johnc Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Pretty simple but also mind blowing.... http://jalopnik.com/5302043/on-the-power-of-transmissions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cygnusx1 Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 "Ganson's piece demonstrates the unbelievable power which can be generated through simple gear reduction." It's not delivering lots of power to the concrete. It's just multiplying the torque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAG58 Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 fantastic example of mechanical advantage! "So what we're saying is dropping this into a Morris Minor will only slightly diminish the acceleration." This is the most accurate sentence ever to grace the interwebz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drax240z Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 As soon as I saw the thread title, I thought of this machine and was going to add it to the discussion... I guess it IS the discussion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowlerMonkey Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 For some reason, I was expecting one of these kriedler 50cc racing bikes with 14 forward speeds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted July 7, 2009 Author Share Posted July 7, 2009 It's not delivering lots of power to the concrete. It's just multiplying the torque. Horsepower is torque over time. I tried to calculate the horsepower from the figures on the article and I ran out of decimal places on my calculator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexicoker Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 The power at the motor is the same as the power at the concrete block (minus losses) so at every gear reduction, torque is increased by a factor of 12, but speed is reduced by a factor of 12, so the power stays the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted July 7, 2009 Author Share Posted July 7, 2009 And I was going to go out any buy a bigger calculator... thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexicoker Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 bigger calculator... =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drax240z Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 That's what John was using... anything newer is beyond his technical comfort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted July 7, 2009 Author Share Posted July 7, 2009 I would have only used that thing if I was driving a nuclear submarine mockup. We did have a TV that looked the one photoshopped on the wall when I was a kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators RTz Posted July 7, 2009 Administrators Share Posted July 7, 2009 They had TV's when you were a kid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted July 7, 2009 Author Share Posted July 7, 2009 Even the Flintstones had TV Ron... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators RTz Posted July 7, 2009 Administrators Share Posted July 7, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAG58 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 For what reason would a futuristic computer need a helm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roostmonkey Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 For navigation thru world wide interweb. I believe that particular computer required 1.21 jiggawatts to operate. What were they thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drax240z Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 They were thinking of dozens of things that hadn't yet been invented, and trying to put those things together into something else that hadn't been invented yet. I challenge you to do the same, and check 50 years from now how correct you were... let us know the results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 FYI... the picture above of the "home computer" is a hoax. Its a photoshop of a nuclear submarine helm mockup, a RCA TV from around 1960, a Burroughs Telex console, and some old guy in a polyester suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woldson Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Teehee, I new those gauges look familar. Sonar tech, tridents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimZ Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 The power at the motor is the same as the power at the concrete block (minus losses) so at every gear reduction, torque is increased by a factor of 12, but speed is reduced by a factor of 12, so the power stays the same. Problem is with the number of gear reductions taking place, the losses are asymptotically approaching 100%. Also, the gears need to be able to handle the amount of torque that they are transmitting - that trans is bound to shatter the gears long before it does anything terribly interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.