Topic: Ever heard of dynabeads?

[BVCB650]

A Pollock can be suspended in a vat of water or any other liquid solution. Poached is a lowfat way of preparing them.

[1974CB750rider]

LOLLOL thats funny but the actual response is "I'll tell you later"

[BVCB650]

LOLLOL thats funny but the actual response is "I'll tell you later"

I thought we were talking about seafood. LOL.

[MCRider]

LOLLOL thats funny but the actual response is "I'll tell you later"

pollock is seafood

polack or polak is the person

[BVCB650]

I was being as dry funny as I dare.

[1974CB750rider]

Well I'm going to go ride my  CB750 with my dyna bead balanced tires. So I will check back later to see what all the rocket surgeon and the professor have come up with on this product. Remember that the company that makes these things is really ran by Jedi Knights and these beads work by useing the Force. Have a goood one.

[mlinder]

You are talking about things like the world being flat. That's because a.) God told them it was flat, and b.) flatness was the PERCEPTION, without a valid process to measure for flatness.

Actually I was not.
The classical elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.
Aristotle's dynamic motion. It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.
#  Newton's corpuscular theory of light. While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.
# Newton's Laws of Motion (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).
All examples of things proven wrong, some based on physics.

This is an untrue statement. It's a dangerous statement, first because of it's falseness stated as fact, and second because it is intended to allow people feel ok about not bothering to try to understand something or learn something using their brains and information available to everyone.

how are humans supposed to quantify what we know and do not know? There are so many things we have not figured out. So many things we cannot do. I does stand to reason there is a vast amount we do not know yet. To assume otherwise is kinda arrogant.

Everything that happens on a bike, old or new, can be explained with physics. I don't need to be a world class scientist to apply the formulae and knowledge supplied to us by world class scientists to a given problem.

That is true, it is also true that things thought impossible on bikes in the 70s are built into the cheapest bike these days. How do you know that dyna beads do not work? It is just your assumption because you have not seem them yourself. That alone proves nothing. I have not seen them either but the fact that more than 1 person here has used them with good success means they could be worth trying.

Untrue. I do try to apply these thought processes to nearly everything.

If this were true, then why are you on an old bike when almost anything these days is better in terms of handling, braking, acceleration, and possibly reliability?

Just got into the office. Will address this as soon as I have a bit of free time.
Just to let you know in advance, I'm going to show you how erroneous your statements above are, and how you apply bad logic to support bad logic, and how you used strawmen arguments to try to prove a point.

[BVCB650]

Well I'm happy with them, placebo or not. Why can't someone just prove/disprove this thing. Go tape a golf ball on the side of their tire, put in the beads and have at it with a spinning tire balancer?

[Achmed]

I still think that if they do anything to improve the ride, it's because they improve the moment of inertia of the assembly, somehow (probably only slightly) mitigating an out-of-balance condition.

[mlinder]

I still think that if they do anything to improve the ride, it's because they improve the moment of inertia of the assembly, somehow (probably only slightly) mitigating an out-of-balance condition.

Sandbagger!

[MCRider]

Here's the explanation form the manufacturer. I am not smart enough to agree or disagree. But the explanation seems to be from a different angle than detractors have assumed.
http://www.innovativebalancing.com/HowItWorks.htm

[Frankenkit]

oh FFS, mlinder is just #$%*ing with all of you because you're all making it easy and fun. Let him try the things out when he has time or interest in doing so.  I know it's not a "placebo effect" allowing me to do 75 and not have my hands vibrated off the grips anymore. It could have simply been a matter of taking the old 1oz rim weights off, but I doubt this simply because:

I doubt most people could feel a slightly out of balance wheel as they never ride hard enough to notice it any way. I have only ever once felt an out of balance wheel out of the 20 odd bikes i have owned the last 20 years and it wasn't a balance problem it was the spokes needed adjusting.

