Don't mind me, just taking my infinite gear ratios for a walk

Sure. As long as it's within these bounds.

>"it's any number you want as long as it's a real number between 9 and 3"
You could take a range from 0.00001 to 0.00002 and it would still be infinitely divisible.

sig figs tell me you only have 6 choices.

realistically you'd break it up into actual movements that matter along the drive/driven drum into regular increments (0.5mm as an example) and derive from there if the cones are linear.

They're called continuous variable transmissions for a reason, not infinite variable transmissions.

My question with cvt is if the manufacturer didn't make them fake shift gears like normal transmissions could you just mash the gas and stay at a certain rpm while accelerating? Like have the motor working right in it's peak rpm all the way from 0 to 60?

Ever heard a scooter or a snowmobile accelerate?

Don't mind me just sounding like I'm coming apart all the time.
Drove one, wasn't bad! Just didn't like the noise.

>claims to be a mathematician
>doesn't know that space isn't infinitely divisible

Don't hesitate to explain why space wouldn't be infinitely divisible.

Dont mind me just gwaaaaAHHHnnggggwaaAAHHnnngggwaaaaahhhAHHAHHAHHNNggggg

They sound depressed, which is an odd sound for a machine but its there. Fucking shit ass no feedback giving brumbo engines

we're talking about transmissions here, not astrophysics.

Because the Planck length is the smallest possible meaningful leangth. You can say half a Planck length, but it doesn't mean anything because you can't have half a Planck length
Fuck off normie

Yes! Nerdy, but yes!

youtu.be/uCEvBGT8twM

I can very much have half a Planck length, it just enters the realm of quantum physics.

are you proud of being retarded.
Say your boundaries are 1 and 2. Technically there are an infinite amount of different places between the two numbers. There are an infinite amount of places between 1.0000000000000001 &1.0000000000000002.

numbers are not real

>what are integers?
>what are real numbers?

>sig figs
Don't apply here. Sig figs are meant to even out measuring errors and can be done at any decimal place. There are infinite possible ratios because the belt can be in any position along the cones no matter how small of a change it may make

>infinite

Like you'll notice a difference between 3.98452365:1, 3.98453574:1, 3.98456327664:1, 3.98452461337:1, 3.984576543753758:1, and 3.98454345643148877654336895367953265336:1

holy fuck how many asses are you inceptually speaking from?

The same kind of people who believe vinyl records have "infinite resolution".
No, they don't, because it's limited by the size of PVC molecules .
Even if you made a record out of frozen hydrogen, the smallest atom, it would still not reach the signal-noise-ratio of 24 bit digital audio.

t. American education

>retarded truck autodriving redneck doesn't know about the infinite amount of infinities and how some infinities are larger than others
I'm a fucking retarded hippy artist and even I know that shit.

Source please

no that's not how it works. the planck length is literally the smallest measurable quantum of space. even quantum mechanics has no meaning at lengths smaller than that

Just because we haven't managed to measure it doesn't mean there's nothing smaller.

I see what u did there

CVT a shit, metal on metal fucking snowmobile clutches. Manufacturer squeezing them mpg for cafe and fucking the customer, enjoy your imminent transmission failure

>"heh you have the pedal to the metal?"
>*makes your car drone on low rpm longer*
>"heh nothing personal kid"

>signal-noise ratio of digital audio
>noise in a digital audio
???

uuuwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

> maximum overdrive
> least acceleration possible
yeah that sounds fun

Woah watch out guys, someone watches vsauce

it doesn't mean you cant have half a planck length, it just means we cant predict or understand what happens below it

Just like "waterboarding in Guantanamo Bay" it sounds much better than it actually is.

A Planck length is a Planck length, you can't say it's only a half.

/v/ please go

There's a Max Plank.

Don't mind me, just working for literally forever (barring neglect and user error)

You just have to build up speed on the highway for 12 hours.

