Difference between revisions of "Sub-layer"
From apm
(basic page) |
(added link to Optimal sublayernumber for minimal friction) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
<math> n_{opt} = \sqrt{A_A/A_T} B^3 C </math> <br> | <math> n_{opt} = \sqrt{A_A/A_T} B^3 C </math> <br> | ||
For details see: [[Limits to lower friction despite higher bearing area]] | For details see: [[Limits to lower friction despite higher bearing area]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | {{todo|Can this be generalized to sub-level, that is abstracted away from layer geometry?}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Related == | ||
| + | * '''[[Optimal sublayernumber for minimal friction]]''' | ||
| + | ---- | ||
* [[Deliberate slowdown at the lowest assembly level]] | * [[Deliberate slowdown at the lowest assembly level]] | ||
* [[Limits to lower friction despite higher bearing area]] | * [[Limits to lower friction despite higher bearing area]] | ||
Latest revision as of 16:08, 12 March 2023
As a first result ...
- natural scaling of frequencies (at constant speeds) and
- adhering to continuity of throughput
just gives one single sub-layer per assembly level
See: Math of convergent assembly
But one sub-layer per assembly level strongly deviates form proposed designs because
there is motivation to deviate from that for several reasons.
See: Deliberate slowdown at the lowest assembly level
One main reason is optimization for minimal friction.
As it turns out the global minimum for friction is somewhere around n~B³ sub-layers
A bit more accurately With factors more or less near one:
[math] n_{opt} = \sqrt{A_A/A_T} B^3 C [/math]
For details see: Limits to lower friction despite higher bearing area
(TODO: Can this be generalized to sub-level, that is abstracted away from layer geometry?)
Related
- Deliberate slowdown at the lowest assembly level
- Limits to lower friction despite higher bearing area
- Compenslow
