FBO, Non-Cobrajet Intake Optimal Shift Points, A10

[engineermike]

So static friction just isn't a thing huh? Only kinetic friction. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Static friction also works against motion, same as dynamic. Zero static friction means no resistance to motion as well. I think you know this. I think this is you avoiding answering the simple question by taking us down yet another rabbit hole. I think you know the answer….

Sponsored

 

[markmurfie]

I can tell you this, if you put a flywheel up in space, spun it up to 100RPM, it would continue spinning at a 100RPM. So consistently, that just like we get a year from the Earth's trip around the sun, you could count on it.

 

[engineermike]

What about a flywheel? Do you believe that it takes energy to spin up a flywheel from, say, 0 rpm to 100 rpm? Do you believe that if you want to spin it up in 1 second vs 2 seconds, that the energy needs to be applied twice as fast? Neglect friction.

it takes energy to spin up a flywheel, and that energy/time = power... Do you seriously not agree with that?


There, I changed the wording to suit your hang-up with friction. Can you answer now?

 

[engineermike]

I can tell you this, if you put a flywheel up in space, spun it up to 100RPM, it would continue spinning at a 100RPM. So consistently, that just like we get a year from the Earth's trip around the sun, you could count on it.

No one is arguing any different. More rabbit holes….

I asked a very simple question that only the powers of observation are needed to answer, and you’re somehow redefining friction and sending it to outer space…

 

[markmurfie]

No one is arguing any different. More rabbit holes….

I asked a very simple question that only the powers of observation are needed to answer, and you’re somehow redefining friction and sending it to outer space…

Actually you are, because I know there's external forces acting on it up in space, and what they are. I just know they would be in significant for my life time so I don't care.

You are arguing these forces are significant and need to be put into math, I am not. I am saying it's friction that needs to be accounted for. And you want to see the math for that, and I'm saying keep it simple and stick to distance and time when describing motion.

 

[markmurfie]

Continuation of rotational inertia

Thanks, I already shared a video of a guy demonstrating the mass equivalent is BS. He spins up a round weight and gets on a scale. It shows the same weight as it did when it wasn't spinning.

I know I'm arguing against automotive common knowledge, but its really a common misconception. 2lb of rotating mass being equivalent to 1lb of non rotating mass, is grossly simplifying it and ignoring all modern day physics.

If it was done correctly, they would have came up with E=mC^2, and realized their error in trying to describe an object with a speed.

Heck I even shared a video that shows if an object breaks free of it's rotation, it can be thrown up damn near into space.

 

[markmurfie]

So when I turn right or left in my car, it's friction resisting me doing that, not friction allowing me to do that? Nope, wrong.

 

[WildHorse]

is grossly simplifying it and ignoring all modern day physics.

Ok, so if we forego simplification and utilize modern physics, it basically boils down to what Jason said in the above video.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia

 

[markmurfie]

Ok, so if we forego simplification and utilize modern physics, it basically boils down to what Jason said in the above video.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia

Look, I understand that energy is going into the rotating mass, therefore increasing it's mass. But I also understand we are not talking about anywhere near light speeds, so who cares?

 

[markmurfie]

Taking 17th century physics and applying it incorrectly 4 century's later, concerns me. Please stop.

 

[GregO]

Did someone mention the word Light Speed.
Where the Hell are we ?

 

[markmurfie]

Did someone mention the word Light Speed.
Where the Hell are we ?

haha.
I just hope you are siding with my logic on how to approach shift points.

 

[GregO]

I just hope you are siding with my logic on how to approach shift points.

I’m a belt driven CVT guy. No shifting.

 

[markmurfie]

There's so much to this its a good video.



Then this one is good for thinking about friction in 0 gravity.


The slope of a point.

 

[engineermike]

Continuation of rotational inertia

Holy cow, he is explaining EXACTLY what I've been trying to explain. "with the flywheel, it could be as high as 8 lb, depending on what gear you are in....the engine components depend on what gear you are in....the effects of moment of inertia are greater in your lower gears". And there we have it, folks, it turns out that Engineering Explained, Dr. Thomas Gillespie, SAE publications, Stephen Mason's site (HPWizard), and countless others all agree with me. If something affects acceleration as a function of the gear you are in, then it will affect optimal shift points. Yet according to markmurfie, we are all wrong.

Sponsored