDT, Bikerdaver@aol.com wrote:
>Phil-
>You put it to the point dead center. No wiggle room there, except of course
>the perpetual motion machine I invented in my basement. Cheers,
>Dave in MT
>
>In a message dated 6/2/2002 9:39:03 AM PDT, Philcycles@aol.com writes:
>a message dated 6/2/02 6:51:54 AM, bikevint@tiac.net writes:
>
><< Acutally this analysis is not correct - when the frame springs back all
the
>energy that went to move the frame one way moves it back the other - and
>that movement is augmenting the pedal stroke - energy can't be wasted - it
>has to be conserved (i.e go somewhere and steel just doesn't dissapate a
>quanifiable amount of energy as heat from what I understand). Again, we do
>"waste energy" from extra body movement, but a frame cannot absorb energy
>in any relevent extent. >>
>
>Sorry, Mike, the frame will never return as much energy as is put into it.
>Some heat is created by the flex of the frame. How much? One hundreth of a
>degree? One thousandth? Don't know. But you can never recover all of what
you
>put in or else we'd have perpetual motion.
>Phil Brown
>NoHo, Ca