Alan Turing using math to repair his bike
mathmutation.blogspot.com
mathmutation.blogspot.com
But it also introduces me to so many lovely things in the process. That moment in Cryptonomicon was quite cool.
Suppose the fan is clearly starting on high and you want to turn it off, but you don't know if the order of settings is "high-low-off", or "high-medium-low-off" (three states or four).
It's often difficult to tell if the fan is coasting off or just spinning down to low. If you get it wrong and pull one time too many, it goes back to high and you have to start over.
Therefore I always pull fan chains eleven (11) times to turn them off, so that I don't have to know if it's a three or four state fan. (Also works for on-off pull chains.) Pulling the chain 59 times would extend this technique to cover five-state fans, but I've never encountered one.
Given that this blog post is from this year, I’m going to continue to assume as much.
RIP: https://sheldonbrown.com/blog/2022/02/03/its-been-14-years-n...
Curious to see other versions I have quickly traced back the ancetode to a Nature article "Are mathematician logical" (1987) by Ian Stewart[0]; the version/wording unfortunately here is quite the same.
[0]https://doi.org/10.1038/325386a0 (via paywall --> sci-hub)
If you have ride a brakeless track bike and "stop" or slowdown the bike by skidding, there's certain gear ratios that you'll want to avoid. Basically, in skidding, you unweight the rear wheel by moving your body forward and lock the position of your cranks. The rear wheel will then skid and you can end up with a flat spot of wear on your tire (assuming your don't face-plant yourself when you do it wrong). The fewer the number of skid patches for your gear-ratio, the more rapid the wear-down on the tire will be.
There's even a calculator for this... https://www.bikecalc.com/skid_patch_calculator
If you're over 35, please, just use brakes and keep the track bike on the track! (stupid dangerous examples of skidding https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9xQcMniV84, don't do it).
Agreed re brakes, on a bike having a decent front brake is all that matters (irrespective of age)- if stopping quickly, the back wheel is generally waving about in the air anyway so whether its leg-braked or other makes no difference (except fixed riders will still be pedalling, force of habit and all that).
What? Is that for real?
Edit: It is!
> He loved to ride his bicycle through the countryside. To time himself, he would simply tie an alarm clock around his waist. During the war, according to I.J. Good, a Cambridge mathematician, Turing suffered horribly from hay fever during the first week of June every year. So to keep the pollen off while riding, he wore a military gas mask.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/1999/06/09/alan-turin...
It's still an eccentric thing to do, of course. But, like the alarm clock tied around his waist, it was an instance of solving a problem by grabbing something close to hand.
I got some stares.
For awhile, I felt some of my neighbors thought I was trying to conceal my identity; but it was just for allergies.
The last thing I wore it for was germs.
Tangentially related, I have recently become aware of a sound similar to a bag of potato chips being crushed coming from the rear wheel of my mountain bike. Closer inspection showed that the rear wheel hub exhibited an unwanted additional degree of freedom with respect to the rest of the wheel. The hub was able to be moved slightly back and forth radially. "An excuse to get my hands dirty, and an easy fix", I thought foolishly -- it is only mechanics, after all, nothing that will not surrender immediately to the agile mind and nimble hands of a computer programmer! Fast forward 300$ in tools of and 4 weeks of attempts to fix this, which typically resulted in the purchase of a new specialized tool, and the bike runs again. I learned more than I had hoped about the vast number of very small metal balls that reside in a modern freewheel hub, and it was a good lecture in humility.
I ride 46:19, because those are the parts that were in my bin when I built the bike, and it's a pretty good all-round ratio for city riding unless you're a lot more athletic than I am.
Also, those components wear out soon enough anyway -- a chain lasts 2 to 3 thousand miles, and a cog lasts a few chains.
It'll still work just fine if you ignore this idea, but it might wear out more quickly. If you're a hobbyist just trying to make something work, you can safely ignore it and do whatever is most convenient. If you're a bicycle engineer trying to make things reliable and long-lasting, then there's no downside to making the number of links prime if you can arrange it.
I don't know whether bike companies actually do choose prime-numbered chains, maybe they have other constraints that are more important.
On a bike with derailleur gears, every time you change gears the derailleur will add some slippage so you won't get this effect.
> The easiest way to achieve this is to make the number of links in the chain prime
The chainring is fixed, but you might need to add or remove a link in the chain. In practice it seems more common to make the chainring have a prime number of teeth (53 or 47).
Bike chains always have to have an even number of links because they come in inner and outer pairs. But this has an effect on chainrings as well. When the tooth on a chainring or sprocket is in between two inner plates it's in a narrow gap. When the tooth is in between outer plates that's a wide gap. If you have a chainring with an even number of teeth then you can have the teeth match the narrow and wide profiles (called a narrow-wide chainring) which is supposed to make it less likely that you drop your chain off the chainrings. I'm not sure if it works, tbh. It seems to only be a thing in mountain or gravel bikes with a single chainring. I can't find any track chainrings that have the profile but I only looked for a second.
For chains themselves there's usually a pretty narrow number of links that work on a road drivetrain. I think I can live with one fewer or more pair of links on mine.
Track chainrings don't need a narrow-wide profile because there's very little slack in the system for the chain to come off. Saint Sheldon warns of the possibility of losing a finger also for this reason.
D'oh! Of course, you're right.
In gears, if you make sure the number of teeth of mating gears is coprime then you wear the teeth of one gear evenly against the other gear. If there are low factors, then each tooth of one gear only engages with a small number of teeth on the other gear, exacerbating wear.
With belts, if the number of teeth on the belt shares low factors with the number of teeth on either of the pulleys then you get the same effect: any given tooth on the belt only ever meshes with a small number of teeth on the pulley.
Usually contrasted against the decidedly non-prime 52 (2 * 2 * 13) and 42 (2 * 3 * 7) chainrings. 38 if you're old-school triple (2 * 2 * 7).
My chain lengths would vary and I never counted them specifically, though I'd typically remove a few links for fit.
https://www.amazon.com/Math-Mutation-Classics-Interesting-Ma...
The incidents mentioned in it ... may not be.
The drawer was getting locked after I pulled it out X or so inches, where Y is the full length the drawer can come out and X < Y.
I thought, "this is an implicit restriction on the degrees of freedom the drawer should have". Then I thought, well, if this system has fewer degrees of freedom than it should have, then I need to add degrees of freedom to it so that it may come unstuck.
How to add degrees of freedom? Well, I could attempt to add entropy to the system, so that becoming unstuck could asymptotically become a part of its configuration space, and it may come free!
I shook the drawer vigorously.
It came unstuck.
Physics!