Bikes have higher gears to optimize pedaling efficiency at various speeds while maintaining a comfortable leg rotation rate. Higher gears allow riders to pedal with more torque, which is beneficial for maintaining speed on flat or downhill terrain. This gearing system enables cyclists to deliver power effectively, balancing speed and force according to the riding conditions. By using higher gears, cyclists can achieve greater wheel speeds without overexerting themselves. Understanding this dynamic is crucial for maximizing performance and comfort during rides.
#1
dEdt
286
2
Why do bikes have higher gears? At a higher gear, I'm still pedaling with the same force, but at a lower speed, so my power output is lower. What's the advantage of higher gears?
In a higher gear, you would be pedaling with more force (more torque). The advantage of a higher gear is it keeps the rate of rotation near what is optimal for a rider at higher speeds. Wiki article:
Gears allow you to go at a range of wheel speeds whilst your legs are going at the same (comfortable) rate. You can only deliver power at a given maximum rate. Power is speed times force. So you can deliver, to the wheels, a high force at low speed (uphill) and a smaller force at high speed (going downhill) whilst your legs are working at the same rate.
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
i want to just test a linear generator with galvanometer , the magnet is N28 and the wire (Cu) is of 0.6mm thikness and 10m long , but galvanometer dont show anthing ,
The core is PLA material (3d printed)
The magnet size if 28mm * 10mm * 5mm
If the universe is fundamentally probabilistic, and all possible outcomes are realized in some branch of the multiverse, does that invalidate the concept of scientific inquiry? If knowledge is merely a description of one particular branch of reality, does it have any inherent value?