Re: comparative efficiency test
- From: "Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:13:23 GMT
"CWatters" <colin.watters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13jdn50dh9krdbe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:
: "CWatters" <colin.watters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: news:13jdmq721b0id9d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: >
: > >
: > > "Camilo" <camilogil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: > > news:1194730566.552533.72740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > >
: > > > Sounds like a daft method if you ask me - unless your motor is very
: low
: > > > rpm.
: > >
: > > is daft but cheaper, I have no money to buy a dynamometer
: >
: > You do not need to buy a dynamometer...
: >
: > Just mount the motor so that the casing can rotate a bit. Fix an arm on
: the
: > mount that sticks out to one side, hang weights or a spring on it.
Torque
: =
: > force (in Newtons) x distance (in meters).
: >
: >
:
: Actually you dont need weights or a spring. Just swap the arm over and put
: electronic weighing scales under it.
Do not quote me unless I actually said it, you prat.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: comparative efficiency test
- From: CWatters
- Re: comparative efficiency test
- References:
- comparative efficiency test
- From: Camilo
- Re: comparative efficiency test
- From: JM Albuquerque
- Re: comparative efficiency test
- From: Camilo
- Re: comparative efficiency test
- From: nottoooily
- Re: comparative efficiency test
- From: Camilo
- Re: comparative efficiency test
- From: CWatters
- Re: comparative efficiency test
- From: Camilo
- Re: comparative efficiency test
- From: Androcles
- Re: comparative efficiency test
- From: CWatters
- Re: comparative efficiency test
- From: CWatters
- comparative efficiency test
- Prev by Date: Re: comparative efficiency test
- Next by Date: Re: programing with science jobs
- Previous by thread: Re: comparative efficiency test
- Next by thread: Re: comparative efficiency test
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading