OK, now you have just gotten stupid!
1/3 is 1 divided by three. The answer is .3 repeating infinatly.
If you have absolute numbers to plug into the velocity formula, you get an absolute answer.
The "speed" of my car is not a mathmatical equation. 50, 50.1, 50.12, or 50.123 are simply numbers that could be the answer to an equation that determines my velocity, or speed.

To argue that math is not absolute, cost you all credability.

I was going to actually look at the dyno you linked to, but your rebutals have gotten less and less factual and less intelligent. If it's like the 18 that I found that were rated to handle the HP, they would in no way work on a nitro-methane motor. They were designed for steady state, turbine, gas or diesel motors.

BTW, because I have seen something does not mean that I have it. I'm sorry, the top fuel team that was showing me around does not hand out copies of their telemetry. I know, it's silly of them.

 

There are a total of 429 patents on chassis dynos. Probably 50 of them predate 1985. If you read some of the other patents, yopu will find water brakes and eddy current chassis dynos that predate 1985. A road load simulation is only one of the modes that you put a chassis dyno in. HP calculation is a basic function of a chassis dyno. Any chassis dyno will calculate HP. The real inovation was the road load simulation. And the most modern dynos do not use eddy current or water brakes, they use AC dynos. Now the cheap chassis dynos might use eddy current or water brakes. One reason is, you cannot reproduce coast down properly with an eddy or water brake. I really don't car about Dobeck.. because the calculation of the Vmax have no place in any standard chassis dyno.

 

I can calculate how far off my calculations are. Any one who applies math to a problem has an idea how far off his calculations are. I don't see any point in posting it in this thread because it requires assumptions. Given that you cannot even accept the basics assumptions of my simple calculations, its unlikely that you will accept my assumptions of my error calculations. I am just trying to get you to think about the problem so you might be able to come to some conclusion about how far off the math could be. Not how far off it is.. but how far off it could be.

 

Oh? and why is this dyno I have listed not rated for the nitro methethane motor?

 

Read all of the quote that you posted, it answers your question.

I'm done with the thread. When it began, I respected you as an intelligent person that simply gave a (suposed)factual answer based on an unproven assumption. Your points have gotten less and less factual and the discussion has deteriorated to a moronic level. You will continue to believe that math is some black magic that doesn't require or solve for factual data. I imagine that you "discuss" any problems your children may get wrong on their math tests, with their teachers, supporting the "disscusion" with assumptions.

[note- this is in no way intended as an insult towards your children, all children make mistakes sometimes]

 

That is where you are wrong. This dyno can easily handle the nitro methane motor. Water dynos have been testing race engines since time begin. There is no difference there. AS far as suggesting that just because water dynos test diesel engines they cannot test nitro engines.. A diesel engine has a torque rise in the milliseconds region. Much faster than any gas engine that you will ever find. I think you will find that the torque rise of a nitro methane engine is not faster than a diesel engine. The big difference between a nitro methane engine and a diesel engine is that the nitro methane egine can accelerate faster than a diesel engine because of the lower inertia. So if we are attempting to simulate the load on a top fueler with a water dyno, we simply add an inertia to the dyno so the sum of the dyno inertia and the added inertia is equal to the effective inertia of the top fueler. You will then find, you can easily use the water dyno for acceleration tests and steady state tests.