Re: Nicked (again) - (torsen content)

[Orin Eman <orin@wolfenet.com>]

> i left the torsen list quite simply because the "bite proponents" chose to
> disregard, ignore or dispute very clear statements made in 3 separate
> engineering papers i tabled about the fundamental properties of the torsen.
> rather than accept these, you chose to continue with your own "facts", and
> then expected me to accept these, instead of those in the papers.  a
> discussion on these terms is the oxford definition of a "waste of time".

But you contradicted yourself with a described graph which required
0.5 rad/s difference in shaft speed to reach the bias ratio.
Which is it?  Completely locked below the bias ratio or
a fuzzy zone with some slip as described in your graph?

As for 3 separate papers, I don't know.  Depends on the sources
they used.  If they all used the same source, it becomes
rather irrelevant if there is one or one hundred.

I don't know if you saw the post about the original Tacoma
Narrows bridge - an engineering marvel that lasted four
months before it disintegrated in a wind storm, but the
engineers were still arguing about the exact reason it fell
some 40 years later...

Orin.