SNR and bit depth are interchangeable
xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Source: high school level chemistry, the periodic table of elements and standard vinyl record specifications. Here's a thought experiment comparing 24-bit digital audio to vinyl:

24-bit precision gives you about 16.77 million values. Assuming a total groove width of 50 x 10^-6m, the maximum movement of the cutter is physically bounded at about half that. Much more and the cutter will be in the space for an adjacent groove. Thus, 50 microns width divided by 16.77 million gives us about 3 x 10^-12m, i.e. ~0.03 angstroms.

The diameter of a hydrogen atom is 1.0 angstroms (1 x 10^-10m). That would make the resolution of a 24-bit digital signal equivalent to an analog cutter whose resolution is just about 1/30 the width of a hydrogen atom. Sadly, this seems to be physically impossible, as none of the particles smaller than atoms are stable enough to be used in records.

Of course, records aren't made of hydrogen, they're made of the polymer pvc. One molecule of pvc is about 100,000 angstroms. This means that, if the cutters were actually removing single pvc molecules the vinyl records would have about 11 bits of resolution. Sadly, they don't get even that precise, though I'm not sure the actual precision. To get down to a record made of hydrogen atoms (possible under very low temp/very high pressure I suppose) one would need 19 bits. Anything beyond that is useless as long as the laws of physics hold.

SNR and bit depth are related. In an ideal world, a higher bit depth would enable higher SNR assuming there is no signal collection deficiency due to aliasing. However in real world application interference which is picked up by the analog to digital converter or from the digital to analog converter will cause errors to be larger than the value of additional bits.

Too bad the clutch won't last forever

muh uncountably infinite set of gear ratios

Yes and even a hypothetically perfect A/D has its noise floor defined by the bit rate.
It just happens that 16 bits are enough.
16 bits with dithering yields over 120 dB of perceived SNR, or about the same as someone whispering next to a jet engine

This is why audiophiles who upload vinyl records at digitized at 24 bits kind of piss me off, at least when they go on about how superior and "warm" they sound.

Not forever, but if you're good you can make one last hundreds of thousands of miles. Certainly longer than most CVTs last even under optimal operating conditions. My uncle had a TDI with over 300k that was on its original clutch and had no signs of slipping.

He's right though.

>maximum overdrive
Sounds like a bad movie from the 80's
Oh wait...

Muh inaccessible cardinal gear ratios

No you can't. You can't have infinitely small.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=x3UpBKXMRto

Not a bounded interval on a finite set :^)

You'll actually notice it very clearly when your RPM is at 1-2k the entire time you're quickly accelerating to high speeds.

t. retard

Numbers ARE real, but zero is not.....a number.

My sister's Nissan has a CVt.
A complete pile of garbage to drive.
RPMs decrease as you accelerate
Was replaced after 50k miles
Apparently they have a lifespan of 75K

However, i was able to go 90mph downhill turning 1,100rpm.
Guess that's 1 thing that's actually useful

why arent cvts replacing automatics already?
why arent they common place in racing?

i saw a thing a while ago about an f1 car (i think it was honda idk) in the 90s that had a cvt and it worked flawlessly but they didnt allow it :(

IS THAT A FUCKING JOJO REFERENCE

>Even if you made a record out of frozen hydrogen, the smallest atom, it would still not reach the signal-noise-ratio of 24 bit digital audio.
wider, more pronounced tracks you dumb nigger

there is an infinite amount of decimal numbers inbetween 0 and 1 you moron

its /0/ tries basic mathamatics all over again

neither 0 or 1 equal infinity, therefore any number between them is not infinite

checkmate nerds

This thread made me worse at math

so satisfying to watch

woke

>a fucking belt

Probably same reason as to why they don't allow AWD in regular racing.

There was an AWD car in racing once and it absolutely devastated the competition to the point where they just said "fuck it, it's too easy to drive an AWD car - time to ban it".

>implying the set of gear ratios is countable

>why arent cvts replacing automatics already?
They are very unreliable
And most people hate them

>why arent they common place in racing?
They have SHIT for torque ratings
Even a little MPG 4 bangers are breaking them.

