Sub-layer: Difference between revisions

From apm
Jump to navigation Jump to search
basic page
 
 
(4 intermediate revisions 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 ==
== 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]]
Line 22: Line 25:
----
----
* [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]
* [[Higher throughput of smaller machinery]]
----
* [[Terminology for spacial places]]
[[Category:Far term target]]
[[Category:Surprising facts]]

Latest revision as of 22:28, 29 March 2026

As a first result ...

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