Search results for query: *

In theory it seems a good idea, sometimes in practice it is the other way round. It can be useful to force a sudden change in weight transfer across the axle in limit handling events.

For advanced woowoo I suggest the FEA forum, the altair ones don't get much traffic.

I have done the non indexed method as an exercise but since all of my data is triggered the index method is more robust and easier.

Any geo engineering project will create winners and losers. An example of this is cloud seeding, which has threatened to start wars in SE Asia, and in Tasmania for example is used to increase rainfall in the catchment for the hydro dams, at the expense of causing reduced rainfall in the...

Professionals design springs for road use such that they have a minimum preload of X with the wheels at full droop, ie on a 2 post hoist. Amateurs don't, they worry about powder coating.

In theory it doesn't matter where the trial weights are located on each plane relative to the other plane, I think. But i haven't done this in a long time(25 years). I'd have thought so long as all measurements and locations were referenced to a single shaft reference marker it would be OK.

It isn't sent to simulink it is a co sim with simulink. Is there not a tutorial on this?

You do the 2 single plane balances by record the vibration or velocity at both planes. Same number of runs just more data. Maths is here https://www.eng-tips.com/threads/diy-crankshaft-balancing-with-an-oscilloscope.511892/#post-8933361

Loosely speaking you need to define the various parameters as design variables in adams, and then pass values to them from your simulink.

2 plane balancing is more complex than 2 1 plane balances, as you need to consider the influence coefficients from plane1 to plane 2 and vice versa.

Frankly I'd be calling in a large motor balancing guy. Did you 2 plane balance? Since automotive crankshafts are oil bearings I don't remember any problems balancing them. Depending on the natural frequencies of the rotor you may be operating above the whirl speed. Certainly possible...

P1-8 is three orthogonal views of one part. I assume you are supposed to create a solid model of it.

2024 numbers haven't been collated yet In 2023 65% of China's electricity was fossil fuel. Coal usage is increasing, not falling

and what is your problem with 1-8? Although the draftie has made some poor choices it is all there, I think.

It was direct from Blevins, a corrected version of your last equation. 1/2/pi is replaced by 1/4 As I said this typical of LLM 'research'.

A statement utterly unsupported by the article. This is an internet technique known as Gish Galloping, wasting other people's time with irrelevant drivel.

Hence my puzzlement. I don't see the preload popping up in the bending equation. Note I am talking about uncracked beams.

I would not be surprised if the prestress makes no odds, the bending stiffness of a beam with prestressed reo is no different to that of a beam with no prestress in the reo, if the beam is not cracked. The counter argument is an archery bow.

If you are messing about with running close to or above the natural frequency (here there be dragons, but it is common with big turbines) then the other thing to watch for is half speed whirl.

Well as I said, the final equation in your first pdf looks sensible but is wrong in detail. I must admit I'm surprised by the difference in Kv between the two methods, perhaps you'd get a better estimate if you dida thin wall assumption for Ip as well (ie m*(mean radius)^2). The other thing...