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

*To*: "aolesen@post3.tele.dk" <aolesen@post3.tele.dk>, Fluhr <ejfluhr@austin.ibm.com>, John Torset <johnt@borre.mail.telia.com>, Jouko Haapanen <joukoh@vtoy.fi>, Luis Marques <marques@rtis.ray.com>, James Marriott <marriott@micron.net>*To*: Orin Eman <orin@wolfenet.com>, Quattro List <quattro@coimbra.ans.net>*Subject*: RE: Conrod force/acceleration*From*: glen powell <gpowell@acacianet.com>*Date*: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:34:41 -0500*Sender*: owner-quattro@coimbra.ans.net

Having helped to start this thread I now have to ask, has this become an issue of semantics or one of defining of terms and not mathematical? If acceleration is a function of a change in velocity over some sampling period, then we cannot really talk about acceleration relative to 'instants in time' (like the instant while the piston is at TDC) , can we? If there is no definition for acceleration for an instant in time, what is the conceptual model? -glen 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 <snip>

- Prev by Author:
**RE: carbon fibre driveshafts -Forwarded -Forwarded** - Next by Author:
**RE: wuz K40.... now I been saved!** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Conrod force/acceleration** - Next by thread:
**FS: 1992 S4 $12k!!!!!** - Index(es):