Don't Ask Rambi Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (51741)	6/3/2000 9:42:00 PM
From: Gauguin	Read Replies (1) of 71178

Agreed. It's "configuration" of the meeting of the two surfaces I want to be sure we're together on. You probably are, and I dunno about me. If I picture the wheel as a cone, I know that the rail's configuration is "almost irrelevant." In a straight line of train travel, only points along a section of that cone ~ a literal circle ~ are meeting the iron of the rail. As the train turns corners, that section slips up or down the cone from a neutral value. Always remaining a point on a circle; but whose diameter is enlarging and decreasing, to accommodate inside or outside corner and achieve radial balance. The distance traveled by the outer wheel is greater; and by the inner wheel lessened; but both remian bearing at points on circles. Fortunately, the outer wheel in a turn is bearing more. But still, they're just Points; at any given time. Points plus compressional area of the steels. Which are, again, continuously flexed around the wheel ~ trying to turning themselves circular at the same time as trying to flatten. The area of contact is a very small patch. Four inches? I doubt it. Maybe. This is the interesting part of wheel design. How much flex? How much tread?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next