Well my latest test trial was another failure of design. Design is
hard work, because I have to jury rig a system and not make one
without cost consideration. I tried some fishing line between the new
trolley and the scale. It all streched. And bounced.
So I took apart the scale and removed the strain guage inside it. I
was going to make a special mount fo rit without any slack at all. I
proceeded to break a very fine wire on the strain guage ruining it.
So the twenty dollar fish scale was bought again! ANd this time I
used the old scale as the mount and spliced 8 feet of telephone wire
in. So now I have a remoted scale.
MY new vibration free trolly is a 3 inch tube inside a four inch
tube. With little wheel to make the inside trolly. IN static tests
it spun arround in a circle inside the other tube due to torque and
vibration. SO I put a trolly rim in to stop the spinning. A rim of
aluminum channel.
SO now a static test indicates friction between the channel and the
wheel!
Bad news.
I will get so data this week end in the car. I put greas on the
channel to try to reduce the friction. A 5 oz zero problem is the
current worry.
A 2 lbs.. 1 oz thrust static.
Experimenting is hard work. Jury rigged and all. Statistics my save
me. The last time I think I fudged the scale trying to average the
vibration reading. A procedure to simply take blind data is necessary.
1.turn on scale.
2. turn on power to propeller.
3.take the scale reading 10 second average.
4. accelerate to 10 or 20 mph
5. take scale reading.
6.Ignore zero offset reading apon stopping.
I think that statistics will get good readings without zero problems,
as long as zero's are dispensed with.
I hope statistics works.
On Mar 30, 7:32 pm, "Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondoug...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Well my latest test trial was another failure of design. Design is
> hard work, because I have to jury rig a system and not make one
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
> I hope statistics works.
Dear Douglas: Please explain, in-a-nutshell, what your experiment is
seeking to verify or prove. You are the first person I've seen in
these groups who is actually trying to do basic science research AND
testing. Perhaps I can help. NoEinstein
Douglas Eagleson - 31 Mar 2007 21:02 GMT
> On Mar 30, 7:32 pm, "Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondoug...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
I just posted the data! I have to draw it all up to fully explain. I
basically have a counterrotating propeller setup with the front one
unpowered!
A passive front propeller.
And the question appears the proper design.
Data indicates a basic possible benefit as power curves go. Maybe a
variable pitch fron passive blade would allow the full benefit of
changes to the seconds absolute efficiency.
That is heavy and expensive. So it basically means ahh I need to have
the smaller front blade????
Somehow the front power curve advantage needs to be matched?
It is to be used for commensense reasoning checking only.
As a practical idea it basically does not jumpup and say built it.