Question for Bking, TNUK's resident Mechanic/Fitter

[carryfast]

Own Account Driver:

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.

Really.So now you’re saying that two people of equal weight will be balanced on a see saw regardless of their distance from the fulcrum point based on the equal energy they both spent lifting their weight climbing onto it.

If torque didn’t equal work there would be no need for the gear reduction between engine and wheels and increasing torque output of an engine wouldn’t increase HP at equivalent or even lower engine speed.

[freight_dog]

Carryfast:
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.

Not with me the discussion wasn’t. I think you’re confusing your conversation with Roymondo.

Below is the post where you tried to ■■■■ heads with me over something I was having a perfectly reasonable chat with someone else to do with that torque/RPM equation:-

Freightdog:
Not exactly true if you look at the maths. Torque is variable with rpm, it’s value is not independent of rpm (speed) at a fixed power (HP)

And your challenge:-

Carryfast:
Torque is independent of rpm.

See. Nowhere did I discuss with you this ramble you about torque=power. I was discussing the relationship between Torque and rpm based off a particular equation, quite civily with someone else when you piped up and stated Torque is independent of RPM.

Given the equation that was being referred to, your statement still is a bit odd as its right in front of you. Anyway

Not content with this boo boo, you trumped that one further by blurting out some incorrect sloppy maths in an attempt to patronise after I had questioned how you could make such a statement regarding Torque and RPM when looking at the equation. You kind of asked for it really.

Moving on.

Carryfast:
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.

Mm, no. I’m quite sure who is in a hole. If you’d said something like “part of the equation is the product of X and Y” then fair enough. But you didnt, you tried to patronise me and dismiss it, having waded in, so sorry. If you’re going to make vague mathematical wordy statements, at least make the whole thing correct.

If I were to dismiss a type rating examiner by saying " the MAC percentage is simply the the station times the moment, that’s a given" I can tell you, I’d be debriefed on an incorrect statement to make sure I knew the fundamental, as any discussion leading on from there relies on stating the whole thing. Maths equations aren’t concepts. They need the whole thing to be correct, especially when completing performance and engine thrust calcs.

If I further more attempted to squirrel my way out by dissmissing the examiner as being in hole and digging as I didnt mention the constant as its “only a correction” , well…good job, you’re not facing a German TRE any time soon. I think it quite possible you’d manage to single handedly restart the second world war. That or make a grown man cry.

[own_account_driver]

Carryfast:

Own Account Driver:

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.

Really.So now you’re saying that two people of equal weight will be balanced on a see saw regardless of their distance from the fulcrum point based on the equal energy they both spent lifting their weight climbing onto it.

If torque didn’t equal work there would be no need for the gear reduction between engine and wheels and increasing torque output of an engine wouldn’t increase HP at equivalent or even lower engine speed.

So no news on an actual reputable link agreeing that torque = work?

[carryfast]

Own Account Driver:

Carryfast:
If torque didn’t equal work there would be no need for the gear reduction between engine and wheels and increasing torque output of an engine wouldn’t increase HP at equivalent or even lower engine speed.

So no news on an actual reputable link agreeing that torque = work?

The above is as ‘reputable’ unarguable fact as it gets.

IE 1 horsepower = 0.74 KW ‘energy’.You can double the horsepower by just doubling the torque at the equivalent ( without increasing ) engine speed.Is that fact reputable enough in showing that torque = work.

[cav551]

Try this.

physicsclassroom.com/class/1 … nd-Vectors

Work is a scalar quantity, Torque is a vector quantity.

[carryfast]

Freight Dog:

Carryfast:
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.

Not with me the discussion wasn’t. I think you’re confusing your conversation with Roymondo.

Below is the post where you tried to ■■■■ heads with me over something I was having a perfectly reasonable chat with someone else to do with that torque/RPM equation:-

Freightdog:
Not exactly true if you look at the maths. Torque is variable with rpm, it’s value is not independent of rpm (speed) at a fixed power (HP)

And your challenge:-

Carryfast:
Torque is independent of rpm.

See. Nowhere did I discuss with you this ramble you about torque=power. I was discussing the relationship between Torque and rpm based off a particular equation, quite civily with someone else when you piped up and stated Torque is independent of RPM.

