y = 0, x = 0 y = +3, x = 0 y = +3, x = 3 y = +1, x = 3 y = +1, x = 0 y = 0, x = 0 and softly!
If you get these numbers and it looks real rock steady, go to 3 D. If you discover that OTS identical valves might differ by a couple of percent and the resisters in the valve actuator current control have tolerances then won't the thing hunt all over the place? Experience in actual building technique will only be acquired by actual building experience. Screw up one out of 24 connector crimps and you might be
y = -.1, x = in the next county!
Adrian Tymes wrote:
--- Alex Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about testing in a single plain? 2 D
testing. The machine could go up, down, left and right but not toward and away.
This could be done with two towers and a suitable beam between. Would 2
D get you any good data? Couldn't you just rotate to get 3D?
Nope. Consider that there are no 2D equivalents of knots, hurricanes, and many other systems - including vorticies in, say, the fuel tanks. Besides, what if our engine spacing was a little irregular (by accident or by design), such that no matter which way you turned it, towards and away never got the same thrust? _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
--
----<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
........ Alex Fraser N3DER ......... ......... [EMAIL PROTECTED] ....... [~]_>^</\-[~]_>^</\-[~]_>^</\-[~]_>^<
_______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
