Talk:Bicycle: Difference between revisions
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
imported>John R. Brews (→Human and mechanical energy: new section) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:: Thanks for your interest so far. I'd like to put pictures of a variety of different bikes under the "types of bikes" section, and I'd like pictures of each piece of a bicycle under the "parts of a bicycle" section, etc. Also, there are a lot of headings that still need to be written---especially about bicycle history, which I know little about---so feel free to write some if you have a chance. --[[User:Nick Johnson|Nick Johnson]] | :: Thanks for your interest so far. I'd like to put pictures of a variety of different bikes under the "types of bikes" section, and I'd like pictures of each piece of a bicycle under the "parts of a bicycle" section, etc. Also, there are a lot of headings that still need to be written---especially about bicycle history, which I know little about---so feel free to write some if you have a chance. --[[User:Nick Johnson|Nick Johnson]] | ||
== Human and mechanical energy == | |||
There is a bit of language difficulty in the phrase "human, rather than mechanical, energy". | |||
Technically speaking, in engineering, for example, energy is classified as of different types, like mechanical energy, thermal energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, ''etc.'' I do not believe "human energy" is a technically valid category, and also, the use here of mechanical energy is non-technical and not consistent with the usage in engineering. For example, a clock run using a pendulum might be considered to use mechanical energy, while one using a battery might be considered to use electrical or chemical energy. A car engine uses the energy in its fuel, which I'd take as chemical energy. | |||
In any event, I think I'd avoid trying to distinguish between bicycles and cars by referring to human energy. The distinction made earlier between "human powered" versus "mechanically or electrically powered" is better. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 04:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:58, 13 July 2011
There is very, very, very much more to write here. Volunteers are very much encouraged! --Nick Johnson 15:46, 22 February 2007 (CST)
- I have a lot of photos of bikes (including some showing close-ups of the various components), bike racers, and bike racing. Let me know what you need and I'll see if I've got something close.
- I usually see the term drive train rather than drive transmission, although I suppose either will do. James F. Perry 16:09, 22 February 2007 (CST)
- Thanks for your interest so far. I'd like to put pictures of a variety of different bikes under the "types of bikes" section, and I'd like pictures of each piece of a bicycle under the "parts of a bicycle" section, etc. Also, there are a lot of headings that still need to be written---especially about bicycle history, which I know little about---so feel free to write some if you have a chance. --Nick Johnson
Human and mechanical energy
There is a bit of language difficulty in the phrase "human, rather than mechanical, energy".
Technically speaking, in engineering, for example, energy is classified as of different types, like mechanical energy, thermal energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, etc. I do not believe "human energy" is a technically valid category, and also, the use here of mechanical energy is non-technical and not consistent with the usage in engineering. For example, a clock run using a pendulum might be considered to use mechanical energy, while one using a battery might be considered to use electrical or chemical energy. A car engine uses the energy in its fuel, which I'd take as chemical energy.
In any event, I think I'd avoid trying to distinguish between bicycles and cars by referring to human energy. The distinction made earlier between "human powered" versus "mechanically or electrically powered" is better. John R. Brews 04:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)