Given the equation that was being referred to, your statement still is a bit odd as its right in front of you

The way I read your statement was that the only ‘given’ /‘fixed’ number you were referring to was HP ?.IE ‘the torque figure isn’t independent of RPM at a ‘fixed’ ( given ) ( known ) HP’ ?.If that isn’t what you were saying then maybe you could make what you actually meant a bit clearer.

Having said that you definitely seem to be saying that HP isn’t a direct translation of the equation torque x engine speed with just a corrective constant ‘then’ applied to ‘just’ the ‘sum’ of ‘that’ equation.Seemingly based on some obscure German logic.

[own_account_driver]

Carryfast:

Own Account Driver:

Carryfast:
If torque didn’t equal work there would be no need for the gear reduction between engine and wheels and increasing torque output of an engine wouldn’t increase HP at equivalent or even lower engine speed.

So no news on an actual reputable link agreeing that torque = work?

The above is as ‘reputable’ unarguable fact as it gets.

IE 1 horsepower = 0.74 KW ‘energy’.You can double the horsepower by just doubling the torque at the equivalent ( without increasing ) engine speed.Is that fact reputable enough in showing that torque = work.

No, it shows nothing of the sort, it implies power is a function of torque.

[carryfast]

cav551:
Try this.

physicsclassroom.com/class/1 … nd-Vectors

Work is a scalar quantity, Torque is a vector quantity.

If Joule and KW are both interchangeable measures of ‘work’ ? and 1 HP = .74 KW and HP is the sum of torque x engine speed in which just doubling the torque output will double the HP at the equivalent engine speed,let alone the need to trade engine speed for torque using gear reduction to actually move the wagon, then logically that makes torque a measure of ‘work’ and the physics teachers are talking bollox.Nothing new there.

[carryfast]

Own Account Driver:

Carryfast:
IE 1 horsepower = 0.74 KW ‘energy’.You can double the horsepower by just doubling the torque at the equivalent ( without increasing ) engine speed.Is that fact reputable enough in showing that torque = work.

No, it shows nothing of the sort, it implies power is a function of torque.

It actually implies that ‘power’ ‘is’ torque multiplied by speed in which just adding to the torque side of the equation will increase the power.

[own_account_driver]

Carryfast:

cav551:
Try this.

physicsclassroom.com/class/1 … nd-Vectors

Work is a scalar quantity, Torque is a vector quantity.

If Joule and KW are both interchangeable measures of ‘work’ ? and 1 HP = .74 KW and HP is the sum of torque x engine speed in which just doubling the torque output will double the HP at the equivalent engine speed,let alone the need to trade engine speed for torque using gear reduction to actually move the wagon, then logically that makes torque a measure of ‘work’ and the physics teachers are talking bollox.Nothing new there.

Just give up because the nonsense is getting worse.

[freight_dog]

Carryfast:

Freight Dog:

Carryfast:
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.

Not with me the discussion wasn’t. I think you’re confusing your conversation with Roymondo.

Below is the post where you tried to ■■■■ heads with me over something I was having a perfectly reasonable chat with someone else to do with that torque/RPM equation:-

Freightdog:
Not exactly true if you look at the maths. Torque is variable with rpm, it’s value is not independent of rpm (speed) at a fixed power (HP)

And your challenge:-

Carryfast:
Torque is independent of rpm.

See. Nowhere did I discuss with you this ramble you about torque=power. I was discussing the relationship between Torque and rpm based off a particular equation, quite civily with someone else when you piped up and stated Torque is independent of RPM.

Given the equation that was being referred to, your statement still is a bit odd as its right in front of you

The way I read your statement was that the only ‘given’ /‘fixed’ number you were referring to was HP ?.IE ‘the torque figure isn’t independent of RPM at a ‘fixed’ ( given ) ( known ) HP’ ?.If that isn’t what you were saying then maybe you could make what you actually meant a bit clearer.

Having said that you definitely seem to be saying that HP isn’t a direct translation of the equation torque x engine speed with just a corrective constant ‘then’ applied to ‘just’ the ‘sum’ of ‘that’ equation.Seemingly based on some obscure German logic.

Que?? No, it was very clear. I was discussing this with someone:-

Torque= (HP X 5252) RPM

You stated torque is independent of RPM. Incorrect. I challenged you.

