In Reply To:
In Reply To:
I do accept that the idealized model could work,
presuming we all agree that to do so it must violate the 2nd law. The 2nd law simply states that such a machine is impossible, idealized or not.
That doesn't mean that the simplifid model could not be useful in this analysis because it would help one to understand the forces on the materials so one could calculate the losses, if one knew how the materials would react to such forces, but no one here has even suggested that is why the simplified model is useful. Instead, the implication has been that because the simplified model shows no losses that this means that the actual losses in real life are small or insignificant, a leap in logic that has no basis.
No, the implication (fact/conclusion, actually) is that such losses are non-existent
as you envision them.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how I envision them and how, in the alternative, these losses actually occur (and, how big you see them being). I have put on my learning cap perfessor, ready to learn.
--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks