Crab "So AnFi - you are 3 nil down now - ball vs accelerometer - failed, speed calculation not including parallax error - failed, maths in rotor calculations - failed."
NO !
ball vs accelerometer ... all i said was that the ball is a crude accelerometer in as far as it shows the direction component of the the g experienced in that plane - TRUE
Speed calculation parallax NO the paralax error is negligable being 50% ish of the length of the arm if at full extension through an assumed 30deg ie about 1ft in 250ft NOT RELEVANT (even if taken to the extreme)
I have allways been saying that there is indeeed a very small (baby out with the bathwater) difference , I have repeatedly asked dc/da to quantify that term which HE HAS REFUSED TO DO. Most experts agree with me that the Nr^2 model is universally accepted to a reasonable degree of accuracy.
How WRONG IS IT ? Answer NOT SIGNIFICANTLY. it is further LESS significant if dealt with at greater speeds and induced flow representing a pullout scenario....
although it is true that that does bring in the additional considerations (that I have already alluded to) of different speeds across the cycle.... and I have suggested that that is well mapped by the Ct/Sigma curve introduced by NL
SO NO !!! it's nil 3 crab
Fohn spelling not my strong point ask Crab (even though I also ironically had to teach him some basic grammer wrt An FI, he was TOTALLY WRONG about that too)
the 'S' word !!! ??? I HAVE used it repeatedly SSSSSSSquared !!!!
HOW WRONG IS IT ? Not significantly! if you want to refute that then QUANTIFY IT !!!!! you have not, probably cannot. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and you know it, or PROVE OTHERWISE (you can't) what is the coefficient of the Nr^-1 term normalised to TRT = 1 ?????
You can't or won't because it shows that your clever little nit picking point is essentially irrelevant, and you know it.
NL and most texts in a crude model accept that Nr^2 is valid, it is only in as far as those assumptions are used that I claim that my statement is valid too.nyou can't dispute that and if you do you have no honour
this is not a place where you can have a serious debate with sincere people attempting to explore the validity of a hypothesis, NL has not uderstood the point and has checked out i think I should follow his lead