So I guess the new loss in vibration is between the seat and the handlebars.    If you have them and they work for you, great.  Wonderful!  If you can mount your own tires but don't have a balancer at home, or friends who can do it for you, by all means, $7-10 beats the hell out of $40-$50. If, on the other hand, you have friends who are totally set up (or you are yourself) then do it 'properly' and don't worry about it.  It should be that freakin' simple, people.  
This is just like an oil thread where some people are convinced synthetics will destroy your bike in a million insidious ways, and others think synthetics have saved their bikes' performance.  The thing is, no one can agree to disagree. Ever.  Not in a million damn years and I'm not sure *why* that is.  

[Achmed]

This is what it's like when worlds collide. I heard that in a song once.

Hilarious thread!

[Inigo Montoya]

Considering how I can find those statements on many sites, I fail to see how I am making bad statements M.
just cause it is not what you think, does not make it bad. It makes it different. I posted KNOWN things that science once thought which science proved wrong. That has happened before, it will happen again. To think otherwise is to have a closed mind on it.
Nothing I posted is wrong, nor can YOU prove it wrong. All you can prove is you don't agree, but that doesn't make it wrong. It is a fact, our bike are outdated, no one can deny this, so how is that wrong?
I feel humans do not know that much, I certainly cant quantify it, can you? I doubt it. So um, lets see your strawman. At least mine has scientific support NOT based solely on what I think.

[BVCB650]

Considering how I can find those statements on many sites, I fail to see how I am making bad statements M.
just cause it is not what you think, does not make it bad. It makes it different. I posted KNOWN things that science once thought which science proved wrong. That has happened before, it will happen again. To think otherwise is to have a closed mind on it.
Nothing I posted is wrong, nor can YOU prove it wrong. All you can prove is you don't agree, but that doesn't make it wrong. It is a fact, our bike are outdated, no one can deny this, so how is that wrong?
I feel humans do not know that much, I certainly cant quantify it, can you? I doubt it. So um, lets see your strawman. At least mine has scientific support NOT based solely on what I think.

I'm not convinced he disagrees. Chain jerker I suspect.

[Achmed]

The body of knowledge in this area of physics is pretty much closed. It has been pored over and experimented with and confirmed over and over again over the centuries. That's not to say it isn't sometimes difficult to figure out what is really going on, as with the beads in tires situation. It's pretty disingenuous to argue with the theory if you aren't well versed in it, in my humble opinion.

[mlinder]

Considering how I can find those statements on many sites, I fail to see how I am making bad statements M.
just cause it is not what you think, does not make it bad. It makes it different. I posted KNOWN things that science once thought which science proved wrong. That has happened before, it will happen again. To think otherwise is to have a closed mind on it.
Nothing I posted is wrong, nor can YOU prove it wrong. All you can prove is you don't agree, but that doesn't make it wrong. It is a fact, our bike are outdated, no one can deny this, so how is that wrong?
I feel humans do not know that much, I certainly cant quantify it, can you? I doubt it. So um, lets see your strawman. At least mine has scientific support NOT based solely on what I think.

OK, here we go. Please understand this is not a personal attack, this is merely a statement on how arguments are made.

The classical elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.

This is because, as I stated before, that humans had no way to perceive or measure anything smaller than what we could see (or not see, in the case of air).
The reason this does not work for your argument:
We understand physics to a degree that the actions and reactions of dynabeads inside of a tire have predictable and repeatable results, which can be predicted by known laws of physics. Dynabeads act within known physical laws. There are no unknown variables in the behavior of these physical objects.
That being said, I have admitted that perhaps I am missing a very important known law of physics in my assessment of this particular product.

Aristotle's dynamic motion. It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.
#  Newton's corpuscular theory of light. While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.
# Newton's Laws of Motion (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).

All good examples, but misleading for the current argument.
Why?
Because it makes the assumption that since earlier theories were proven wrong (or expanded on) by better science, that somehow current physics  are incapable of explaining dynabeads apparent physics-defying behaviour.
The strawman argument here is this:
Since physics describing other things in the past were wrong, the physics describing the predicted action of the current problem at hand are wrong, also.

how are humans supposed to quantify what we know and do not know? There are so many things we have not figured out. So many things we cannot do. I does stand to reason there is a vast amount we do not know yet. To assume otherwise is kinda arrogant.

