On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:52:23 -0500 "Eric Buckley"
<ejbuckley@earthlink.net> writes:
> So is yours. (Note to team.net - I'm not pissed, I'm just being
> sarcastic)
Thanks, Eric. I am not one who would take offense at your disagreement,
however that disclaimer seems to be more and more important these days.
I still believe you guys are missing something here about the physical
relationship between drive wheels and free wheels, but I need to do some
research before I can adequately respond further.
Lets say you are pulling a trailer behind that car, with big heavy 15"
steel wheels. Are you suggesting that the vehicle will do as much work
to create rotational motion in those wheels as it does to create
rotational motion in the drive wheels? Is that work greater than the
work required to move the weight of the trailer? If not, then would this
analogy apply to the non-drive wheels on the vehicle?
Work transmitted through the drive wheels creates motion. The drive
wheels have to be turned for the motion to take place, therefore the
engine not only moves the vehicle but also turns the wheels. This is
where the rotational mass becomes an issue. Free wheels are not directly
turned by the engine, they simply assist in easing the work requirement
of the drive wheels.
Time to hit the books.
Jon FP 73
|