Bing Vacuum physics
-
- Posts: 8900
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:46 pm
Re: Bing Vacuum physics
Planes blow up, I've seen it in the movies.Steve in Golden wrote: Does an airplane fly due to the vacuum on top of the wing sucking the plane into the sky, or the pressure from underneath it blowing it into the sky?
Lord of the Bings
Re: Bing Vacuum physics
MS has been known to exhibit a certain tendency toward foot-in-mouth before.
Have you changed the diaphragms? Bing SAYS they ought to be changed every 2 years...I don't do THAT but did find that although they might LOOK good they aren't. This is usually noticed when you try to pass and suddenly there is an oncoming vehicle.
New diaphragms fixed THAT problem. General sluggishness at speed was cured by a pair of new coils.
('78 R100s, 40mm Bings.)
Have you changed the diaphragms? Bing SAYS they ought to be changed every 2 years...I don't do THAT but did find that although they might LOOK good they aren't. This is usually noticed when you try to pass and suddenly there is an oncoming vehicle.
New diaphragms fixed THAT problem. General sluggishness at speed was cured by a pair of new coils.
('78 R100s, 40mm Bings.)
Clemson, SC
R100s, R75/5
R100s, R75/5
Re: Bing Vacuum physics
Hey Rob, have we got a popcorn smiley?
If we did, I think someone's eaten it.
If we did, I think someone's eaten it.
Lord of the Bings
Re: Bing Vacuum physics
GIT CHER OWN!ME 109 wrote:Hey Rob, have we got a popcorn smiley?
If we did, I think someone's eaten it.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fe49f/fe49f3e77de62e93947262e2368af0898efc57c5" alt="Image"
(stolen from advrider)
-
- Posts: 8900
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:46 pm
Re: Bing Vacuum physics
READ IT AGAINJean wrote:MS has been known to exhibit a certain tendency toward foot-in-mouth before.
I object to the representation, as I said nothing wrong. I then politely tried to deal with the OP's apparently misunderstanding of what I said. A poster who told me off for telling him what he already knows all about, in spite of the fact that his question clearly assumed the opposite.
I have, in fact, put my foot in my mouth from time to time. This is not one of those times.
MS - out
Re: Bing Vacuum physics
I am a total fan of your writing style and keeping in mind that if one never falls off a cliff, they are not taking enough chances, I feel compelled to say you did in fact cross the line. Not an important line, but on first reading, my reaction was the same as Tom's and I am a long time reader.Major Softie wrote:
I have, in fact, put my foot in my mouth from time to time. This is not one of those times.
1975 R90/6
1979 R65
1979 R65
-
- Posts: 8900
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:46 pm
Re: Bing Vacuum physics
"...On first reading..."bbelk wrote:Major Softie wrote:...I feel compelled to say you did in fact cross the line. Not an important line, but on first reading, my reaction was the same as Tom's and I am a long time reader.
I'm afraid I do do not understand. If I crossed a line, it does not matter how many readings. If a more careful reading led to a different conclusion, it does not signify I crossed any line. Please explain.
MS - out
Re: Bing Vacuum physics
If it reads better for you, this was my intent:bbelk wrote:I am a total fan of your writing style and keeping in mind that if one never falls off a cliff, they are not taking enough chances, I feel compelled to say you did in fact cross the line. Not an important line, but on first reading, my reaction was the same as Tom's and I am a long time reader.Major Softie wrote:
I have, in fact, put my foot in my mouth from time to time. This is not one of those times.
I am a total fan of your writing style. My reaction was the same as Tom's.
1975 R90/6
1979 R65
1979 R65