As humans, all we know is that we want to know more.
Strawman argument here:
Since there are so many things we do not know, we cannot know how dynabeads work or don't work as advertised now.
And:
Assuming you can predict the actions of dynabeads with our current understanding of physics is arrogant. Assumptions and arrogance are bad. Therefore your predictions are bad.

That is true, it is also true that things thought impossible on bikes in the 70s are built into the cheapest bike these days. How do you know that dyna beads do not work? It is just your assumption because you have not seem them yourself. That alone proves nothing. I have not seen them either but the fact that more than 1 person here has used them with good success means they could be worth trying.

I don't know that they don't work. I theorise that they don't work, based on physics that I know.
Again, I could be missing something very important in this equation. I've said it many times.

Your  Strawman argument in the above quote:
You assume they don't work because you haven't tried them. Having not tried them, you cannot make accurate predictions of behaviour based on known laws of physics. Therefore, anecdotal evidence and subjective experience have greater weight than known laws of physics.

If this were true, then why are you on an old bike when almost anything these days is better in terms of handling, braking, acceleration, and possibly reliability? Wink

This is the biggest Strawman of all:
You ride old bikes, which are not the most efficient pieces of machinery, then your ability to intellectually explore a given problem and apply problem solving skills and knowledge of science is in question. Therefore, your statement concerning the issue at hand is false.

Again, please understand, this is not meant in any way to offend anyone. So, I hope I haven't. I actually enjoy these brain exercises and take no offense at anything said in my direction.

[mlinder]

The body of knowledge in this area of physics is pretty much closed. It has been pored over and experimented with and confirmed over and over again over the centuries. That's not to say it isn't sometimes difficult to figure out what is really going on, as with the beads in tires situation. It's pretty disingenuous to argue with the theory if you aren't well versed in it, in my humble opinion.

Get outta here with your humble opinion, Achmed.
You have a goat for an avatar, goats don't understand physics, therefore, you do not understand when other people understand (or don't understand) physics.
We clear?

[Achmed]

Yes, mlinder, goats don't understand physics. Therefore, I will not argue with the theory. Life is easy. Ahhhhhhhh

[Inigo Montoya]

But none of what I said was wrong M.
What is one aspect of making an argument? A basis for your claims, I provided that an yet because it does not pertain directly to tires, you dismiss it. Why, The examples were made to show humans have been wrong and will continue to be wrong. Just like you could be wrong on your opinion of these beads.  It does NOT make the assumption, it provides the POSSIBILITY that people are wrong.

All good examples, but misleading for the current argument.
Why?
Because it makes the assumption that since earlier theories were proven wrong (or expanded on) by better science, that somehow current physics  are incapable of explaining dynabeads apparent physics-defying behaviour.
The strawman argument here is this:
Since physics describing other things in the past were wrong, the physics describing the predicted action of the current problem at hand are wrong, also.

So what if better science DOES come around and shows they do as advertised? Can we expect you to admit it or be like a couple others here and sidestep it somehow? I am not saying I am right about them, just trying to get you to understand that you could be wrong. Besides, if you DID have a physics degree, you would not be here. You would have someone else doing all your bike work while you probed the mysteries of the universe. We still do not have warp drive or time displacement drive which would be covered by the realm of physics.

I don't know that they don't work. I theorise that they don't work, based on physics that I know.
Again, I could be missing something very important in this equation. I've said it many times.

Your  Strawman argument in the above quote:
You assume they don't work because you haven't tried them. Having not tried them, you cannot make accurate predictions of behaviour based on known laws of physics. Therefore, anecdotal evidence and subjective experience have greater weight than known laws of physics.

If you admit you this, then how is it a strawman? It can't be a strawman if you admit to not knowing if they work.

