But, that's not what's being described. Referring to a 240Ns H motor as a "50% H" means a motors that is "50% (half-way) in the H range" not "50% of an H."
The scale is from the smallest (0%) to largest (100%) motor with the same letter designation
Noooo! :eyepop:
(as a serious observation: "your" 50% H actually has 75% of the impulse of a full H.)
THAT's the point.
jadebox said:
Your way would only use 50% to 100% - i.e. a 50% of an H would be the same as a 100% of a G.
Well, dang! Such a waste. Hasn't '50% of an H' always been the same as '100% of a G'? Did you folks redefine what a Newton is since I've been away?
At least 'my' way (?) doesn't require an IBM System/370 to figure out - a simple 99c '4 banger' would do (and most could do it in their head).
All the more reason to do away with the whole mess --- too wasteful -- too many unused numbers.
(You've just identified another reason <g> (but don't think that you thought of it first)).
... and, no, I understand that 'your' way uses ALL the numbers and 'my' way 'wastes' (?) fully half of them. The 'reason' lies in the fact that an argument like this could somehow even be considered logical.
jadebox said:
That seems more confusing and less useful.
You know, Jesus got the same reception (to his 'new way') - and look what it got him.
(Don't misunderstand, there's no messianic logic working here -- I'm not trying to start some 'new religion' - it isn't "MY" way - just 'simple' logic (and a recognition of the logical disconnect when one says (with a straight face): "This is a 50% H motor. It has 75% of the power of a H motor."))
jadebox said:
But ... if you must, it's easy to convert:
yourway = ourway / 2 + 50
-- Roger
Oh, there's an easier way than that.
-- john.
On a serious note:
This 'system' (?) has two items of information -- a percentage value (10%) and a motor impulse class (J) (to use my example from earlier). If you stopped 100 people on the street and showed them a 'J' motor, told them that represented 1280 Ns. Then, show them a smaller motor and say this is a "10% J" - so "how many Ns do you think is in this one?", I would venture to guess 95 (or more) of them would say "128 Ns". What this 'system' (?) is really doing is tying the impulse value to the motor class BELOW the one referenced (i.e. 'I' in this case) - in effect, saying that this motor is 10% ABOVE the maximum impulse value of 'class - 1'. If you were to say this is a 110% I, you'd be far closer to something that would represent the actual power of the motor in question (but still be ever so slightly wrong) - and it wouldn't involve algebra to figure out -- just (as Bill Clinton once said), "It's simple - it's called arith-me-tic."
But when one presents two pieces of information (to describe this motor): "10%" and "J", the mind will logically try to connect those two pieces of info -- and that simply cannot be done - without an intensely convoluted effort of mental gymnastics - which simply strikes me as irrational. Like I initially posited: "Did you folks just set out to make this thing as confusing as possible? You succeeded."
So, you 'waste' fully half of the numbers (between 0 and 100). So what?!?!? What (unwritten) law says you have to use ALL these numbers?? (Why not just adopt 'micro-percents', then you have a full million numbers to play with).
'Confusing'? Well, with 15 or 20 years of 'drinking this Kool-Aid', I guess it does seem that way. Like I noted in my 2nd reply to Bob -- there was a time (of which I know precisely that time - April (+-) 1994) when all of this was nothing more than a small discussion within a motor testing group -- and it was at THAT time that consideration of alternatives was most warranted (because I was one individual that presented an alternative... THEN) - and, maybe even, putting forth more than one choice on the table to let the hobby at large banter about the merits (or lack) of the choices available and decide. But, in a hobby noted for, "This is the decision - we (the leaders) have already decided - and you folks just *deal* with it," you will also be noted for several things that simply qualify as nothing more than irrational.
It will be the way it is -- but that isn't something folks should be too proud of - because it reveals a rigidity in thinking (and inability to review, think again, and revise) that is...
... well, "scary".
This little item is trivial and hardly worth (even) the words I've written on it - but that same mental rigidity has had far more profound consequences, even in this hobby.
-- jhc.
