Crowd Funding For Crank Physics 379
Posted
by
timothy
from the hi-fi-jumprope dept.
from the hi-fi-jumprope dept.
BuzzSkyline writes "A new design for bicycle cranks violates basic principles of physics, but that's not stopping the inventor of Z-Torque cranks from trying to raise thousands in start-up capital through crowd funding." The picture looks intriguing for a fleeting moment before it looks silly. Covered in similar style at a site I'm glad to discover exists, the Bicycle Museum of Bad Ideas.
This got a patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This got a patent (Score:5, Insightful)
What are examiners for again ? Spelling mistakes ?
Simplistically... One can patent stupid and/or inefficient things and bad designs - as long as they're new and unique.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong, presuming we're talking about utility patents. They also have to be useful. Something which is fundamentally incapable of achieving the specified effect is categorically not useful in the context of the claimed invention. That's why perpetual motion machines cannot be patented.
The guy may have a design patent, instead. A design patent is more akin to copyright or trademark than to utility patents.
Re:This got a patent (Score:5, Informative)
I see a way that could make the crank behave differently compared to the classic crank: if the metal has a bit of elasticity, thanks to the z shape some force could be stored within the "spring" (crank angle) during the top-bottom push move and released at the bottom just before the other foot takes over the push.
You would think, but read this about the Interdrive crank [pardo.net] that uses actual springs to see an explanation of why this logic doesn't work: "for energy stored in the springs, you wind up doing the work twice: once to compress the spring, then again later while you fight against the spring as it expands." I imagine material compression would similar issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This got a patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Well hey,
1) The patent is novel. I mean, who the fuck would've thought of this before?
2) It's not obvious to one skilled in the arts. After all, it doesn't even work.
3) It protects everyone from others attempting to use the same "concept" to shaft people without a clue.
Overall, I'd say the patent examiners did their job just fine. A patent isn't guaranteed to work.
Lack of utility (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lack of utility (Score:5, Insightful)
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure; 706.03(a) Rejections under 35 USC 101 III A rejection on the ground of lack of utility is appropriate when ... (2) an assertion of specific and substantive utility for the invention is not credible. Such a rejection can include the more specific grounds of inoperativeness! Such as inventions involving perpetual motion.
But, also in the MPEP, examination focuses on the claims and the specific elements listed in said claims, not on what some Slashdot summary describes the patent as, or even an allegation of awesome results in the patent abstract or summary. And if you read the claims, they're for a specific design of bike pedal, but don't claim anything about increased efficiency or spectacular results: they simply claim this odd design for a pedal.
So, under a 35 USC 101 analysis, is it a machine? Yes. Does it have a use in pedaling a bike? Yes. The end.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This got a patent (Score:4, Insightful)
The crank works, and it doesn't violate any basic rules of physics.
What doesn't work, and what does violate the rules of physics, are some of the the claims made for the crank.
Look, people, its just a SHORTER CRANK arm. Its a gimmick, and you can't say anything about its main claims
unless you look at the number of teeth on the chain ring.
The claims made are:
Smoother pedaling
More power to climb hills
Less perceived effort to pedal
Faster acceleration
Less affected by headwinds
Ability to turn higher gearing
None of these pertain to the crank arms, but all could be true if the gear ratios are selected to accomplish this
(smaller chain ring). Bike cranks are typically sold with the spider and chain rings. So the manufacturer
markets a gimmick crank arm with modifications to the chain ring tooth count to mask his deception.
The bent cranks do nothing that a shorter crank wouldn't do, because that is all they are, a shorter crank.
Re:This got a patent (Score:4, Informative)
That all happens if you have a longer crank arm. But a longer crank arm means further from the center of the crank, not as in more metal that twists around
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
All cranks bend. Ride enough and you can see and feel it on a cheap bike.
Re:This got a patent (Score:5, Insightful)
The material is not perfectly rigid, so the shape affects its deformation under load.
Which means the cyclist will be wasting energy deforming the metal of the crank, which will just be dissipated as heat.
Until the metal fails, of course, and the broken crank cuts their leg open.
Re: (Score:2)
1) The patent is novel. I mean, who the fuck would've thought of this before?
I'm not sure [pardo.net]
Re: (Score:3)
I keep telling people that a patent isn't a measure of the quality of the idea, and certainly doesn't mean anything about the marketing claims. Indeed it is much easier to patent a stupid idea: not only is it likely that nobody has published the idea before (no anticipatory prior art), but there will be no end of people saying you should never do anything remotely like the idea because it is stupid (the mass of the prior art teaching away from the idea is a very strong defense against the examiner saying t
Re: (Score:2)
But to be patentable, wouldn't the crank have to introduce some novel mechanism for achieving the functionality? Isn't the only thing possibly novel here just the non-mechanically different shape? That silly shape is purely ornamental, so isn't the most it deserves a design patent?
Re: (Score:2)
A bunch of people [pardo.net]. So, not so novel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can patent everything. You dont have to prove it works. Which is all right with me.
It wont work, so the chance they actually protect something by a patent which does not work is verly low. They just wasted their money.
Stupid prior art invalidates stupid patents (Score:2)
New bad ideas can be patented. It isn't supposed to be possible to patent old bad ideas. The problem, is that old bad ideas are often badly documented, because they are bad ideas. If the patent examiner doesn't find the prior art in the limited time available, then the examiner is likely to grant the patent.
Re: (Score:3)
You can patent everything. You dont have to prove it works.
This is true - I once applied for two patents a year and a half before I managed to fabricate a working prototype.
I had run simulations that sort of showed the physics worked, so I wasn't taking too much of a risk, and I had an idea of how I was going to build it, but patent examiners don't actually care about any of that.
Additionally, when doing patent searches, I've also seen examples of patents for micro- and nano-technology which I'm damn sure no one can build with current technology, or even futu
Re: (Score:3)
It wont work, so the chance they actually protect something by a patent which does not work is verly low. They just wasted their money.
That depends on what you mean by "work".
If we define work as "gives the rider more leverage per leg-stroke", then it's true, it won't work.
If, OTOH, we think about this the American way and define work as "provides us with additional income from people who don't understand basic physics", then it may work quite well. Never underestimate the power of marketing combined with ignorance :^)
Re: (Score:2)
The patent system doesn't limit what can be patented - after all, who knows what new technology could make the seemingly impossible, possible. Especially if it relates to cutting edge scientific research.
The only exception is perpetual motion machines, which I think in the early 20th century the patent office added a requirement for a working model to be demonstrated because they were getting way too many patents for it.
But there are plenty of oddball patent
nothing is such a wacky idea (Score:5, Informative)
-I'm just sayin'
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good idea... I'll patent the N crank.
One's perception of reality... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense... if you're outside of reality, then reality is what's wrong!
I, for one, plan to buy one of these and write them a happy letter! (of course, I am not looking to improve the mechanics of my bike riding, only how stupid I look doing it)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes a known problem worse (Score:3, Interesting)
One problem with long cranks and a low bottom bracket is the possibility of hitting your pedals on the ground during a turn.
This makes is worse by making it even more likely to hit the crank arm on the ground.
Salesman Inventors and Snowed Investors (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen this before a dozen times or more as an engineering consultant. Some crackpot inventor comes in for a consultation with an engineering idea that "will save the world"*, and they say it works great with the soda-bottle-and-silly-straw model they built of the idea in their bathtub. They have $4 million in investment lined up, and they ask me to work up the numbers to show the feasibility of the idea.
2 minutes later, after trying to explain to them the 0th/1st/2nd Laws of Thermodynamics and how their device can't work because it violates all of them, it degenerates into a shouting match where the inventor (with an on-line PhD in cosmetology or similar) now is trying to tell me how the 0th/1st/2nd Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply to their device. I wish them luck and then send them to the door.
I don't envy them, because their options are 1) somehow continue to snow the investors until they make a major ass out of themselves when demonstration day inevitably comes and/or 2) slowly come to the realization that the 0th/1st/2nd Laws of Thermodynamics DO apply to their invention and that they somehow need to backpedal (pun!) out of the situation.
I'm not against garage inventors, but I wish them the humility to take 30 minutes to get their ideas vetted by a professional in the field before they make asses out of themselves and many others. There are many areas in engineering where the legitimate ideas are getting drowned out by the noise made by the uneducated hucksters.
*actual phrase used.
Re:Salesman Inventors and Snowed Investors (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> I guess either he's completely deluded
Spot on, end of story.
My W-Torque crank is twice as good (Score:2, Funny)
Can I get twice the funding?
Easy enough to test first hand (Score:2, Funny)
It's called a 3d printer with PLA, and a technique called casting. Heck since one sode of this will be flat (ok, two sides,) you could probably do this with ABS plastic. Sure you need a software model, but you cnd probably frough one up fast enough in SketchUp, Blender, or even Corel Draw, simply knowing the requirements for mounting to the shaft and mounting pedals to it. And you'llprobalby have to tap the holes for securing each, but so long as your 3d Printer can handle the dimensions of a crank arm, you
Re: (Score:2)
But why would anyone go to such lengths to "test" this when it's already perfectly-well proven that it's bull?
Re: (Score:2)
A thought experiment is much cheaper. Take that Z-thing and imagine welding an infinitely rigid bar between the hub and the pedal. All other pieces are also infinitely rigid. It becomes a triangle. Nothing changes, right? OK.
Now make a thin cut through the Z portion. Since the new welded part is also infinitely rigid, there is no difference in how the crank performs (otherwise you'd have to explain why the cut in the Z thing would contract and expand) - and you have the classical crank now. Take the cut
First problem: Crank's length (Score:2, Insightful)
The length of one of the elements is innecesarily longer than the final crack length. I bet it's a nighmare to pedal thru irregular terrain, collisioning with the ground every second.
Dumbass or fraud? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't he be both?
Losing any faith in Slashdot (Score:2)
Really? Slashdot can't even understand something that would be taught in week one or two of high school physics? Doesn't anyone remember the calculations for torque and how when "johnny" ties a rope to the end of the wrench and pulls on that for "torque", it doesn't actually change anything?
Also, this has been all over the internet quite literally for months. Slashdot is getting this story after it is how many months old?
At least its poetic.... (Score:2)
How often do you get to discuss a crank with a crank... too bad its not April, I'd have gone with the prank crank thanks.
Grammar Nazi (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on. I'm not giving my money to anyone who can't write a sentence.
" gives peddlers more leverage" (Score:2)
I couldn't stop laughing (Score:2)
Minor second order effect? (Score:2)
If you read one of the papers, from Florida Atlantic University, referenced on the site, the author claims that the advantage comes from an 'intrinsic favorable flexure mode." Basically, he is saying that the flex at the joint of the Z shape creates a smoother ride and higher torque at specific angles (not peak torque however).
While I find it unlikely that the effect is as positive as stated in the article, it is plausible that there is a small second-order effect due to non-rigid behavior of the crank. It
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, flexibility, moment of inertia etc. differences might make bicycling more efficient, but that is not how the device is claimed to work, and any improvement it provides would be accidental. It would be fairly straightforward to design a crank with an adjustable moment of inertia and spring constant, so the fact that they aren't used suggests that any gains are very small.
Trust me, cyclists know all about crank flex. (Score:3)
And they go to extreme efforts to reduce it. Muscle strength spent flexing the crank is wasted.
Same thing for crank weight. They go to extreme lengths to shave grams off their bikes, and even more to reduce weights of moving parts.
The idea that this is a great, new, magic crank because it's flexible and heavy is ridiculous!
Re: (Score:2)
Moment of Inertia (Score:2)
Judging by the photos, it appears that the Crank with Z-pedals has a larger Moment of Inertia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia [wikipedia.org]) than the Crank without Z-pedals.
Perhaps that increased moment of inertia has a flywheel effect that helps ease the pedaling? I wouldn't expect it to make a difference, but then again bicycle racing is so incredibly optimized -- just look at those stupid looking helmets bicycle racers wear to improve their aerodynamics -- so perhaps the riders can tell the differenc
Taller riders ... (Score:2)
needs more zags (Score:5, Funny)
Throw in enough, and the bike will basically pedal itself. All I need to figure out now is how to perfect my shake weight handlebars. Still having problems with the braking on those things.
Disappointed.... (Score:2)
> A new design for bicycle cranks violates basic principles of physics
At first I was prepared for a crank out of MC Escher, that couldn't exist in the real world. But it's just snake oil. Sigh. In a Kevin Kline voice; DisaPOINTed.
Happens in IT all the time (Score:2)
How is this different from alleged gurus claiming that foo-oriented programming is a silver bullet and selling books, seminars, special languages, methodology consultants, and so forth without first having objective evidence?
It's not just bicycles.
Re: (Score:2)
Because this is physically impossible, whereas a new programming paradigm that provides across-the-board improvements in productivity is possible, even if most things for which that claim is made are, at best, greatly oversold.
The Philosopher's Stone (Score:3)
This inventor has apparently managed to duplicate the invention of medieval alchemists: Transmuting gullibility into gold.
Re:Biomechanics (Score:5, Insightful)
It's possible that by moving the pedal so the cyclist's legs are in a different position during the pedal cycle, it's possible that his muscles could more effectively power the pedals.
Except no change has been made to the pedal cycle...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes ... except the spring constant of the crank has been changed. What I can't figure out by inspection of the photographs alone is if the change would be sufficent to explain the perceived differences. As you pedal around that nice, big L shape is going to distort slightly, even though it appears to be designed not to, storing some energy by folding up a wee bit during some parts of the cycle, and releasing it by unfolding during others (or vice versa). Or heck, maybe it opens up, rather than folds in.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that by moving the pedal so the cyclist's legs are in a different position during the pedal cycle, it's possible that his muscles could more effectively power the pedals.
Except no change has been made to the pedal cycle...
Exactly. The easy way to think of this is this way:
Weld a piece of straight metal onto this thing from the pedal to the center of rotation (just like a normal straight crank) so you have a "triangle like" assembly. Now pedal. See! Mechanically, it's the same thing. (Except a little heavier and a lot stronger.)
Now, saw away the Z-Torque crank. See. Same thing again.
This assumes the Z-Torque crank is inflexible. If the Z-Torque is flexing, then it is absorbing some of the the rider's energy and turning it int
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But the whole point is that as long as the crank is solid, its shape has no influence whatsoever on the transmission of force from the pedals to the gears. If the transmission of force between gears and pedals is identical, in turn, there is no possibility whatsoever of the layout having a physical (read: not "I have these magical cranks so I must pedal differently!") influence on the driver's posture.
Given this comment was made at all and subsequently upvoted, I suppose it's fair to say that even Slashdot
Re:Biomechanics (Score:5, Informative)
It's possible that by moving the pedal so the cyclist's legs are in a different position during the pedal cycle
Doesn't work like that. Draw a crank like this on a piece of paper, jab a pen through the point where the crank would connect to the gear and rotate the paper: you'll quickly notice that the thing still follows the exact same circular motion as any old, regular crank does, and therefore the legs don't actually assume any different a position during cycling. If the crank was displaced from the center then there would be a difference as it would no longer follow the same path as a regular crank, but alas, that's not the case here.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that by moving the pedal so the cyclist's legs are in a different position during the pedal cycle
Doesn't work like that. Draw a crank like this on a piece of paper, jab a pen through the point where the crank would connect to the gear and rotate the paper: you'll quickly notice that the thing still follows the exact same circular motion as any old, regular crank does, and therefore the legs don't actually assume any different a position during cycling. If the crank was displaced from the center then there would be a difference as it would no longer follow the same path as a regular crank, but alas, that's not the case here.
Ahh right, I was lulled into thinking that it solved the no power at top-dead-center problem, but all it does is move TDC 20 degrees along the pedal cycle.
Re: (Score:3)
but all it does is move TDC 20 degrees along the pedal cycle
No, it doesn't. The forces involved at the peddle and at the crank are identical to those if it were a straight connection. The only difference is the shape of the metal piece connecting them. TDC is in exactly the same place as it would be if there was a straight piece of metal connecting the peddle to the crank.
Re:Biomechanics (Score:5, Informative)
An analysis, found on their webpage:
http://www.z-torque.com/Portals/6/DrHuangReport.pdf [z-torque.com]
Claims that the benefit is from two side effects of the claim:
The increased mass gives a flywheel effect, meaning the pedal goes through top dead center easier.
The long shape bends under pressure, which does slightly increase the length of the arm under pressure.
So, by going to carbon fiber (lighter, and most likely stiffer), they'll most likely negate any benefits!
> so the cyclist's legs are in a different position during the pedal cycle
Only because of the bending. If it were stiffer, position would be exactly the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and the flexing of the arm will certain end in the thing breaking at a stress point and potentially injuring the rider... we call this a SNAFU!
Re: (Score:2)
In other analysis, 'Smoother pedaling and more power then old standard type cranks' - I don't think this means what he thinks it means.
Re: (Score:2)
So, by going to carbon fiber (lighter, and most likely stiffer), they'll most likely negate any benefits!
Actually, carbon fiber is more flexible than aluminum, so it would flex more. But flex is bad, not good. The ideal crank would have 0 flex, so as to transmit 100% of pedaling energy, rather than wasting it through flex.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Biomechanics (Score:4, Informative)
The increased mass gives a flywheel effect, meaning the pedal goes through top dead center easier.
[...]
So, by going to carbon fiber (lighter, and most likely stiffer), they'll most likely negate any benefits!
Here's the thing: carbon fiber does not have to be stiff.
You can go out today and buy carbon fiber leaf or coil springs.
carbon fiber cranks are nothing new to the (off)road bicycling word.
And haven't you heard about the amputee athletes who run on carbon fiber legs? [dezeen.com]
But the main reason for using carbon fiber is lighter weight, and if your system depends on extra rotating mass,
then there's absolutely nothing to be gained by making the crank out of super light carbon fiber.
If Mr. Z-Crank wants springier, he can just choose a different metal alloy and keep the same mass.
Re:Biomechanics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"this can't be dismissed just because simple physics says that it has no mechanical advantage."
Are you high?
That's exactly what you can do. The whole point of this is that despite how the bar is shaped the pedal has NOT moved in relation to the crankshaft. If you DID move the pedal, that could make it more effective. It's called "a longer crank". Problem is your pedals tend to hit the ground if you do that.
Re:Biomechanics (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that by moving the pedal so the cyclist's legs are in a different position...
Can you please send me some of the stuff you are smoking?
Re: (Score:3)
A bicycle is a simple machine. Simple machines work by reducing the force necessary to complete a task. This is mechanical advantage. For a bicycle this mechanical advantages are created by the radius of the pedel and the ratio of the gears, usually with a big gear radius in front, and a smaller gear radius in back. To start the ratios are larger, then can become smaller as the bike accelerates.
There is another thing.
Re:Biomechanics (Score:5, Insightful)
this can't be dismissed just because simple physics says that it has no mechanical advantage.
Actually, that's exactly why it can be dismissed. It's nonsense.
-jcr
Re: (Score:2)
That might be relevant, if this design had any effect of moving the pedal so the cyclist's legs are in a different position during the pedal cycle. But all an angled crank arm does is give you a heavy crank that takes up more space to put your legs in th
Re: (Score:3)
> have to do more work in order to do a single revolution.
It's inertia. It's not wasted. It'll create a force when the pedal decelerates. Since you always want the pedal spinning, this isn't so bad for cruising. It's only bad for transients, which this would help smooth out.
> related to pedals having 2 moments of inertial.
Would be no different than a straight pedal with more mass on the end.
Re: (Score:2)
It's inertia. It's not wasted. It'll create a force when the pedal decelerates. Since you always want the pedal spinning, this isn't so bad for cruising. It's only bad for transients, which this would help smooth out.
Well, just make the crank out of osmium [wikipedia.org] then. Add some weights to the pedals. Problem solved.
Re:Biomechanics (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah but the inertial difference would be some infinitesimal amount. Way to small to notice. The real problem is that this design in going to suffer huge stress at the points of the Z so if our intrepid rider is into mountain bikes he's going to break this thing about 4 weeks after he starts using it at precisely the worst possible time to have you crank break (while standing on your peddles on a steep climb.)
All you have to do to blow this out of the water is ask him why there isn't a curlicue wrench to give you more leverage in a tight place... not like we haven't been using wrenches for a while. This is a profound DUH, and no magic fairy dust nor faith in a loving deity will wash the stink of stupid off it. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Quantum physics trumps /all/ forms of logical thinking.
You Say: "Crank Physics" (Score:5, Funny)
Automatically?
I think: "TIME CUBE"! [timecube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think: "TIME CUBE"!
I prefer GameCube [fateback.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone explain the reference to me? I tried visiting the link but it keeps redirecting me to some random uninteresting landing page.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.xkcd.com/1096/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the test was successful. More exactly, the test was successful in proving that it doesn't work. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I saw that on their own website, they had no scientific data to prove it did anything as the results from both a normal crank and their fancy crank had similar results.
Yet they still make crazy claims ...
Re:Actually, this could work but not due to levera (Score:4, Insightful)
If this crank extends the diameter of the rotation
Just making the crank longer would do that. The shape bears no effect on the diameter of the rotation as long as the distance between the pedal and the axle stays the same. The shape would only bear an effect if the crank dynamically changed shape during the rotation, but alas, this is a fixed construct.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, If my time at the gym bro-learning meat-head science is worth anything, than cycling is a very inefficient movement since it overrides the hamstring which counts for over 50% of the leg muscles.
If you do it right, you use your hamstrings. They kick in toward the bottom of the stroke, and pull across the bottom and up the back.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens with this design if the pedals are at TDC and BDC, with a weight hanging off the top pedal? It should go forward as that is the direction of the "Z" arm. By my understanding that is one of his design goals, to eliminate the dead spots as with regular straight arms in the same situation nothing happens (you would need forward motion to move the arm).
No, no it won't go forward with balanced weights on each equal-length lever attached to a pivot in the center.
The #$#@ dead spots are STILL THERE, they just happen to "look" like they are in a different place.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm... don't most 5-year olds learn to eliminate dead spots by just, you know, having a bit of momentum? Moreover, the cranks in any engine have dead spots. There are motorcycles with ONE cylinder. Huge dead spot, right? Not a problem. Momentum. That's the whole deal with these systems. Dead spots are just not a problem. Most of you couldn't stand straight on the crank if you tried, and if you did, the momentum would carry you through in the proper direction after one good stroke.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose. If you could magically have a weight appear only off the top pedal's Z-arm when the pedal was at TDC. (Note that such a magical weight would also give you a perpetual motion machine, since you could set the pedals at TDC/BDC, and they would start accelerating on their own and continue to provide power with no effort.) Of course, i
Yeah (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Trust me, when you are constantly breaking wind
If you are constantly breaking wind you should either change your diet or go see a doctor.
Weebles wobble but they don't fall down (Score:4, Funny)
Just take a look at those infomercials that try to tell you that 1) for your entire life you've been wobbling around about to fall over
The solution to that is to become a Weeble, because Weebles wobble but they don't fall down.
Re: (Score:3)
The Z-crank doesn't work due to basic mechanics. The various warp-drive and wormhole designs are usually not provably impossible, though it is very unlikely that they work (due to quantum effects), and require material (negative energy density matter) that probably can't exist in the required densities, and typically need engineering on a difficult to imagine scale.
Re: (Score:3)
FTL and warp drives are an open problem with no good designs in mind. This pedal is a specific design which obviously does not work.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, exactly, its not.
Right. The differences are:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And if he won't listen to his Wyse friends, they should DEC him.