Sub-layer: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
basic page |
mNo edit summary |
||
| 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 == | ||
Revision as of 18:15, 28 August 2022
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