[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

*To*: aolesen@post3.tele.dk, Quattro List <quattro@coimbra.ans.net>, James Marriott <marriott@micron.net>, Jouko Haapanen <joukoh@vtoy.fi>, Luis Marques <marques@rtis.ray.com>, Orin Eman <orin@wolfenet.com>, John Torset <johnt@borre.mail.telia.com>, Fluhr <ejfluhr@austin.ibm.com>*Subject*: Re: Conrod force/acceleration*From*: Sargent Schutt <sargent@novagate.com>*Date*: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:33:55 +0000*References*: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980122094432.27082A-100000@apollo> <34cdc4d4.19833525@post3.tele.dk> <34CBEB4D.B0BB2005@novagate.com> <34d3621c.11526084@post3.tele.dk>*Reply-To*: sargent@symposiafoundation.org*Sender*: owner-quattro@coimbra.ans.net

Olesen, Allan wrote: > Wrong again. > > Even if you do not understand the physics, you must be able to see the > logic: > Acceleration = velocity change over time. > No acceleration = no velocity change. > No velocity change = constant velocity. > Constant zero velocity = engine not turning at all. > > Another lister have used the example of a ball throwed up in the air. > From the time the ball leaves your hand until it hits the ground, > acceleration is constant 1g (downwards), even though the ball moves > upwards, stops, and then moves downwards. This also proves that > velocity can be zero without acceleration being zero. It seems the assumption is that velocity is zero for one instant, not two instants - eg v never = 0 for two trillionths of a nanosecond. if it did, for two trillionths of a nanosecond, then acceleration would be zero, as v is zero for that length of time. What the scientific community would have is that zero only exists for one trillionth-of-a-nanosecond during the reversal of travel. I believe that for two trillionths of a nanosecond you might have zero velocity as the crank swings by to pull the piston back down, owing to IMPERFECT properties of the sytem upon which you are practicing perfect theoretical trig. You are praticing perfect math on an imperfect object. The math, if adhered to by the motor, is correct. But the motor is not perfect. The behavior of the parts/metal is not perfect. This is where this whole thread started, if I recall correctly (conrod strectching/compacting - imperfect behavior fo engine internals). Yes, this is tedious and a little tenuous, but I'm speaking in terms of absolutes. I follow the rest of it sine, cosine et al. The math is perfect, the motor is not. That, again, is the basis for this whole question. I didn't mention this as I thought, given the start of this thread, that an imperfect sytem was a *given*. It seems you all are applying perfect math to an imperfect system and expecting a perfectly agreeable answer. The imperfect nature of the system (engine) is what makes this question interesting to me. The tolerances, though tight, lead me to believe that a zero figure can exist for piston velocity for more than a single consecutive instant in time. It all depends on the period of time over which you measure velocity. As far as the ball and gravity go; yes, it's all relative. I am not speaking in terms of balls and gravity. Piston relative to crank. Forget about the center of the earth for a minute. The zero V point at the top and bottom of piston travel is absolutely more than one instant during the reversal of travel in an engine, an inherently *imperfect* object. In a perfect system, you win: It is one instant, not two (according to conventional trig). But, again, how much time do you NEED in order to measure dv? At reversal of travel, there is, I speculate, more than one trillionth of a nanosecond where v=0. Therefore you technically could have a=0 for one short instant. (gravity and arguments of balls and relativity aside). Again, I'm talking about absolute measurements in an imperfect mechanical device. Sorry. I am stubborn, I know. But I have yet to understand how you can disprove that a=0 by applying perfect math to an imperfect device. It is the imperfection that allows for a brief span of time where v=0, ( 2 trillionths of a nanosecond, ok) relative to the block (not the center of the earth). Again, I jumped into this when the discussion was on behavior of conrods - and the implications of the instability caused by compression. It's the imperfections that raised this whole issue initially, and now those imperfections are being ignored. Thanks for putting up with my obstinance. Most of y'all certainly out-credential me in this dept, so I am now anticipating another great ball-buster of an answer. ;-) Sarge 91 200q 86 5ktq

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Conrod force/acceleration***From:*allan.olesen@post3.tele.dk (Olesen, Allan)

**References**:**Conrod force/acceleration***From:*"Graydon D. Stuckey" <graydon@kettering.edu>

**Re: Conrod force/acceleration***From:*allan.olesen@post3.tele.dk (Olesen, Allan)

**Re: Conrod force/acceleration***From:*Sargent Schutt <sargent@novagate.com>

**Re: Conrod force/acceleration***From:*allan.olesen@post3.tele.dk (Olesen, Allan)

- Prev by Author:
**Need new Z-rated rubber recommendations** - Next by Author:
**Re: Suspension Bushes** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Conrod force/acceleration** - Next by thread:
**Re: Conrod force/acceleration** - Index(es):