Gene's expert opinion and intervention here are highly opportune, appropriate and quite... irresistible. Thank you so much, Gene, for that. I must concur practically entirely with the nature of your argumentation.
Marcus On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:16:44 Gene Mechtly wrote: >Carter, > >By the rowlett definition, Hz is restricted to a "periodic" cycle (with >a (at least implied) fixed frequency of rotation. > >In many cases of rotating shafts, the rate of rotation is a variable, >not periodic. In these cases, the rowlett definition must be rejected. > >In contrast, the BIPM Brochure does not require cycles measured by the >Hz to be constant. Thus, the Hz is acceptable for a variable rate of >shaft rotation, but I would prefer rev/s for simple cases of rotating >shafts, or rad/s for more complicated cases of rotations where the >calculus and differential equations are the appropriate tools. For >example, analysis of a rigid body "tumbling" about all three axes. > >Gene. >......................................... >On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Carter, Baron wrote: > >> If we accept the following definition of Hz (from >> http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictH.html) then surely Hz would be the >> obvious choice in replacing rpm? >> >> "the SI unit of frequency, equal to one cycle per second. The hertz is used >> to measure the rates of events that happen periodically in a fixed and >> definite cycle; .............." > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
