I don't really think that's the question Mr Cahill, sorry.
Let's try it this way. Given a ratio of 3:1 why is it that a 27t contrate and 9t pinion is a preferable way of achieving it to another match, say 30t contrate and a 10t pinion. Both give the same effective gearing ratio. In fact, given that the pairings achieve the same ratio will there be any observable or measurable difference, assuming that both pairings are matched in pitch.
Now, an answer on a really simple first principle (logic based?) says that the motor will have to work harder to turn the larger pairing than the smaller, and therefore more work will be wasted in noise or heat rather than propulsion.
So, then what if the same ratio is used with smaller numbers of teeth (but still matched in pitch) and use a hypothetical 21t contrate matched with a 7t pinion? Repeat, hypothetical exercise. Should there not be less work required to force the rotation of the smaller gears and be less output wasted?
Is there an engineer in the house?
Embs
Let's try it this way. Given a ratio of 3:1 why is it that a 27t contrate and 9t pinion is a preferable way of achieving it to another match, say 30t contrate and a 10t pinion. Both give the same effective gearing ratio. In fact, given that the pairings achieve the same ratio will there be any observable or measurable difference, assuming that both pairings are matched in pitch.
Now, an answer on a really simple first principle (logic based?) says that the motor will have to work harder to turn the larger pairing than the smaller, and therefore more work will be wasted in noise or heat rather than propulsion.
So, then what if the same ratio is used with smaller numbers of teeth (but still matched in pitch) and use a hypothetical 21t contrate matched with a 7t pinion? Repeat, hypothetical exercise. Should there not be less work required to force the rotation of the smaller gears and be less output wasted?
Is there an engineer in the house?
Embs
