Re: Motor Weight, Size Density, Torque ?

From: John Barker <john.barker783_at_ntlworld.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 20:58:57 +0100

A few more comments from a foreigner. Way back in the seventies when England was supposed to be making the change to metric it was thought that I, as Chief Draughtsman, should also be the Metrication Officer so I am quite familiar with metric. I started as an evangelist pushing metric's logical basis but in the years since I have more and more realized that mathematical logic is not necessarily better than a system created naturally by people to suit the needs of their job. Anyhow that is a whole interesting subject that I had better leave for now.

I store my stripped rubber in little envelopes that I make from A4 printer paper, four to a sheet. Whilst printing the patterns to cut out I also print the following in a column down the front of the envelope: g/in, g/m, width approx, turns/inch. I usually find it convenient to strip one meter lengths of rubber so a direct weigh lets me fill in the g/m. Because I think of motor lengths in inches I divide the weight by 39.37 and fill in the g/in. Now here is the one that might surprise you; I multiply the g/in by 1.5 and enter that as the approximate width and it is usually very close - certainly good enough for the chap who asks what width of rubber you are using. The turns/inch is easy to fill in at the same time and can be useful later.

Although I like inches I would support g/m as more familiar internationally, and by similar argument my inch. ounces of torque would give way to Nm.

John Barker - England

 
Received on Fri Jun 04 2010 - 12:59:25 CEST