I belive The Infamous Molt Taylor did that on the Imp. It was not without problems. Haven't thought about that for decades...was it the Dodge Flexidyne?I am curious as to why no one has attempted to use a Chrysler Fluid Drive as a coupling between the engine and reduction drive.
Ok. So, that being said, we should for Heaven's Sake NOT use a guibo. Not even in the factory designed application on the Rotax 582/C-Box combination. Got it!
The thing on your coil spring automobile suspension that we call a "shock absorber" is actually a damper - as you are aware that the coil spring returns a significant amount of its energy without a lot of damping. However, if we go into the trailer world, you will find a HUGE number of rubber suspended trailers (usually "torsion" axles where a square shaft squishes four round rubber rods lodged in the corner of a square tube, 45 degrees out of phase). Those ubiquitous axles do NOT use any "shock absorbers" (actually called dampers in most chassis engineering circles) and they do not bounce. Their rubber is indeed a very effective damper.If that was your impression, I did a poor job. I'll try to be more clear. Referring to a rubber coupler as a damper is wrong as a soup sandwich.
Those ubiquitous axles do NOT use any "shock absorbers" (actually called dampers in most chassis engineering circles) and they do not bounce. Their rubber is indeed a very effective damper.
Yes, caught your table, just pointing out the blanket statement you made about rubber not being a damper. Yes, the axles have a low frequency by massive amplitude/deformation as each 6" or so lever can be operating with a base load of 2,000 lb/ft. The DO have more than adequate cooling as the axle housings are usually in a clear airstream.No one said rubber had no damping. I even posted a Centaflex data table with the damping values. Doesn't matter. If you run the typical engine-propeller system in resonance for very long, the byproduct of that damping (heat) will destroy the coupler. It's pointless.
Frequency for those axles is what, 1 hz? They don't heat much.
Those ubiquitous axles do NOT use any "shock absorbers" (actually called dampers in most chassis engineering circles) and they do not bounce.
Which brings up a question I've been pondering - and admittedly too lazy right now to put in the study to find the answer myself.Frequency for those axles is what, 1 hz? They don't heat much.
Which brings up a question I've been pondering - and admittedly too lazy right now to put in the study to find the answer myself.
The 14 watts of heat mentioned above: Is that per cycle as I suspect rather than 14 watts per some time unit? 14 watts is a pretty small amount of heat to dissipate. However 14 watts X 1500 rpm (25Hz) adds up to 21000 watts/minute = 1.26 Kwhr = 4300 BTU/minute*. That is a significant amount of heat to dissipate.
The reply will be interesting to see. I just figured that, because "watt" is a unit of power and the time unit is built in, there wasn't much else left to say. (As with a 100 watt bulb or a 1 HP engine). Watts is just watts, it measures power, and power is what we want to quantify if we're looking at the ability of this coupling to handle a particular amount of energy per unit of time.I just send an information request to Centa.
Now that I have time to brew a pot of tea - a rather interesting blend of Hairy Crab and artificially aged Pu'er - and time to ponder this heat question:* if my pre morning tea button poking is right
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: