Buckstones:
Carryfast:
cav551:
Carryfast:
… we can increase power while reducing engine speed and is more or less the basis of truck engine design since the invention of the turbo diesel.
That’s a new one, an ic engine which increases horsepower as the revolutions fall. Granted that horsepower may drop away from the peak after the revolutions reach a certain high level, but that’s not the same thing.
I wasn’t talking about torque drop at peak power of the equivalent engine. 
I was talking about the difference in power output of an N14 v the old naturally aspirated 14 litre versions for example at equivalent engine speed let’s say 1,200-1,800 rpm.So we’ve got the same engine speed or less how do you account for the difference in HP figures. 
Because from about 1972 (when ■■■■■■■ bought Holset Engineering) a great deal of development work was carried out resulting in very efficient turbocharging, increasing BMEP and fuel efficiency. In much the same way that Volvo, Scania and all the other engine makers have advanced from naturally aspirated units, as have car manufacturers, who are now applying the process to petrol units.
IC engine power is mainly proportional to how much air you can cram into it, isn’t it?
So we ram loads of extra air ( boost ) into it.Resulting in a massive increase in power with no increase,actually a decrease,in engine speed.So knowing how power is calculated what figure changed to account for the increase ?.Here’s a clue BMEP corresponds with specific what ?.
cav551:
The answer is 190
Not according to Freight Dog because he seems to be saying that the HP figure changes if you transpose the torque v engine speed figures.IE I think he forgot the definition of ‘constant’. 
Carryfast:
Own Account Driver:
Sorry, you are going wrong here. With your gate example you are neglecting gravity which is doing the work or essentially releasing work already done.
The work was lifting and bolting the gate on and then someone climbing on it (against the force of gravity) it would be a classic example if potential and kinetic energy. Torque is simply the measure of the magnitude of a turning/twisting force it isn’t energy.
I think you’ve missed the point that we’re talking about the force of gravity as it applies to a 14 stone bloke x 14 foot lever of the gate.As I said the same bloke sitting on the same 14 foot lever attached to the wheel hub of a car then release the handrake.There’s you’re energy unless you’re saying the car is going nowhere.
It’s going nowhere if the lever is vertical
Straight from the torque wiki
The SI unit for energy or work is the joule. It is dimensionally equivalent to a force of one newton acting over a distance of one metre, but it is not used for torque. Energy and torque are entirely different concepts
The distance of one metre is not a movement distance it is the distance from the pivot/fulcrum. For work to be done there must be force and movement, in this case, rotational distance.
If I was going to torque up some wheel nuts the torque is what I set the torque wrench to. There is no work or power output until I put that wrench on a wheel nut and pull. The distance for the work calculation is the rotational distance I have pulled the wrench through.
Own Account Driver:
Carryfast:
I think you’ve missed the point that we’re talking about the force of gravity as it applies to a 14 stone bloke x 14 foot lever of the gate.As I said the same bloke sitting on the same 14 foot lever attached to the wheel hub of a car then release the handrake.There’s you’re energy unless you’re saying the car is going nowhere.
It’s going nowhere if the lever is vertical
Straight from the torque wiki
The SI unit for energy or work is the joule. It is dimensionally equivalent to a force of one newton acting over a distance of one metre, but it is not used for torque. Energy and torque are entirely different concepts
The distance of one metre is not a movement distance it is the distance from the pivot/fulcrum. For work to be done there must be force and movement, in this case, rotational distance.
If I was going to torque up some wheel nuts the torque is what I set the torque wrench to. There is no work or power output until I put that wrench on a wheel nut and pull. The distance for the work calculation is the rotational distance I have pulled the wrench through.
The point being that we know the engine and vehicle are moving as a given.Just as you’ll see how much energy was contained in that ( horizontal 
) 14 foot bar with the heavy assistant sitting on it when the car hits the garage wall when the handbrake is released.Or the fact that the remaining hinge won’t hold the force x distance equation of that farm gate with someone sitting on the end of it when the top or bottom hinge bolts are removed.
As for the wheel nuts again the ‘distance’ ‘movement’ side of the equation is a given which can be calculated from the torque figure ( don’t ask me how ) which is the principle of angle torque gauges.
I’m sorry, this still isn’t right. You don’t seem to understand mathematical equations properly. Energy/power are a function of force/torque. What you are saying is essentially like saying time has more power in it. The potential energy of the heavy assistant on the gate regardless of the length of the gate or where they sit is the same.
Torque angle gauges are just a protractor stuck on a torque wrench to turn things like head stretch bolts through a specific angle for the final tightening down.
Own Account Driver:
I’m sorry, this still isn’t right. You don’t seem to understand mathematical equations properly. Energy/power are a function of force/torque. What you are saying is essentially like saying time has more power in it. The potential energy of the heavy assistant on the gate regardless of the length of the gate or where they sit is the same.
It’s obviously not me who doesn’t understand either the law of leverage ( force x distance.
Or the fact that ‘what I’m saying’ is that torque = work and ‘power’= torque x speed.While you can increase power by just increasing the torque side of the torque x speed equation.
Or you can trade speed for more torque in the form of gear reduction,without which that 730 hp wagon is going no where.
IE both proof that torque = work.
While yes we know the engine is doing absolutely nothing while it it isn’t running and the farm gate is going nowhere unless either the top or bottom hinge bolts are removed in which case you’d find it a lot easier to tie the loose corner to the post with a bit of rope with that heavy person sitting near the post than at the other end.Just like that car with the 14 foot bar attached to its wheel hub and heavy person sitting on the end of it is going no where unless someone releases the hand brake and it will hit garage wall with less force if that person was only sitting much nearer to the wheel.
Torque is cheap [emoji1] [emoji1] [emoji1]
cav551:
Someone ask professor Stephen Hawking to rule on this PLEASE.
I just did and although he crashed at one point whilst reading one of carryfasts replies and had to be turned off and back on again he did surmise that although carryfast has done his best to move goalposts and change the rules of both applied and theoretical physics in essence roymondo owns his ■■■.
Must dash as Stephen and I are discussing the correlation between string theory and coitus.
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
The fact that HP is just torque multiplied by engine speed is a given and agreed.
The issue in this case being that torque is the ‘work’ side of that equation.‘More torque’ = ‘more work’ = more ‘power’ at the ‘equivalent’ or even less engine ‘speed’.
HP is not torque multiplied by engine speed. It is fixed with a constant (5252) that becomes important when you transpose the formula.
So you’re saying that 1000 lb/ft x 1,000 rpm won’t produce exactly the same HP figure as 100 lb/ft x 10,000 rpm ?.
I am saying nothing of the sort and you appear to be talking a different conversation.
You are doing what you always attempt to do. You mess up and try to side step to avoid and then mis quote people.
Why are you talking Hp is the subject all of a sudden, when I corrected your statement that Torque is independant of rpm?
Again, you asserted Torque is independant of RPM - it is not.
Your response that Hp is torque multiplied by speed is INCORRECT. It is factored by a constant. However superior you try to sound your assertion that
“HP is just torque multiplied by speed is a given” is simply wrong and not a given. If it were, there would be no constant.
I never stated that transposing will not affect or affect values of HP.
Carryfast:
cav551:
The answer is 190
Not according to Freight Dog because he seems to be saying that the HP figure changes if you transpose the torque v engine speed figures.IE I think he forgot the definition of ‘constant’.
Oh I don’t even know where to begin with this one . I DID NOT SAY THIS! I said the constant is important when transposed. Which it is.
It is a MASSIVE leap, complete supposition on your part and idiotic interpretation to say the least to construe what you have said - that I stated the values change, when transposed. Where the bloody hell did I say that?
You go off having your own private conversation based on misconstruing sentences. You can’t escape by sidestepping a challenge by suddenly switching to talking about someone else like HP either.
Let’s get back to what I mentioned. I was stating and still state you are wrong:-
Torque is NOT independant of rpm in that equation.
Your alloof assertion that “HP is torque multiplied by engine speed is a given” is simply mathematically wrong, all day, everyday. It is not a given. That is complete rubbish. If it were, there would be no constant on one side of the equation. It is you that has forgotten constants.
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
cav551:
The answer is 190
Not according to Freight Dog because he seems to be saying that the HP figure changes if you transpose the torque v engine speed figures.IE I think he forgot the definition of ‘constant’.
Oh I don’t even know where to begin with this one . I DID NOT SAY THIS! I said the constant is important when transposed. Which it is.
It is a MASSIVE leap, complete supposition on your part and idiotic interpretation to say the least to construe what you have said - that I stated the values change, when transposed. Where the bloody hell did I say that?
You go off having your own private conversation based on misconstruing sentences. You can’t escape by sidestepping a challenge by suddenly switching to talking about someone else like HP either.
Let’s get back to what I mentioned. I was stating and still state you are wrong:-
Torque is NOT independant of rpm in that equation.
Your alloof assertion that “HP is torque multiplied by engine speed is a given” is simply mathematically wrong, all day, everyday. It is not a given. That is complete rubbish. If it were, there would be no constant on one side of the equation. It is you that has forgotten constants.
You’re still saying that HP isn’t torque x engine speed.Yes we know the resulting figure is subject to a constant correction.But the basic premise is a fact because it is the torque x speed calculation that matters and will always denote the horsepower figure subject to that same ‘constant’ correction.Which is why as I said you seem to have forgot the definition of ‘constant’.
Torque,for the purposes of ‘this’ discussion ( IE is it work ),is independent of engine speed.Which is why as I said if you bolt a bleedin great turbocharger and intercooler to that 14 litre ■■■■■■■ you’ll get much more torque,at equivalent and even lower engine speed and as a result more power.IE torque is work.
On that note I’d suggest it’s you who’s running around trying to move the goal posts.Having made and obviously sticking to the ridiculous statement that power isn’t torque x engine speed and that the constant 5252 changes anything in regard to that premise.Let alone the idea that we can’t alter ( increase ) the torque output,at ‘any’ ‘given’ engine speed,by forcing loads more air into the cylinders in addition to increasing the length of the stroke thereby increasing leverage at the crank and thereby increasing power output,having changed nothing except the torque side of the power equation.
the nodding donkey:
Don’t feed the troll.
What’s scary is he’s not trolling
Where’s Bking?
Someone PM him to let him know there’s a challenger for his job of forum idiot.
Carryfast:
.Having made and obviously sticking to the ridiculous statement that power isn’t torque x engine speed and that the constant 5252 changes anything in regard to that premise.:
You really are determind to try and highbrow your way out of this without using maths arent you? I gather I’m going to have to hand hold you through this one:-
A = B X C
IS NOT THE SAME AS
A = (BC)D
in fact
A/D = B X C
If the constant existed on both sides;-
AD= (BC)D
Then Ouila!!! You’d be correct! As guess what, the D can be ignored as its both sides. But guess what, it isn’t.
I have never moved from my original position. Let’s get back to brass tacks about what you said. Your assertion that “HP is simply torque times engine speed” is and always will be a mathematically incorrect statement, with that equation. Lets replace the terms in what you said with values.
Perhaps “60 is simply 3 times 4, is a given”.
Er no it’s not! It needs a factor in there, the constant, the number 5. It’s rather important. A least get the basics down when making your point. Despite your assertions about my poor grasp of constants I do feel it necessary to confirm I work with maths daily and indeed constants and whilst making no claims to be anything than half reasonable with maths, I’m quite sure if had a poor grasp of constants, I’d probably have shook off my mortal coil long before.
Anyway. The real meat and spuds. All this started because I pointed out you’re incorrect that torque Is independent from RPM in that particular equation.
Waffle all you like but show me some transposition of that basic formula that removes the relationship between RPM and torque from that equation.
Finally! Seven pages in and now it starts to get interesting 
. I freely admit to most of this going right over my bonce, but I do like a good debate. So far my money is on the guy to whom this sort of stuff literally could mean the difference between living and dying, as opposed to the guy who peers out of his chintz curtains now and again.
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
.Having made and obviously sticking to the ridiculous statement that power isn’t torque x engine speed and that the constant 5252 changes anything in regard to that premise.:
You really are determind to try and highbrow your way out of this without using maths arent you? I gather I’m going to have to hand hold you through this one:-
A = B X C
IS NOT THE SAME AS
A = (BC)D
in fact
A/D = B X C
This school boy. If the constant existed on both sides;-
AD= (BC)D
Then Ouila!!! You’d be correct! As guess what, the D can be ignored as its both sides. But guess what, it isn’t.
I have never moved from my original position. Let’s get back to brass tacks about what you said. Your assertion that “HP is simply torque times engine speed” is and always will be a mathematically incorrect statement, with that equation. Lets replace the terms in what you said with values.
Perhaps “60 is simply 3 times 4, is a given”.
Er no it’s not! It needs a factor in there, the constant, the number 5. It’s rather important. A least get the basics down when making your point.
All this started because I pointed out you’re incorrect that torque Is independent from RPM in that particular equation. Waffle all you like but show me some transposition if that basic child’s formula that removes the relationship between RPM and torque from that equation.
Firstly as I said the discussion is whether torque = work.In which case it’s anyone’s guess as to what difference your ideas make to that.
As for arguing with the premise/fact that power = torque x engine speed which is just ‘corrected’ by the ‘constant’ 5252 I’d suggest that you’re in a hole stop digging.
The same applies to the ‘fact’ that torque is work and is independent of engine speed.Which is why that turbocharged intercooled ■■■■■■■ motor puts out a lot more horsepower,at equivalent and less engine speed,than its naturally aspirated predecessors.However feel free to provide any mathematical equation,which shows that engine HP isn’t based on the premise of torque x engine speed the correction constant 5252 ‘only’ being applied ‘after’/‘to’ the ‘sum’ of ‘that’ equation having been arrived at ‘first’.
For work to occur there must be movement. In your gate example the movement occurs in the distance the gate drops to the floor. The distance to the hinge, required for the torque calculation, remains unchanged.
Own Account Driver:
For work to occur there must be movement. In your gate example the movement occurs in the distance the gate drops to the floor. The distance to the hinge, required for the torque calculation, remains unchanged.
As I said movement is a given when the top or bottom hing bolts are removed.While your idea seems to forget all the laws of leverage.Let’s just say that the loose corner of the gate when the hinge bolts are removed will need a lot more to hold it with someone sitting on the opposite end of the gate as opposed them sitting next to the post.
Carryfast:
Own Account Driver:
For work to occur there must be movement. In your gate example the movement occurs in the distance the gate drops to the floor. The distance to the hinge, required for the torque calculation, remains unchanged.
As I said movement is a given when the top or bottom hing bolts are removed.While your idea seems to forget all the laws of leverage.Let’s just say that the loose corner of the gate when the hinge bolts are removed will need a lot more to hold it with someone sitting on the opposite end of the gate as opposed them sitting next to the post.
You’re abusing the laws of thermodynamics now. The potential energy and the work done to climb the gate is the same regardless how close or far away the person is to the hinge.
Find me one reliable link that says torque and work are the same.