This is the biggest Strawman of all:
You ride old bikes, which are not the most efficient pieces of machinery, then your ability to intellectually explore a given problem and apply problem solving skills and knowledge of science is in question. Therefore, your statement concerning the issue at hand is false.

This is also no strawman. Our bikes are outmoded and that is a fact.

As Inigo Montoya would say "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[mlinder]

But none of what I said was wrong M.
What is one aspect of making an argument? A basis for your claims, I provided that an yet because it does not pertain directly to tires, you dismiss it. Why, The examples were made to show humans have been wrong and will continue to be wrong. Just like you could be wrong on your opinion of these beads.  It does NOT make the assumption, it provides the POSSIBILITY that people are wrong.

All good examples, but misleading for the current argument.
Why?
Because it makes the assumption that since earlier theories were proven wrong (or expanded on) by better science, that somehow current physics  are incapable of explaining dynabeads apparent physics-defying behaviour.
The strawman argument here is this:
Since physics describing other things in the past were wrong, the physics describing the predicted action of the current problem at hand are wrong, also.

So what if better science DOES come around and shows they do as advertised? Can we expect you to admit it or be like a couple others here and sidestep it somehow? I am not saying I am right about them, just trying to get you to understand that you could be wrong. Besides, if you DID have a physics degree, you would not be here. You would have someone else doing all your bike work while you probed the mysteries of the universe. We still do not have warp drive or time displacement drive which would be covered by the realm of physics.

I don't know that they don't work. I theorise that they don't work, based on physics that I know.
Again, I could be missing something very important in this equation. I've said it many times.

Your  Strawman argument in the above quote:
You assume they don't work because you haven't tried them. Having not tried them, you cannot make accurate predictions of behaviour based on known laws of physics. Therefore, anecdotal evidence and subjective experience have greater weight than known laws of physics.

If you admit you this, then how is it a strawman? It can't be a strawman if you admit to not knowing if they work.

This is the biggest Strawman of all:
You ride old bikes, which are not the most efficient pieces of machinery, then your ability to intellectually explore a given problem and apply problem solving skills and knowledge of science is in question. Therefore, your statement concerning the issue at hand is false.

This is also no strawman. Our bikes are outmoded and that is a fact.

As Inigo Montoya would say "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

It's apparent you do not quite understand what a strawman argument is.
A strawman argument attempts to discredit one idea by discrediting another idea that appears to be linked or similar to the first, but is in fact, not.
Your arguments in your last post are also strawman arguments, and all of them false.

Hate to say it, but if you don't actually realise you are doing this, intelligent discourse on any subject, not just this one, is nigh impossible. If, however, you are doing it knowingly, at the very least you are persistent.

[SiliconDoc]

I searched through several pages of Google results, I can find only anecdotal evidence of effectiveness.  No tire or vehicle manufactures have posted test results that I could find.

My engineering nature tells me to be skeptical without test result from qualified laboratories or tire manufactures.  I would not use them, I prefer to do things I "know" work, as opposed to things I "think" work.  a fine philosophical line I know, but I drew it and I ain't crossing it.  

Beyond my engineers opinion, it is your time, money, and safety do what you want, let us know your result.

 It works just like your washing machine does - the beads are like the water, for instance, in the tub, you spin it, and it flings to the outer sides and the rotation and intertia distributes it evenly.
 Like stirring a 2 quart juice container of koolaid.
Your washing machine can be off balance with one or two large heavy items inside ( don't try this with 1 inch diameter ball bearings inside your tires..), but small rolling moveable balls will even out, just like anything added to a liquid and spun.
---
 We don't need engineers when drinking the koolaid tells us all we need to know.  

[mlinder]

I searched through several pages of Google results, I can find only anecdotal evidence of effectiveness.  No tire or vehicle manufactures have posted test results that I could find.

My engineering nature tells me to be skeptical without test result from qualified laboratories or tire manufactures.  I would not use them, I prefer to do things I "know" work, as opposed to things I "think" work.  a fine philosophical line I know, but I drew it and I ain't crossing it.  

Beyond my engineers opinion, it is your time, money, and safety do what you want, let us know your result.

 It works just like your washing machine does - the beads are like the water, for instance, in the tub, you spin it, and it flings to the outer sides and the rotation and intertia distributes it evenly.
 Like stirring a 2 quart juice container of koolaid.
Your washing machine can be off balance with one or two large heavy items inside ( don't try this with 1 inch diameter ball bearings inside your tires..), but small rolling moveable balls will even out, just like anything added to a liquid and spun.
---
 We don't need engineers when drinking the koolaid tells us all we need to know.  

No, no, no.
This has been gone over before. This is not correct.

[Operator]

Physics make my head hurt.

According to the laws of Physics, bumblebees should not physically be able to fly. Does that mean if you tell a bumblebee he can't fly, that he will from that point on, lack the ability to do so?

I would rather fly not knowing that I shouldn't, rather than remain grounded because science says it is so.

[MickeyX]

This is my last post on this subject. I doubt most people could feel a slightly out of balance wheel as they never ride hard enough to notice it any way. I have only ever once felt an out of balance wheel out of the 20 odd bikes i have owned the last 20 years and it wasn't a balance problem it was the spokes needed adjusting. All my bikes have needed balancing when the rims have been put on a balancer but there was no discernible wobble in the first place. Having worked in bike shops and seen hundreds of wheels balanced i bet if you took a freshly balanced wheel to another shop it would still be slightly out of balance. Have fun with your little balls....

Mick

I, personally, have a natural tendency to study and evaluate claims and issues, with as much knowledge as I have, or can find.
I also prefer to follow practiced, scientific methods to prove or disprove a claim or theory. Anecdotal evidence and bad math are not acceptable to me, nor are unscientific methods of data gathering.

We aren't 'afraid' to use them, 1974CB, we just refuse to be suckered in to buying something that we, personally, can't see working.

Me 'trying' them is an unscientific method, as I know that a.) I am incapable of measuring minimal (or nonexistent) changes in a complex system while being able to ascribe said changes to a single element of a complex system with multiple elements and b.) I am already predisposed to believing they do not work, which could color my perception, and therefore report, of the item in question.
Also, any claim I made would also be anecdotal, which is unacceptable. Without the use of a calibrated measuring system, that gives me quantifiable, repeatable results, I cannot make a claim as to it working in good conscience.

So, you are saying that there is no way to tell if they are working by riding the bike because the change would be so small? Yet, you pay someone to put weights on the tires even though there is no way, according to you, that you would ever know the difference? 

OK, here we go. Please understand this is not a personal attack, this is merely a statement on how arguments are made.

Get outta here with your humble opinion, Achmed.
You have a goat for an avatar, goats don't understand physics, therefore, you do not understand when other people understand (or don't understand) physics.
We clear?

Looked like a personal attack to me...

I don't know that they don't work. I theorise that they don't work, based on physics that I know.
Again, I could be missing something very important in this equation. I've said it many times.

"Tire balance, also referred to as tire unbalance or imbalance, describes the distribution of mass within an automobile tire and/or the wheel to which it is attached. When the tire rotates, asymmetries of mass cause the wheel to wobble. This wobbling can give rise to ride disturbances, usually vertical and lateral vibrations. The ride disturbance due to unbalance usually increases with speed. Vehicle suspensions can be excited by tire unbalance forces when the speed of the wheel reaches a point that its rotating frequency equals the suspension’s resonant frequency."

I know, it's wikipedia so I'm pushing it when it comes to actual fact here by posting that but, in this case it's true.

Also, my back tire was balanced at the shop. I felt no difference between it and the front one with dyna beads except that I can tell it takes about 10-15mph for the beads to settle. Yup, I can feel it. I'm willing to buy more beads, take off the back weights, ride without, see what that does and then put in some beads. I'm curious and $7 is a small price to pay compared to $50 at the shop. It think the weights are highway robbery for something that, according to our "experts", can't possibly be felt or make a difference anyway.



"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." -
   Socrates