Scientific American Rotating Mass Is Good For You 1896

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

The illustrations for "An Improved Propelling Mechanism" caught my eye
on page 84 of "Scientific American" for February 8, 1896.

At first, I thought that the picture showed a huge front sprocket for
a land speed record.

But the text and a closer look reveal that it's actually a flywheel:

http://i4.tinypic.com/7y5jfom.jpg

So "Scientific American" says "In your face!" to weight weenies who
worry about rotating mass. Heavier sprockets are the wave of the
future, not lighter rims!

The railroad-track bike boasts an even more impressive flywheel, one
nearly touching each tire and requiring a pair of massive beams
stretching from axle to axle to support it. Exactly how it difffers
from the huge rim on the other track is not clear.

The scan seemed appropriate in light of the current perpetual motion
thread masquerading as aerodynamics.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Leo Lichtman]

<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote: (clip) Heavier sprockets are the wave of the
> future, (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don't you mean "the wave of the past?"

[nmp]

carlfogel wrote:

> The illustrations for "An Improved Propelling Mechanism" caught my eye
> on page 84 of "Scientific American" for February 8, 1896.

[snip good stuff]

Can I just say that I always thoroughly enjoy your posts? Always a
surprise what weird and lovely stuff you dug up from the past. Are you a
bicycle-archaeologist?

[datakoll]

On Dec 13, 4:15 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote: (clip) Heavier sprockets are the wave of the
> > future, (clip)
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Don't you mean "the wave of the past?"

wave of the past?

Detriot suspension design 1956 thru ?
The H-D arguement.
Pump the Caddy's tire's too 90 pounds

SciAm did that last year with ???

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:15:06 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
<l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote: (clip) Heavier sprockets are the wave of the
>> future, (clip)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Don't you mean "the wave of the past?"

Dear Leo,

Once a few bugs are worked out, I'm sure that Tour de France riders
will choose the massive flywheel sprockets patented in 1896 by the
late James Thompson of Jacksonville, Florida . . .

http://i4.tinypic.com/7y5jfom.jpg

. . over the little propellers proposed in the currently competing
thread.

After all, we all _know_ from experience that sprockets work, however
light they may be, whereas propeller-driven bicycles are more
theoretical, notwithstanding the Gossamer Albatross.

The logic is charmingly simple.

We know that light sprockets work.

If a little is good, surely a lot must be better.

Ergo, massive flywheel sprockets are the wave of the future.

In the field of perpetual motion, it's best to stick with tried and
tested technology!

I particularly liked the implication in the Scientific Amercian
article that the flywheel-sprocket will smooth out all those sharp
bumps and sudden steep climbs that make railroad tracks resemble
hellish roller-coasters.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Leo Lichtman]

"datakoll" wrote: wave of the past?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Should I have said, "Wave FROM the past?"

1896 IS past, isn't it?

[datakoll]

On Dec 13, 7:37 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:15:06 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
>
> <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> ><carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote: (clip) Heavier sprockets are the wave of the
> >> future, (clip)
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Don't you mean "the wave of the past?"
>
> Dear Leo,
>
> Once a few bugs are worked out, I'm sure that Tour de France riders
> will choose the massive flywheel sprockets patented in 1896 by the
> late James Thompson of Jacksonville, Florida . . .
>
> http://i4.tinypic.com/7y5jfom.jpg
>
> . . over the little propellers proposed in the currently competing
> thread.
>
> After all, we all _know_ from experience that sprockets work, however
> light they may be, whereas propeller-driven bicycles are more
> theoretical, notwithstanding the Gossamer Albatross.
>
> The logic is charmingly simple.
>
> We know that light sprockets work.
>
> If a little is good, surely a lot must be better.
>
> Ergo, massive flywheel sprockets are the wave of the future.
>
> In the field of perpetual motion, it's best to stick with tried and
> tested technology!
>
> I particularly liked the implication in the Scientific Amercian
> article that the flywheel-sprocket will smooth out all those sharp
> bumps and sudden steep climbs that make railroad tracks resemble
> hellish roller-coasters.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Bali as Flanders Field

http://www.thompsongroup.com/

[Leo Lichtman]

<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote: Once a few bugs are worked out, I'm sure
that Tour de France riders
> will choose the massive flywheel sprockets patented in 1896 by the
> late James Thompson of Jacksonville, Florida . . .
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think the main remaining obstacle to their adoption is getting the weight
down.

[datakoll]

On Dec 13, 8:32 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote: Once a few bugs are worked out, I'm sure
>
> that Tour de France riders> will choose the massive flywheel sprockets patented in 1896 by the
> > late James Thompson of Jacksonville, Florida . . .
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I think the main remaining obstacle to their adoption is getting the weight
> down.

no problem! counter rotate a propeller off the axle.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On 14 Dec 2007 15:00:40 GMT, nmp <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>carlfogel wrote:
>
>> The illustrations for "An Improved Propelling Mechanism" caught my eye
>> on page 84 of "Scientific American" for February 8, 1896.
>
>[snip good stuff]
>
>Can I just say that I always thoroughly enjoy your posts? Always a
>surprise what weird and lovely stuff you dug up from the past. Are you a
>bicycle-archaeologist?

Dear NMP,

Thanks, but I'm just another RBT poster with too much time on my hands
near an internet connection, waiting for other things to finish on
computers.

The early bicycle stuff is often zanier than the familiar modern
squabbles where we end up splitting angel-hairs with the pin that the
angel danced on.

Sometimes it's like the weird fauna of the Burgess shales--you see a
strange old bicycle part and have no idea what the hell you're looking
at.

Plus it's fun to see the other old things that crop up in passing. The
regular ads for Smith & Wesson revolvers in the old "Scientific
American" are a good example.

Speaking of ads, time for an example of the "Scientific American"
classifieds to appear.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Brian Huntley]

On Dec 14, 10:00 am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> carlfogel wrote:
> > The illustrations for "An Improved Propelling Mechanism" caught my eye
> > on page 84 of "Scientific American" for February 8, 1896.
>
> [snip good stuff]
>
> Can I just say that I always thoroughly enjoy your posts? Always a
> surprise what weird and lovely stuff you dug up from the past. Are you a
> bicycle-archaeologist?

Amen! A thread started by Carl is always worth a perusal.

And say, has that chap with the bike museum in Orchard Park got any
Ordinaries for rent?

Actually, is there an "adventure park" anywhere in North America that
allows one to try one out? Or a high-bike, for that matter, or for the
Milqtoasts, a fixie?

The kiddie ride could be a pair of overly-tight SPD pedals on a BMX
bike.

Hmm - biopace gearing, a Rolhoff Speedhubbed loaded touring bike,
airless tires, a 'kangaroo' bike, one of those treadle/cable drive
systems, a tandem, bents - you know, a ridable bicycle museum could be
a really interesting place to spend a day.

If it wasn't for personal injury lawyers, anyway.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:33:01 -0800 (PST), Brian Huntley
<brian_huntley@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 14, 10:00 am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>> carlfogel wrote:
>> > The illustrations for "An Improved Propelling Mechanism" caught my eye
>> > on page 84 of "Scientific American" for February 8, 1896.
>>
>> [snip good stuff]
>>
>> Can I just say that I always thoroughly enjoy your posts? Always a
>> surprise what weird and lovely stuff you dug up from the past. Are you a
>> bicycle-archaeologist?
>
>Amen! A thread started by Carl is always worth a perusal.
>
>And say, has that chap with the bike museum in Orchard Park got any
>Ordinaries for rent?

[snip]

Dear Brian,

Thanks for the compliment.

The Pedaling History Bicycle Museum in Orchard Park is unlikely to let
you take their extremely valuable antique highwheelers for a spin, but
you could always email them and ask for suggestions:

http://www.pedalinghistory.com/PHmuseum.html

A better lead might be the Rideable Bicycle Replica people, who make a
modern highwheeler with a freewheel that makes things a bit easier for
the beginner:

http://www.hiwheel.com

They might be able to put you in touch with someone in your area who
has one. Or you might get sucked in and buy one yourself. :-)

A friend rented a road bike from this shop, returned it, and asked if
he could try their highwheeler with freewheel. They were kind enough
to let him take a short spin, but they weren't renting it back then:

http://www.bicyclesofojai.com/site2/

Or you can just ask on the www.thewheelmen.org message boards.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel