[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Single shaft motor - Ed Wingate?
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Single shaft motor - Ed Wingate?
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 21:04:12 -0600
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Old-return-path: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Resent-date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 21:05:58 -0600 (MDT)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <YM5lND.A.cpE.SCmpCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>but I am guessing.
> >I better analysis would be a moving contact point were the conditions are
> >quasi static with continuous thermal flows .
> >The next step in the normal way physics is investigated would be to
> >construct a model and compare it to measurements then make predictions.
> >Perhaps the maximum speed could be determined for different materials
> >confirmed by experiment for example.
> >Perhaps the time constant of a small spot can be directly measured too.
> Very elaborate explanation, but with all due respect, I still disagree and
> I already have an operating model, when are you going to start building
> yours? Then you could prove the thermal theory rather than simply "voting"
> for it.
I was responding to your point that steel could not expand and contract
sufficiently to account for 33RPM
I did made a mistake in my calculation. The time constant should be 10us. I
was so convinced it would scale linearly with dimensions I did not spot my
It was just a very rough calculation to give an order for thermal time
constants of small spots.
I would not describe it as elaborate, crude yes.
Feel free to disagree with me or statements I quote from others any time.
Without a supporting explanation, a bald statement of opinion or
disagreement does nothing to advance anyone's understanding.
Perhaps you have already explained your theory numerous other times and
simple don't want to do it again.
The thing about science and physics is if you hold main stream views you
don't have to prove anything because its all ready been done for you usually
very rigorously and frequently by very smart duds.
Its up to those out side the main stream views or with new ideas to produce
the evidence for the alterative.
This is simply the way things are done and for very good reasons.
This does not necessarily make the main stream correct only that it is the
prevailing view, warts and all.
>From the very brief reading I have done on this motor the main stream favors
the thermal expansion explanation.
Best of luck with your alternative theory.
It will not be the first time the main stream got it wrong and it will not
be the last.
Robert (R. A.) Jones
A1 Accounting, Inc., Fl
407 649 6400