Motor doping thread

Page 181 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

Alexandre B. said:
http://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2017/12/25/81198-alexandre-geniez-ca-va-peter-un-jour.html (fr)
Interesting comments by Geniez following the news of the oncoming investigation.

"To me, at first, it can only concern one team, one of the best in the world, its leader and probably other of its riders, but also the UCI and the British federation."

"They never miss their goals, they're always ahead of the competition in the big events and they win what they have programmed. It's like the British on the track, we often believe that there is something. I think that it will blow up some day, that we will learn things."

"Electric bikes have existed for a long time and maybe more than you think but it has concerned, in my opinion, only four or five riders. We know the names."
I've watched the UK sports media over the last week and to the best of my knowledge I have seen absolutely no coverage of Geniez's comments regarding motor usage by Froome and Sky.

Are journalist's scared to even broach this subject, even some of the better journalists have been very silent on the subject of motors in the peloton. I'd be a bit more confident that might change since the defeat of Cookson in the presidential election. A proper investigative journalist would have a field day with this topic whch will blow up at some stage in the near future.

Walsh is working closely (or at least was until fairly recently) with Froome and Sky, why does he not pose Geniez's claims to Sky to see what they have to say. Walsh has been with Sky for 4-5 years but how many actual interviews has he published with staff where he asked the hard questions that a credible journalist might. All we got was puff propaganda pieces to sell the illusion.

In trying to figure out why Geniez would have broken the Omerta about a topic completely off limits (far worse than pharmaceutical doping) to date, I think we can go back to this season's Vuelta when Sky reported Geniez and Denz for holding onto the AG2R team car resulting in their eviction from the race.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

ontheroad said:
Alexandre B. said:
http://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2017/12/25/81198-alexandre-geniez-ca-va-peter-un-jour.html (fr)
Interesting comments by Geniez following the news of the oncoming investigation.

"To me, at first, it can only concern one team, one of the best in the world, its leader and probably other of its riders, but also the UCI and the British federation."

"They never miss their goals, they're always ahead of the competition in the big events and they win what they have programmed. It's like the British on the track, we often believe that there is something. I think that it will blow up some day, that we will learn things."

"Electric bikes have existed for a long time and maybe more than you think but it has concerned, in my opinion, only four or five riders. We know the names."
I've watched the UK sports media over the last week and to the best of my knowledge I have seen absolutely no coverage of Geniez's comments regarding motor usage by Froome and Sky.

Are journalist's scared to even broach this subject, even some of the better journalists have been very silent on the subject of motors in the peloton. I'd be a bit more confident that might change since the defeat of Cookson in the presidential election. A proper investigative journalist would have a field day with this topic whch will blow up at some stage in the near future.

Walsh is working closely (or at least was until fairly recently) with Froome and Sky, why does he not pose Geniez's claims to Sky to see what they have to say. Walsh has been with Sky for 4-5 years but how many actual interviews has he published with staff where he asked the hard questions that a credible journalist might. All we got was puff propaganda pieces to sell the illusion.

In trying to figure out why Geniez would have broken the Omerta about a topic completely off limits (far worse than pharmaceutical doping) to date, I think we can go back to this season's Vuelta when Sky reported Geniez and Denz for holding onto the AG2R team car resulting in their eviction from the race.
It's a while now since I read Walsh's dire Inside Team Sky book but IIRC it opens with Walsh eulogising about how he was allowed acces to Sky's mechanics and soigneurs and how when he asked them if anything dodgy was going on they denied it in a way which he perceived to be entirely believable. There was even some crap about one of the Italian soigneurs having children as if parenthood and dishonesty are mutually exclusive concepts

Walsh then moved on to describe how ruthless Brailsfraud was in managing the mechanics and soigneurs with anyone stepping out of line in even small ways sacked with no second chances. But dear old Walshy doesn't make the connection (which jumped off the page at this cynic) between Brailsfraud's culture of fear management techniques and the mechanics and soigneurs spouting Stepford Wives platitudes :rolleyes:

A case study in how not to be an investigative journalist :lol:
 
Re: Re:

ontheroad said:
Alexandre B. said:
http://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2017/12/25/81198-alexandre-geniez-ca-va-peter-un-jour.html (fr)
Interesting comments by Geniez following the news of the oncoming investigation.

"To me, at first, it can only concern one team, one of the best in the world, its leader and probably other of its riders, but also the UCI and the British federation."

"They never miss their goals, they're always ahead of the competition in the big events and they win what they have programmed. It's like the British on the track, we often believe that there is something. I think that it will blow up some day, that we will learn things."

"Electric bikes have existed for a long time and maybe more than you think but it has concerned, in my opinion, only four or five riders. We know the names."
I've watched the UK sports media over the last week and to the best of my knowledge I have seen absolutely no coverage of Geniez's comments regarding motor usage by Froome and Sky.

Are journalist's scared to even broach this subject, even some of the better journalists have been very silent on the subject of motors in the peloton. I'd be a bit more confident that might change since the defeat of Cookson in the presidential election. A proper investigative journalist would have a field day with this topic whch will blow up at some stage in the near future.

Walsh is working closely (or at least was until fairly recently) with Froome and Sky, why does he not pose Geniez's claims to Sky to see what they have to say. Walsh has been with Sky for 4-5 years but how many actual interviews has he published with staff where he asked the hard questions that a credible journalist might. All we got was puff propaganda pieces to sell the illusion.

In trying to figure out why Geniez would have broken the Omerta about a topic completely off limits (far worse than pharmaceutical doping) to date, I think we can go back to this season's Vuelta when Sky reported Geniez and Denz for holding onto the AG2R team car resulting in their eviction from the race.


Good link, i hadn't thought of this but seems obvious now you say it.

Does raise the question though; is someone with a vendetta, a score to settle, more or less credible?
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
ontheroad said:
Alexandre B. said:
http://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2017/12/25/81198-alexandre-geniez-ca-va-peter-un-jour.html (fr)
Interesting comments by Geniez following the news of the oncoming investigation.

"To me, at first, it can only concern one team, one of the best in the world, its leader and probably other of its riders, but also the UCI and the British federation."

"They never miss their goals, they're always ahead of the competition in the big events and they win what they have programmed. It's like the British on the track, we often believe that there is something. I think that it will blow up some day, that we will learn things."

"Electric bikes have existed for a long time and maybe more than you think but it has concerned, in my opinion, only four or five riders. We know the names."
I've watched the UK sports media over the last week and to the best of my knowledge I have seen absolutely no coverage of Geniez's comments regarding motor usage by Froome and Sky.

Are journalist's scared to even broach this subject, even some of the better journalists have been very silent on the subject of motors in the peloton. I'd be a bit more confident that might change since the defeat of Cookson in the presidential election. A proper investigative journalist would have a field day with this topic whch will blow up at some stage in the near future.

Walsh is working closely (or at least was until fairly recently) with Froome and Sky, why does he not pose Geniez's claims to Sky to see what they have to say. Walsh has been with Sky for 4-5 years but how many actual interviews has he published with staff where he asked the hard questions that a credible journalist might. All we got was puff propaganda pieces to sell the illusion.

In trying to figure out why Geniez would have broken the Omerta about a topic completely off limits (far worse than pharmaceutical doping) to date, I think we can go back to this season's Vuelta when Sky reported Geniez and Denz for holding onto the AG2R team car resulting in their eviction from the race.
It's a while now since I read Walsh's dire Inside Team Sky book but IIRC it opens with Walsh eulogising about how he was allowed acces to Sky's mechanics and soigneurs and how when he asked them if anything dodgy was going on they denied it in a way which he perceived to be entirely believable. There was even some crap about one of the Italian soigneurs having children as if parenthood and dishonesty are mutually exclusive concepts

Walsh then moved on to describe how ruthless Brailsfraud was in managing the mechanics and soigneurs with anyone stepping out of line in even small ways sacked with no second chances. But dear old Walshy doesn't make the connection (which jumped off the page at this cynic) between Brailsfraud's culture of fear management techniques and the mechanics and soigneurs spouting Stepford Wives platitudes :rolleyes:

A case study in how not to be an investigative journalist :lol:
Why has he not arranged to interview Gary Blem for instance and published the full transcript? There is a skill in asking questions which might not amount to much at the time but if the correct questions are asked in the correct manner, it can be useful to have them on record. Witness Dan Martin's none too convincing response to the motor question in a recent Kimmage interview where he neatly deflected his answer onto one about moto pacing. It's not incriminating in itself but is revealing at the same time.

It's only years later that the full picture becomes more transparent, Walsh has done absolutely zippo in terms of investigative journalism. Got a book deal, a few free junkets and got to hung out with his mates. As a journalist, pathetic however.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
ontheroad said:
Alexandre B. said:
http://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2017/12/25/81198-alexandre-geniez-ca-va-peter-un-jour.html (fr)
Interesting comments by Geniez following the news of the oncoming investigation.

"To me, at first, it can only concern one team, one of the best in the world, its leader and probably other of its riders, but also the UCI and the British federation."

"They never miss their goals, they're always ahead of the competition in the big events and they win what they have programmed. It's like the British on the track, we often believe that there is something. I think that it will blow up some day, that we will learn things."

"Electric bikes have existed for a long time and maybe more than you think but it has concerned, in my opinion, only four or five riders. We know the names."
I've watched the UK sports media over the last week and to the best of my knowledge I have seen absolutely no coverage of Geniez's comments regarding motor usage by Froome and Sky.

Are journalist's scared to even broach this subject, even some of the better journalists have been very silent on the subject of motors in the peloton. I'd be a bit more confident that might change since the defeat of Cookson in the presidential election. A proper investigative journalist would have a field day with this topic whch will blow up at some stage in the near future.

Walsh is working closely (or at least was until fairly recently) with Froome and Sky, why does he not pose Geniez's claims to Sky to see what they have to say. Walsh has been with Sky for 4-5 years but how many actual interviews has he published with staff where he asked the hard questions that a credible journalist might. All we got was puff propaganda pieces to sell the illusion.

In trying to figure out why Geniez would have broken the Omerta about a topic completely off limits (far worse than pharmaceutical doping) to date, I think we can go back to this season's Vuelta when Sky reported Geniez and Denz for holding onto the AG2R team car resulting in their eviction from the race.


Good link, i hadn't thought of this but seems obvious now you say it.

Does raise the question though; is someone with a vendetta, a score to settle, more or less credible?
The question I always ask is why would he make this up, he has far more to lose than he has to gain from his career. The motive for him making the statement could well be the fact that Sky outed him and his team mate during the Vuelta, however whilst there is no hard evidence, it is certainly very believable to me. If it is not well then let them comment on his claims to refute the allegations. They have yet to make a comment on them to date afaik.
 
Re: Re:

ontheroad said:
brownbobby said:
ontheroad said:
Alexandre B. said:
http://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2017/12/25/81198-alexandre-geniez-ca-va-peter-un-jour.html (fr)
Interesting comments by Geniez following the news of the oncoming investigation.

"To me, at first, it can only concern one team, one of the best in the world, its leader and probably other of its riders, but also the UCI and the British federation."

"They never miss their goals, they're always ahead of the competition in the big events and they win what they have programmed. It's like the British on the track, we often believe that there is something. I think that it will blow up some day, that we will learn things."

"Electric bikes have existed for a long time and maybe more than you think but it has concerned, in my opinion, only four or five riders. We know the names."
I've watched the UK sports media over the last week and to the best of my knowledge I have seen absolutely no coverage of Geniez's comments regarding motor usage by Froome and Sky.

Are journalist's scared to even broach this subject, even some of the better journalists have been very silent on the subject of motors in the peloton. I'd be a bit more confident that might change since the defeat of Cookson in the presidential election. A proper investigative journalist would have a field day with this topic whch will blow up at some stage in the near future.

Walsh is working closely (or at least was until fairly recently) with Froome and Sky, why does he not pose Geniez's claims to Sky to see what they have to say. Walsh has been with Sky for 4-5 years but how many actual interviews has he published with staff where he asked the hard questions that a credible journalist might. All we got was puff propaganda pieces to sell the illusion.

In trying to figure out why Geniez would have broken the Omerta about a topic completely off limits (far worse than pharmaceutical doping) to date, I think we can go back to this season's Vuelta when Sky reported Geniez and Denz for holding onto the AG2R team car resulting in their eviction from the race.


Good link, i hadn't thought of this but seems obvious now you say it.

Does raise the question though; is someone with a vendetta, a score to settle, more or less credible?
The question I always ask is why would he make this up, he has far more to lose than he has to gain from his career. The motive for him making the statement could well be the fact that Sky outed him and his team mate during the Vuelta, however whilst there is no hard evidence, it is certainly very believable to me. If it is not well then let them comment on his claims to refute the allegations. They have yet to make a comment on them to date afaik.

In any event, this is some real omerta-breaking spitting in the soup.
 
Re: Re:

MarkvW said:
ontheroad said:
brownbobby said:
ontheroad said:
Alexandre B. said:
http://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2017/12/25/81198-alexandre-geniez-ca-va-peter-un-jour.html (fr)
Interesting comments by Geniez following the news of the oncoming investigation.

"To me, at first, it can only concern one team, one of the best in the world, its leader and probably other of its riders, but also the UCI and the British federation."

"They never miss their goals, they're always ahead of the competition in the big events and they win what they have programmed. It's like the British on the track, we often believe that there is something. I think that it will blow up some day, that we will learn things."

"Electric bikes have existed for a long time and maybe more than you think but it has concerned, in my opinion, only four or five riders. We know the names."
I've watched the UK sports media over the last week and to the best of my knowledge I have seen absolutely no coverage of Geniez's comments regarding motor usage by Froome and Sky.

Are journalist's scared to even broach this subject, even some of the better journalists have been very silent on the subject of motors in the peloton. I'd be a bit more confident that might change since the defeat of Cookson in the presidential election. A proper investigative journalist would have a field day with this topic whch will blow up at some stage in the near future.

Walsh is working closely (or at least was until fairly recently) with Froome and Sky, why does he not pose Geniez's claims to Sky to see what they have to say. Walsh has been with Sky for 4-5 years but how many actual interviews has he published with staff where he asked the hard questions that a credible journalist might. All we got was puff propaganda pieces to sell the illusion.

In trying to figure out why Geniez would have broken the Omerta about a topic completely off limits (far worse than pharmaceutical doping) to date, I think we can go back to this season's Vuelta when Sky reported Geniez and Denz for holding onto the AG2R team car resulting in their eviction from the race.


Good link, i hadn't thought of this but seems obvious now you say it.

Does raise the question though; is someone with a vendetta, a score to settle, more or less credible?
The question I always ask is why would he make this up, he has far more to lose than he has to gain from his career. The motive for him making the statement could well be the fact that Sky outed him and his team mate during the Vuelta, however whilst there is no hard evidence, it is certainly very believable to me. If it is not well then let them comment on his claims to refute the allegations. They have yet to make a comment on them to date afaik.

In any event, this is some real omerta-breaking spitting in the soup.
It's the concept of omerta applied to this topic, and Geniez statement in particular that raises more questions than answers for me.

Now Omerta applied to old school doping makes sense. Anyone is free to dope, if you choose not to it's your choice, but the opportunity is there for anyone to dope or become a better doper to keep the playing field level.

But if we indulge what Geniez is saying, it's Sky, and only Sky who are using motors. I don't buy this. I think Omerta only applies if the practice is rife through the peloton.

Let's look at the cases of Porte and Landa. Both riders who I think it's safe to assume would have been one of the chosen 4 or 5 riding motorbikes.

Yet they've both moved on from Sky supposedly due to ambitions to win their own GT's. This doesn't make sense. If they know that Sky, and only Sky have motorbikes, they surely know their chances of winning a GT are extremely low. And in Porte' s case in 2014, surely he'd have been given Froomes top of the range motorbike to easily cruise to a TDF victory following Froomes early bath.

So I struggle to believe that we have riders knowingly training their asses off all year then lining up against people on motorbikes and keeping schtum due to the old Omerta.

Maybe Sky just have better motors at the minute, but IF I were to accept that motors are in use, then the only way it makes sense to me is if most of the top teams were involved in the technological arms race, with riders like Porte and Landa heading for new teams hoping that their motors will be as good as the ones they leave behind.

That's why the whole motors thing at the top level remains a big IF for me.
 
He's not saying it's only Sky, he's simply addressing it first. I think one could infer that he thinks their use is the most obvious, egregious, consistent or the most widespread, but not sure you could even draw that conclusion.

As such I don't think the discussion of omerta above has much relevance.
 
Re:

red_flanders said:
He's not saying it's only Sky, he's simply addressing it first. I think one could infer that he thinks their use is the most obvious, egregious, consistent or the most widespread, but not sure you could even draw that conclusion.

As such I don't think the discussion of omerta above has much relevance.
But in the quote above he specifically says "it can only concern one team

He also talks about motors being used for many years but only by 4 or 5 riders. Again I read between the lines here an inference that the use is very isolated to a specific team.

I haven't read the full article so maybe I'm missing some context, if so I'm happy to be corrected...
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
red_flanders said:
He's not saying it's only Sky, he's simply addressing it first. I think one could infer that he thinks their use is the most obvious, egregious, consistent or the most widespread, but not sure you could even draw that conclusion.

As such I don't think the discussion of omerta above has much relevance.
But in the quote above he specifically says "it can only concern one team

He also talks about motors being used for many years but only by 4 or 5 riders. Again I read between the lines here an inference that the use is very isolated to a specific team.

I haven't read the full article so maybe I'm missing some context, if so I'm happy to be corrected...
He says, "To me, at first, it can only concern one team..."

There is some translation there as well, when he says "it can only concern" what I read that as is "the primary concern is of course with..."
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
red_flanders said:
He's not saying it's only Sky, he's simply addressing it first. I think one could infer that he thinks their use is the most obvious, egregious, consistent or the most widespread, but not sure you could even draw that conclusion.

As such I don't think the discussion of omerta above has much relevance.
But in the quote above he specifically says "it can only concern one team

He also talks about motors being used for many years but only by 4 or 5 riders. Again I read between the lines here an inference that the use is very isolated to a specific team.

I haven't read the full article so maybe I'm missing some context, if so I'm happy to be corrected...
Actually he is reacting to the news in Le Canard enchainé that french judges are investigating about motors. It's said he knew nothing about it before the media contacted him, and that he was surprised by the words "escroquerie" and "corruption"
The expression «Pour moi, comme ça, au premier abord, ça ne peut concerner qu'une équipe, une des meilleures du monde" can be translate by
"IMO, without having thought much about it/if I had to guess, it must be about a team, one of the best of the world"

The translation of the quote makes for spectacular headline, but in reality if you read it in french and in totality, he is indeed making it clear that he thinks about Team Sky, but he also makes it very clear he is only guessing in reaction to the information brought to him seconds ago.
The words used by canard enchainé indeed lead to believe the jugdes are investigating a sofisticated scheme, not just some guys doing things on the side (à la Femke) : so we're are thinking about a team - and obviously the most powerfull one.

It's not such a big omerta breaking. There is so few riders talking about motors that it's still big what he said. But he is not really saying anything new here. Just mostly reacting to what's already public and giving his opinion (used only by 4 or 5 riders in total in his opinion)
 
Re: Re:

absolutely_not said:
brownbobby said:
red_flanders said:
He's not saying it's only Sky, he's simply addressing it first. I think one could infer that he thinks their use is the most obvious, egregious, consistent or the most widespread, but not sure you could even draw that conclusion.

As such I don't think the discussion of omerta above has much relevance.
But in the quote above he specifically says "it can only concern one team

He also talks about motors being used for many years but only by 4 or 5 riders. Again I read between the lines here an inference that the use is very isolated to a specific team.

I haven't read the full article so maybe I'm missing some context, if so I'm happy to be corrected...
Actually he is reacting to the news in Le Canard enchainé that french judges are investigating about motors. It's said he knew nothing about it before the media contacted him, and that he was surprised by the words "escroquerie" and "corruption"
The expression «Pour moi, comme ça, au premier abord, ça ne peut concerner qu'une équipe, une des meilleures du monde" can be translate by
"IMO, without having thought much about it/if I had to guess, it must be about a team, one of the best of the world"

The translation of the quote makes for spectacular headline, but in reality if you read it in french and in totality, he is indeed making it clear that he thinks about Team Sky, but he also makes it very clear he is only guessing in reaction to the information brought to him seconds ago.
The words used by canard enchainé indeed lead to believe the jugdes are investigating a sofisticated scheme, not just some guys doing things on the side (à la Femke) : so we're are thinking about a team - and obviously the most powerfull one.

It's not such a big omerta breaking. There is so few riders talking about motors that it's still big what he said. But he is not really saying anything new here. Just mostly reacting to what's already public and giving his opinion (used only by 4 or 5 riders in total in his opinion)
Ahh ok, thanks for clarifying. As always, full context shines a different light...
 
http://www.grasset.fr/rouler-plus-vite-que-la-mort-9782246812647
Google translate
One morning in winter 2012, Philippe Brunel is woken up by the phone. A mysterious correspondent said to have "information to sell him". The man is a friend of Istvan Varjas, a Hungarian physicist, designer of motorcycles that the narrator had gone to interview at Basel airport, a year earlier. What was he running away from? Why did he leave Switzerland for Cameroon? Should he believe it when he claimed to have sold his first prototype two million dollars?
From Paris to Budapest, from Bruges to the distant corners of Tuscany, the author is drawn into a history of draws against the backdrop of technological cheating and opaque financial issues. This book shadows the shadows of an impenetrable back-world, where characters are a little shady, intermediaries safe from banking secrecy, icons of cycling obsessed with money and success - a haunted back-world by the specter of Lance Armstrong. In counterpoint, this question: in his hegemonic designs, did the former Texan champion, too, cross the road of Istvan Varjas?
An unusual investigation into the traces of the invisible engine and its designer, Istvan Varjas, who once told Philippe Brunel: "I just wanted to tell you ... If tomorrow you learn that I had an accident or that I I'm suicide, do not believe it. "
 
Re: Re:

I can definitely believe that there is this weird demimonde of grifters, organized crime, and hangers-on surrounding European pro cycling. But did Lance "cross paths" with Varjas, well, he claims that he never met Varjas - and if it could be proved, it would probably have been known already.



Apparently, this book has basically said Wonderboy knew and engaged in using a motor in his bike, the book all but outs him on it. It certainly wouldn't surprise me to find out he did, because as we all know, he's a sociopathic, narcissistic, pathetic, grandstanding, unreliable, pathological LIAR! It's hard to believe anything that comes out of his maw at this point.

Still think he's the GOAT, some of you?
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

86TDFWinner said:
I can definitely believe that there is this weird demimonde of grifters, organized crime, and hangers-on surrounding European pro cycling. But did Lance "cross paths" with Varjas, well, he claims that he never met Varjas - and if it could be proved, it would probably have been known already.



Apparently, this book has basically said Wonderboy knew and engaged in using a motor in his bike, the book all but outs him on it. It certainly wouldn't surprise me to find out he did, because as we all know, he's a sociopathic, narcissistic, pathetic, grandstanding, unreliable, pathological LIAR! It's hard to believe anything that comes out of his maw at this point.

Still think he's the GOAT, some of you?


I could see him buying the rights from Varjas for $2 million even if he never used it. Just to keep it away from his competitors. It just makes sense. If Varjas started shopping it around, an actually bright engineer would learn of the idea and run with it.

John Swanson
 
I don't know how much respect the Inner Ring blog gets in these parts but here is what he has tweeted:

...read Brunel's book over lunch, no revelations. Nice prose as the author tries to find a connection between Hungarian engineer Varjas and Armstrong but in his own words:

"la pluie, grosse, hivernale, recouvrait la campagne d’un voile brumeux. Et j’éprouvais un sentiment de vide. Plus j’avançais dans cette histoire, plus j’avais l’impression de désapprendre, de rester au seuil des choses.Je ne disposais que de preuves indirectes, rien de tangible"

Bing translated:
"the rain, big, winter, covered the campaign of a misty veil. And I felt a sense of emptiness. More I walked in this story, more I felt to unlearn, to stay at the threshold of the things. "I only had circumstantial evidence, nothing tangible"

It seems he tried to make a story and failed. Perhaps the real story is the unimaginable one - that Varjas is a fraud.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
I could see him buying the rights from Varjas for $2 million even if he never used it. Just to keep it away from his competitors. It just makes sense. If Varjas started shopping it around, an actually bright engineer would learn of the idea and run with it.
John Swanson
If a USB flash drive has a volume about 5 cubic centimeters, and the USB-sized Varjas device can generate 140 watts for 5 minutes, that's a power density of 28 W/cm3, and energy density of 2.33 Wh/cm3

What type of device might that be, within those constraints of volume and energy?
A bomb...

The best Li Ion cells are capable of 0.6 Wh/ml.

Unless of course you're talking about a motor which consumes that much energy. Which is entirely reasonable, though it would probably be a super high rpm brushless motor. The best way to go would be a many multi-pole DC motor to get high torque at low rpm. A friend corrected me that a stepper would not be necessary for that.

Anyways, I super doubt you could get 140 Watts output from that small of a motor unless it was stupid high rpm and that didn't include the casing. Even then, cooling would be a problem

John Swanson
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re:

poupou said:
II read it as ""to provide 140 mechanical watts ", so he is speaking of the motor.
Which is easy to do in a small package, as long as you don't mind rotor speeds >10,000 rpm. Small, powerful brushless motors are used extensively in quadcopters and such. Cheap too! http://www.headsuphobby.com/25--300-Watt-Brushless-Motors_c_172.html

But that's definitely not what you'd want because you'd have to do some nasty amounts of gear reduction to get any usable torque out of it.

John Swanson
 
So if I'm understanding this, we have a book which even by the authors own admission is centred around pure speculation and weak suggestive links and coincidence.

Sounds great, will i find it in the fiction or science fiction section of the library?
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re:

brownbobby said:
So if I'm understanding this, we have a book which even by the authors own admission is centred around pure speculation and weak suggestive links and coincidence.

Sounds great, will i find it in the fiction or science fiction section of the library?
It is possible to have a collection of facts, but still not be able to come to a conclusion. The facts are still interesting and put some hard boundaries on what is possible and/or plausible. Ex: dark matter

John Swanson
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
brownbobby said:
So if I'm understanding this, we have a book which even by the authors own admission is centred around pure speculation and weak suggestive links and coincidence.

Sounds great, will i find it in the fiction or science fiction section of the library?
It is possible to have a collection of facts, but still not be able to come to a conclusion. The facts are still interesting and put some hard boundaries on what is possible and/or plausible. Ex: dark matter

John Swanson
Indeed it is, it's also possible to come to a dead end with a piece of investigative journalism but still try and make a few quid by publishing something regardless.

To be fair, it does appear that he is at least being open about this from the outset.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
danielovichdk2 The Clinic 3

ASK THE COMMUNITY