So we’re all worried about who is winding with “fat wire”, which is a few watts inrush power and means zip and missing the idea that substitution blanks can net 20% + output for the same resistance? Is that possible? Yea, it’s VERY possible and absolutely impossible to detect with current rules and test methods.
Any idea how many ways there are cheat and still be “rules” legal? Especially if you get to wind the blank, grind the blank, coat the blank, write the rules and supply the team. You people always leave the rats in charge of the cheese?
Worry about lines of force density per amp current draw and quit fussing over the actual possible current draw whose only current indication is resistance checks.
You’ll split atoms over the temperature of a resistance check and walk right past assuring proper blanks as long as the tag is right.
Worry about the setups face center flux density and total magnet mass over the iron and quit fussing over the hole diameter and can ID.
You think the brush composition “they run” is the same “they” sell?
How long do you think “they’ ran the heat treated cans before “they” sold them? Wait, are they selling them? You’re sure? How would you know!!
How do you get .440 stack length spec with a .014” lamination thickness without a bit of “hand working” a few laminations or a light lam count and loose press?
When a blank MUST retain the “factory” coating to meet a .522 rule how do you know what’s “under” that coating for a blank? Parma or RJR? That coating is an industrial EM standard anyone can buy.
Everyone knows the laminations MUST be insulated to be effective. Are yours? Sure? Press out the shaft and meter the stack. Did it meter open? No? Imagine that. Thiers will.
You still think an “if it isn’t in the rules” rule, rules out cheating?
Back that buss up again and take another shot. Ya missed both times.
Message Thread
« Index
