The paper debunks that the shape has anything to do with magic and clearly states the shape, on it's own, does nothing in the first few paragraphs. Even with the increased length for part of the revolution, I assume if you integrate over the whole downward push, for both, you would get the same numbers.
You didn't read the paper.
I don't get it. There were no numbers posted in the thread. This doesn't mean placebo, this just means there are no numbers posted. The claim that it's placebo has just as much foundation that it's not. Write a benchmark and test it, you could get exactly 2 minutes of fame.
> have to do more work in order to do a single revolution.
It's inertia. It's not wasted. It'll create a force when the pedal decelerates. Since you always want the pedal spinning, this isn't so bad for cruising. It's only bad for transients, which this would help smooth out.
> related to pedals having 2 moments of inertial.
Would be no different than a straight pedal with more mass on the end.
An analysis, found on their webpage:
http://www.z-torque.com/Portals/6/DrHuangReport.pdf
Claims that the benefit is from two side effects of the claim:
The increased mass gives a flywheel effect, meaning the pedal goes through top dead center easier.
The long shape bends under pressure, which does slightly increase the length of the arm under pressure.
So, by going to carbon fiber (lighter, and most likely stiffer), they'll most likely negate any benefits!
> so the cyclist's legs are in a different position during the pedal cycle
Only because of the bending. If it were stiffer, position would be exactly the same.
Depends on your cost metric. They're only cheaper if you don't consider cost per computation/second.
You don't have to use metro, you know. Click the little desktop tile when you first login, or use one of the metro bypassers like start8 (even puts the start button back). Not sure why anyone would miss the start button though. Something like Launchy for pre windows 7, or just start typing after hitting a button for windows 7 and on. I suppose if you're a non-keyboard user user, it almost makes sense.
>The problem is keeping the "car" stably in contact with the ground.
If the thrust is around 30,000 lbs, and you point only 1% of that the wrong way, you have to come up with 300lb of force to keep the car going straight, on a dirt road...better be quick, because you're going 1000mph!
Crazy!
I would love to see the track marks after the run. I'm guessing there's all sorts of sliding around.
I wonder what percent of power goes to downforce.
In the future I see a harmonized ui.
When you stick your device into the desktop dock, it's a desktop, using an external graphics accelerator, mass storage, network, mouse, etc. When you pull it off of the dock (that isn't bound by one manufacturer)....
.
.
But, *all of the software* is aware of the docking state. If you pull off the keyboard, the touchpad keyboard pops up when needed. The UI expands to be less "consumption" oriented use. When you attach it to the desktop, the UI changes and expands into more of a "developer mode" to accommodate a mouse and the extra horsepower built into the desktop dock.
Of course, this wont happen because it's not what people want...but it sure would be nice.
Here here good Sir! You're not suggesting that he had some sort of privileged access to the thread before anyone else!? That would require an inside man, and we all know that the Slashdot editing staff would never allow such a thing! Surely you jest!
They'll just implement a "random wobble" algorithm after the first is found.
How do they measure the distance of something like this?
If my screen cold fold back or rotate around, I would be all for this. Otherwise, no...your laptop ends up being across the table, and most computer desks are too short in these days of flat screens.
My last laptop screen had brackets that fit either way and it lived with the screen backwards just for this reason.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
