Z
Zakfarg
Guest
On 09 Sep 2003 14:20:25 GMT, [email protected] (BretCahill) may have said:
>Someone on sci.engr.mech said a chain sprocket system was over 95% efficient at transmitting power
>-- better than a belt drive.
>
>I'm guessing most of the friction is between the pins and the links as they wrap around the
>sprocket. The friction would increase directly with rpm and with tension in the chain -- in other
>words, the % friction would remain constant over all power ranges.
>
>5% might not sound like much but . . .
The "over" in that statement is also significant. There's a study that came up with over 98% (I tend
to distrust claims that exceed 99%) in a significant portion of the instances. All of these were
with a system that was working properly. If something's not right, it can change the results
downwards.
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.
>Someone on sci.engr.mech said a chain sprocket system was over 95% efficient at transmitting power
>-- better than a belt drive.
>
>I'm guessing most of the friction is between the pins and the links as they wrap around the
>sprocket. The friction would increase directly with rpm and with tension in the chain -- in other
>words, the % friction would remain constant over all power ranges.
>
>5% might not sound like much but . . .
The "over" in that statement is also significant. There's a study that came up with over 98% (I tend
to distrust claims that exceed 99%) in a significant portion of the instances. All of these were
with a system that was working properly. If something's not right, it can change the results
downwards.
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.