>They have SHIT for torque ratings
B-but I thought they were INFINITE

fuck i wish i could find my screenshot of Veeky Forums tries basic maths 1

Perhaps, user, that is the problem.

>thinks trans don't wear out

say that to my input shaft

>user error

It's gonna be a short walk.

>user error
>pilot bearing/throwout bearing/input shaft wear

kys retard

>says it will "WERK FERVER"
>but it needs routine major services to stay operational

my clutch/flywheel was perfect

>pilot bearing/throwout bearing/input shaft wear
literally user error

>RPMs decrease as you accelerate
Dafaq?
Even when operated at WOT?

>fluid change
>major service
If you're not a retard who can't figure out how to not ride a clutch, they will last a very, very long time.

They have a very wide range of ratios available, just a shit power capacity.

Those belts don't hold up to torque well.
We will probably never see a CVT behind a V8 due to this.

Ur a retard who probably had their clutch pressed in at stops.

Why not extend the operating range oft that CVT with a manual overdrive before it?
Basicly enabling you to lower rpm on highways even more and run the engine closer to its maximum efficiency?
Like 1200rpm and 50% load at 100km/h...

How about gearing that V-8 up 1:2 before going to the CVT unit, cutting the torque in half?
When you make it switchable between 1:1 and 2:1 you can even implement a overdrive for highway-cruising.
There you could limit the maximum torque to 50% and have verry efficient fuel economy mode...

Stupid idea because CVTs already have the ratios to turn low RPMs if needed.
Lower RPM doesn't also equal better MPG as well.

Why would you limit your power just to keep your trans alive??
Especially when a modern 10 speed or DCT is very efficient

>wider, more pronounced tracks you dumb nigger

Firstly, comma.guide/vocative-comma/.

Secondly, obviously the argument is about standard records, because that's what idiotic audiophiles talk about when they claim superiority, but sure, do the math for wider tracks.

The groove width of a standard record is about 50 x 10^-6 meters. It is made of PVC molecules roughly 100,000 angstroms in diameter. This yields roughly 11 bits of SNR.

Your proposal to use wider groves to reach 24 bits of SNR would require ridiculously large records: 2^24 / 2^11 = 8192 times the groove width.
30 cm * 8192 ~ 2.45 km

Enjoy your records with 2.45 kilometer in diameter, you dumb nigger.

>CVTs already have the ratios to turn low RPMs if needed.
Indeed, but that would increase their range even further.
>Lower RPM doesn't also equal better MPG as well.
As long as you don´t need to increase the load over 80% it does increase the efficiency of the engine and therefore the fuel efficiency of your car.
>Why would you limit your power just to keep your trans alive??
Read my post again, gearing the engine up 1:2 doesn´t reduce your power.
The reduced power mode would be when it is geared 1:1 to the CVT-unit in a overdrive mode.
>10-speed DCT
They are pretty expensive...

GMs 10 speed auto(10l90e high torque) is only about $1,400 to make.

Maybe it is not directly infinite, but the abount of possible gear ratios in a CVT is too high to be quantified precisely.

and muh shift fork

>only 1400$
I don´t have the exact price for the CVT equivalent, but the significantly lower amount of moving parts wich are even less complex suggests that its is cheaper to build.
The CVT is basicly 2 cones, 1 belt 1 dreailieur in a case.
The DCT is 20 gears, 2 input shafts, 2 output shafts, 2 cluches, 10 forks, a case and many small parts.
Also 1400$ is a shitload of money.

Also the DCT allows some more minor changes in the engine since it doesn´t need to have a flat torque curve anymore since it can stay in performance rpm or economy rpm all the time.
Basicly making it possible to optimise the engine more for one point and set max power closer to redline, run bigger turbochargers and switching between NA Atkinson cycle and forced induction Otto cycle to get either fuel economy or power when required.

meaningless steps

A engineer would go a decent amount of steps and be close enough for useable results in most systems.