Topic: Ever heard of dynabeads?

[SiliconDoc]

Mlinder, just noticed that I replied to your reply to SiliconDoc. Thought you were making a point toward me.

SiliconDoc, I believe I understand what you're saying, but the small changes in rotational velocity of the system won't significantly overcome static friction and imperfections of the inner tube. And more significantly, the beads do not rotate with respect to the inner tube, other than to distribute themselves to a balanced state. They won't roll like "spinner" hubcaps inside the inner tube. Frictional losses will account for that motion very quickly.

Well that's just ridiculous, sir. I suggest you put some larger, heavier balls inside, and make that claim again. Obviously, the designer picked a size and weight that does dynamically react to changes in the tire movement, and friction or no, even in place by such, they would exert a countering force, and still move to a degree, and often because of inner tire peaks and valleys.
 

If you would have looked at the companies link, they even claim they "roll around inside", so whatever.

I'm saying after your idea on a general initial balancing, which I widely agree with, a lot more occurs as you travel down the road. A tire's "balance" is THROWN OFF every time it hits a bump and the rubber is compressed toward centerpoint, changing the balance, on the fly (or the ride as the case is)


I guess I need a clear silicone tire and an active riding cam.

No one has yet brought up the vibration from The Honda Four that is rattling the balls around inside(actually rattling the tire rubber while the balls tend to remain stationary, hence "moving about on the tires inner surface", even "at speed"), much like the trick to insert them in the tire, also causing "movement that partially overcomes "centrifugal frictional surface variation stick", and in all likelihood assists inner bead ovement vs sticking to the tire when speed or lateral wobble or bump or dip dynamics come in to play

[Inigo Montoya]

I have not seen the size of beads but the valve sits pretty low in the stem and leaves little room. I guess this depends on the length of stem of course but most tubes seem to have about a 1.5 inch (aprox) stem and the valve is about 1 inch, maybe slightly more. But again, I have not seen the beads first hand.

[BVCB650]

I found this testamonial...............

Here's what I did. I had a new set of Michelin Pilots installed on my 1500. I had the shop balance them at installation time. I ran them a couple of weeks and all was OK. I took off the weights from both the front and back tires. Ran the bike for a couple of trips and definitely had unbalanced condition over about 50mph. I added the beads through the valve stems and again test rode the bike. The unbalance was gone and has not reoccured (tested to about 85mph). These tires now have about 3K miles on them. I will definitely use the beads again next tire change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Jim in LA

[Inigo Montoya]

'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. Smiley

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.

M, are you so sure it is me? It seems the only ally you have is yourself here. just an observation. Cant you admit that maybe you are wrong and just let it rest? Bistro seems to have a fairly strong grasp here and disputes you.
I think Inigo Montoya might be onto something here.
besides, what I posted before still backs up my claim that we do not know all there is to know. yet somehow you try to say you do. If you did, we would not need these  political discussion on the open forum as you would have used your time machine to correct these problems already.

[mlinder]

I'm gonna go stab my face off while I think about this more.

[mlinder]

'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. Smiley

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.

M, are you so sure it is me?

Yes

It seems the only ally you have is yourself here. just an observation. Cant you admit that maybe you are wrong and just let it rest? Bistro seems to have a fairly strong grasp here and disputes you.

My logical process doesn't really bow to popular belief or peer pressure. In addition, I've said numerous times I might be missing something.

I think Inigo Montoya might be onto something here.

Nope. While I may or may not be correct about the beads, I am correct about the strawman arguments.

besides, what I posted before still backs up my claim that we do not know all there is to know.

which, again, does not mean we don't know all we need to know about the physics behind dynabeads (we, meaning humans, not necessarily you and me.)

yet somehow you try to say you do.

Um, no, no I don't.

If you did, we would not need these  political discussion on the open forum as you would have used your time machine to correct these problems already.

God, I wish

[BVCB650]

Lets go the other direction shall we? If a fella or gal put fix a flat in a tire, and it stayed fluid, wouldn't it do the same as danabeads as far as balancing? In a perfectly balance tire, would beads make the tire out of balance?

[SiliconDoc]

I just did a little more research, as I was considering taking an out of balance tire to a tire balancing shop and doing a test with a before and after to show if it does, indeed, balance tires.

However, this has been preempted by dynabeads claim that they would not work with a static balancer.

Why?
Markcb750, you are a physicist (or something), explain this to me. How can the dynabeads defy the laws of physics while attached to a vehicle, yet not defy this same laws when attached to a balancing machine?

Since Dynabeads effects (or lack thereof) is apparently immeasurable unless in tires attached to a moving bike, I guess what has to happen is a sensor that measures...... what, lessee, travel of the fork, and applied longitudinal force to the forks at the axle. and run the exact same road at the exact same speed and compare data...
Yeah, dun think I'm gonna be able to swing that one.

A static tire balancer in a shop has no forward motion upon spinning, so the beads do not have a static  interial load in the force direction parallel and opposite with the plane of the road and direction of vehicle movement.

In other words, on the balancer the beads grab the inner wall of the tire in clumps and faster, while on your motorcycle, your tire travelling forward leaves the static interial load of the beads "sitting" in the spot your tire just moved from, to do the balancing work as they "lazy sling" toward the back of the inside of the tire (in effect).

You'd have to mount the balancer on a vehicle and move in the direction of the tire spin up at appropriate speeds equalling the spin up speed, to have a "valid" test.

I thought about this.
Doesn't quite make sense unless you are accelerating or decelerating at a constant rate.
This is the same reason you feel pushed back in your seat accelerating to 60 mph, but feel nothing once you reach 60mph and maintain that speed.
There is no "interial load in the force direction parallel and opposite with the plane of the road and direction of vehicle movement" once you reach and maintain any given speed inside the tire.

Well, please realize that the beads in the top half vs the bottom half of the tire are actually acellerating and decellerating even when your bike is at a constant speed in a forward motional direction.

If one was to chart that rate change of speed in the forward direction of bike travel for the beads, they would find the beads slowing down once they reached past the front of the tire, and speeding up once they passed the back center of the tire.
SO, the beads themselves are not ever at a constant "G" in the forward direction if they are "stuck" to the tires inner wall. (except of course for the single points exact front and back of the tire)

----
If you don't hang onto the handlebars, you don't move but the bike does, same for the beads. An object at rest, tends to remain at rest, unless an outside force is applied to it.
 The beads remain at rest, the outside force is applied to the tires rubber directly, not the beads.

[Inigo Montoya]

Well, M, given the official definition, we are both guilty of that. Bottom line is that neither of us can prove or disprove that they work. You choose to not get them, I choose to get them. Some think they work, some do not. The side that likes them is not scientific but sooner or later, if enough use them with success, that would lend credence to them. maybe we can start the dyna beads fund for mlinder and get you a set so you do not have to by them. We could even get you a tube so you do not have to work taking them out. You just have to put the tube on and the beads in. what would you say to that?

[mlinder]

The tires transfer the energy to the beads.

[mlinder]

Well, M, given the official definition, we are both guilty of that.

How? I never used a strawman argument in this thread.

Bottom line is that neither of us can prove or disprove that they work. You choose to not get them, I choose to get them. Some think they work, some do not. The side that likes them is not scientific but sooner or later, if enough use them with success, that would lend credence to them. maybe we can start the dyna beads fund for mlinder and get you a set so you do not have to by them. We could even get you a tube so you do not have to work taking them out. You just have to put the tube on and the beads in. what would you say to that?

I'll buy them myself, but I just don't think I can afford the instruments that can take measurements in, apparently, the only way these can be 'tested'.
Thanks for thinking of me, though

[SiliconDoc]

The tires transfer the energy to the beads.

Yes, of course. On a static test balancer in a shop, the tire rubber coming from forward and under the beads grabs them with frictional forces by moving under them as they roll and GRAVITY (the weight of the beads and surface texture of both bead and inner tire) assists by pulling the beads down into the tire generally on bottom dead center. They "stick" and move backwards with the tire, initiating their circular movement (some falling and rolling and tumbling back down over one another) until tire spin speed is fast enough to friction catch them all and keep them pinned to the outer wall all the way over the top of the loop. (some will drop in before they reach TDC inside in the initial spin up -until higher rotational speed is reached)

In a MOVING tire on a bike, it is different. The tire comes from forward moving under the beads, and friction does it's work again, BUT, the beads at rest on the bottom are very quickly LIFTED upward by the forward travelling back inner lower wall of the tire as they roll forward inside the tire. They are launched and lifted UPWARD much faster, and bounced and slung up inside the tire as they are forced to take on forward direction motion, a SECOND FACTOR.

So there's just one dynamic that is quite different for initial distribution of the beads. One also has to take into account the squished bottom of the tire, flattened inside, a "level puddle" of beads in the bike tire with the weight resting on it - vs the "much more rounded pile" in the shop machine.


Where they stick, how fast they stick, is definitely affected, a lot.

[bistromath]

SiliconDoc, I'm not giving up on you yet, but your grasp of basic physics isn't what it should be, given your apparent authority on the subject.

In a MOVING tire on a bike, it is different. The tire comes from forward moving under the beads, and friction does it's work again, BUT, the beads at rest on the bottom are very quickly LIFTED upward by the forward travelling back inner lower wall of the tire. They are launched and lifted UPWARD much faster, and bounced and slung up inside the tire as they are forced to take on forward direction motion, a SECOND FACTOR.

This is the source of your misunderstanding, and is wholly incorrect. The two situations, as far as anything inside the tire is concerned, are absolutely equivalent. Put another way, the beads share the same inertial reference frame as the wheel. Put yet another way, if you were a tiny bead inside that tire, you COULD NOT TELL if you were traveling at a reasonably constant speed on a flat road, or spun up on a stand. The forces are absolutely equivalent in either case. Seriously. 100%. Not lying to you here.

[edit: just adding that there is a way you could tell, of course: the elliptical motion of the unbalanced tire, as detailed previously. but certainly you cannot tell from the motion of the wheel alone. that's basic physics 101.]

I'm not disputing that the balls do move around a little in response to bumps on the road. I'm just disputing that they move MUCH, or that they all remain in motion relative to the inner tube's inner wall in any major way.

[SiliconDoc]

SiliconDoc, I'm not giving up on you yet, but your grasp of basic physics isn't what it should be, given your apparent authority on the subject.

In a MOVING tire on a bike, it is different. The tire comes from forward moving under the beads, and friction does it's work again, BUT, the beads at rest on the bottom are very quickly LIFTED upward by the forward travelling back inner lower wall of the tire. They are launched and lifted UPWARD much faster, and bounced and slung up inside the tire as they are forced to take on forward direction motion, a SECOND FACTOR.

This is the source of your misunderstanding, and is wholly incorrect. The two situations, as far as anything inside the tire is concerned, are absolutely equivalent. Put another way, the beads share the same inertial reference frame as the wheel. Put yet another way, if you were a tiny bead inside that tire, you COULD NOT TELL if you were traveling at a reasonably constant speed on a flat road, or spun up on a stand. The forces are absolutely equivalent in either case. Seriously. 100%. Not lying to you here.

I'm not disputing that the balls do move around a little in response to bumps on the road. I'm just disputing that they move MUCH, or that they all remain in motion relative to the inner tube's inner wall in any major way.

Well,you're 100% incorrect. You are ASSUMING, quite ignorantly, and illogically, I will add, that the tire is already travelling at some constant speed, much like the old Einstein inspired analogy, where one does not feel movement when one is travelling through space, for instance, at a constant rate of speed.
 The other fella already was confused by that simpleton approach.
This case however, is not a constant rate of travel or speed, and is IN FACT an acellerating movement from a dead stop, slowly up to rotational speed - in a second vector ----->, in the case of the on bike test scenario.

There is no way you know physics, at all. PERIOD.
1. I know you're wrong
2. There isn't a chance "I'll believe you", even if you smile nicely.
3. If I "agree" with "you wouldn't know if you were inside travelling at a constant rate of speed" - IT STILL DOESN"T MATTER, since that is NOT what we are talking about.

---

So work your brain up to the actual scenario we are discussing - the motorcycle moves from a dead stop up to tire rotational speed, the shop balancer does not. Furthermore, the motorcycle doesn't stay at a constant speed, nor is the tire EVER as stable as it is on a bolted to cement shop floor without a running motor and the road and wind ramming it, not to mention the COMPRESSION of the wheel and tire from the weight of the bike, causing and "out of round" condition, your "ellipse", which of course is not why you said ellipse, you assumed ellipse from a tire imbalance condition and the effects of centrifugal force on the heavier massed radial line point.
Gosh....
The movement is NOT an ellipse though, in actual fact, because you won't even include GRAVITY in your thought process concerning this matter, nor intertial forces as far as that goes. Heck you won't even consider the bike is travelling in another vectored direction that is not the same as the circular centrigufal force you you claim to have mastered concerning the beads, but didn't respond to the SIZE AND WEIGHT problem I pointed out that makes your statement peanuts, instead of ball bearings.

How are you going to get bead distribution when your motorcycle tire on the bike is "already travelling at a constant rate of speed" ? Huh , Einstien...

Then you claim they don't move much, the beads, but then that depends on rate of bike travel, the bump size & tire compression ( slinging the beads internally it happens so quickly at speed.)... then the LATERAL WOBBLE force which is plenty strong to have a movement effect as well, the texture of the beads, the weight, and the shape of them as well, not to mention the composition of the tire!  (soft or hard)
 
No, it doesn't matter what you assured me of- at all- you even had to put in "flat road" LOL

[bistromath]

yikes, man. don't get snarky or anything.

if you're talking about starting from a dead stop, then we're having a misunderstanding. in that case, of course the balls will move relative to the tire, as they have mass and therefore inertia.

but, after the bike reaches a constant (or reasonably constant) speed, they will stop moving due to friction and to the lack of any other force acting upon them other than centrifugal force and the "restoring" force of the elliptical travel of an unbalanced wheel on its shocks. (before you get even snarkier, yes, they will move back and forth a little given the tire contact patch and vibrations. but they won't continue to rotate inside the tire after the tire is up to speed.)

are we in agreement here?

[mlinder]

Right, but the time we spend getting up to a constant speed is negligible, and certainly not what makes the dyna beads 'work' (or not work, as the case may be).
You are implying that ther eis a constant rate of acceleration (or at least a constant rate of change of speed), the entire time the bike is in motion, which is patently false.

[bistromath]

mlinder i am in agreement with you on that one.

even if you consider the difference in initial distribution of the beads due to forward acceleration of the wheel, in the absence of a restoring force like I mentioned comes from the shocks' movement, the distribution of the beads within the inner tube would still end up relatively random, likely clumped, and very still indeed after friction quickly slows them down.

[mlinder]

(before you get even snarkier, yes, they will move back and forth a little given the tire contact patch and vibrations. but they won't continue to rotate inside the tire after the tire is up to speed.)

Sorry to butt in here, but are you saying the wont continue to rotate in relation to the tire, or in relation to the axis?

[bistromath]

to the tire, mlinder. after they achieve a semblance of balance, they won't move much inside the inner tube until you slow down and the centripetal force isn't sufficient to keep from falling due to gravity.

[mlinder]

to the tire, mlinder. after they achieve a semblance of balance, they won't move much inside the inner tube until you slow down and the centripetal force isn't sufficient to keep from falling due to gravity.

Right, ok.

Read my lame thing I wrote on page 3 or something of this thread:

....would have a dynamically changing imbalance that would be something like:

(rpm of tire)/(rpm of beads)
where (rpm of beads) is decided by (rpm of tire)*(frictional properties between inside of tire and beads(where a value of '1' would be complete friction, meaning the beads are stationary in relation to the tire, and all other values are fractions)) where (frictional properties between inside of tire and beads) is variable depending on centrifugal force caused by (rpm of tire).
Anyway, the dynamically changing imbalance here caused by the beads would then have another variable, the original imbalance of the tire to begin with, so the final would be (rpm of tire)/(rpm of beads)*(rpm of tire). The imbalances would occur that many times per unit of time (a minute, in this case) Tongue

But this points towards, I dunno, it not working.

[1974CB750rider]

I'd be willing to bet we could all chip in and buy Mlinder the beads,install kit and offer to pay the tire shop for the use of the eqipment for him and he still wouldn't do it. I've just gave up on this thread because no matter what anyone says Mlinder and MarkCB750 are always going to say they can't and don't work but neither of those guys will ever end up trying them. So I'll just ride my bike on the beads and be happy knowing I probably gained some extra tire life and one hell of a smoother ride & no ugly ass wheel weights and best of all that is one less thing I depend on the shop for now.

[SiliconDoc]

A heavier side of the rim and/or tire pulls with MOLECULAR FORCE the cohesive mass of the tire and the rim, whereas the beads do not have the molecular bonding pulling them in the direction of the heavier radial point(more so the rim, less the pliable tire in total mass movement), and therefore tend to "roll away" from the heavier spot ( in actuality they are not pulled toward it, nor pushed toward it by the stretchinging rim(less)or "bulging" in that spot tire(more) since they are not attached to the sidewall nor the rubber, nor the rim.

[Markcb750]

Wow...





Like wow.





Sorry mlinder did not mean to leave you out on this limb, and grouped with me.  


But I guess we are also grouped with the engineers at Honda who continue to use weights to balance the wheels on their production bikes.  Although they do use the stick on weights now.

[BVCB650]

Little lead is way cheaper than beads. They saved millions by using the lead.

[bistromath]

A heavier side of the rim and/or tire pulls with MOLECULAR FORCE the cohesive mass of the tire and the rim, whereas the beads do not have the molecular bonding pulling them in the direction of the heavier radial point(more so the rim, less the pliable tire in total mass movement), and therefore tend to "roll away" from the heavier spot ( in actuality they are not pulled toward it, nor pushed toward it by the stretchinging rim(less)or "bulging" in that spot tire(more) since they are not attached to the sidewall nor the rubber, nor the rim.

i'm just gonna have to leave you (and your earlier insults) to argue with yourself on this one.