To make it easier, to emphasise the affect, I did indeed mention a fixed HP. This statement is True of course. It is also true that with a variable HP the statement is true. But!! There is a potential minefield of an area I knew you’d not comprehend and turn to try and suit your statement, however incorrect. It is this:-

If you look at the above equation and plug in some values, there will be instances where the same value of torque occurs with different values of rpm…wait for it, providing you adjust the HP.

It could be misconstrued on that basis that RPM has no affect on torque- not true. The mechanics of the equation are a conditional relationship. A variable RPM only HAS no affect on torque provided you constantly adjust the value of HP to the exact figure. Any more or less and the affect will be to alter torque. Therefore neither HP or RPM can be said to be truly independent from torque in the equation.

It was to avoid this rabbit warren of a discussion with you (for good reason) that I cited a fixed RPM. To make it even clearer, Torque as a value cannot be said to be independent of RPM in a conditional product equation such as this no matter whether it’s a Sunday or a Tuesday.

Dancing round saying “Oh I thought you meant bla bla bla” does not make what you said a single bit less incorrect. What you said about that equation will always be - incorrect. Im at a loss.

There is no obscure logic, only your obscure interpretation. It’s like you’re having a different conversation in an attempt to muddy the waters, some kind of smoke screen. In fact I’m so confident if we go back to what you said about the equation I reckon we should throw this out to a straw poll.

Did anyone else get what Carryfast is saying from what I said?

[carryfast]

Freight Dog:
Que?? No, it was very clear. I was discussing this with someone:-

Torque= (HP X 5252) RPM

You stated torque is independent of RPM. Incorrect. I challenged you.

To make it easier, to emphasise the affect, I did indeed mention a fixed HP.

The only figure you’ve stated as being a ‘given’ ‘fixed’ was HP.IE we don’t know what the RPM is because you’ve only set a HP as a given.In which case we’ll ‘also’ need rpm as a ‘fixed’ given.As I said if HP is the only ‘fixed’ given then the torque and rpm side of the equation could be anything.While ‘if’ you’d have said HP ‘and’ RPM are ‘both’ a ‘fixed’ given then we wouldn’t be arguing at least on ‘that’ issue.

Although that still leaves the question of you seeming to be saying that power isn’t just torque x engine speed with the ‘sum’ of ‘that’ equation ‘then’ subject to the usual 5252 correction.

[freight_dog]

Carryfast:

Freight Dog:
Que?? No, it was very clear. I was discussing this with someone:-

Torque= (HP X 5252) RPM

You stated torque is independent of RPM. Incorrect. I challenged you.

To make it easier, to emphasise the affect, I did indeed mention a fixed HP.

The only figure you’ve stated as being a ‘given’ ‘fixed’ was HP.IE we don’t know what the RPM is because you’ve only set a HP as a given.In which case we’ll ‘also’ need rpm as a ‘fixed’ given.As I said if HP is the only ‘fixed’ given then the torque and rpm side of the equation could be anything.While ‘if’ you’d have said HP ‘and’ RPM are ‘both’ a ‘fixed’ given then we wouldn’t be arguing at least on ‘that’ issue.

Although that still leaves the question of you seeming to be saying that power isn’t just torque x engine speed with the ‘sum’ of ‘that’ equation ‘then’ subject to the usual 5252 correction.

You’re unbelievable. That’s exactly what I did say, not you. It was yourself who said the contrary.

You stated HP = torque x rpm

I stated , that’s rubbish, there’s a constant!!!

You then proceeded to try and argue the toss about how relevant constants are having been caught with your pants round your knees.

What you mean is I won’t bow to you and let you off the hook that you quoted an incomplete equation. Anyone else, maybe. But you seemed so convinced that constants/ multipliers hardly matter, and working with them - I can tell you they bloody well do. That’s why they’re there. So if you’re in the business of quoting things to argue the toss with. Get them right.

For the first bit, I’m not even reading it. Slippery eel waffle. I know what I said, I know I’m correct, I stand by it and and you were wrong. Sorry I won’t been drawn into conversations about things I didn’t say in your attempts to muddy the waters to hide your boo boos.

[carryfast]

Freight Dog:

Carryfast:

Freight Dog:
Que?? No, it was very clear. I was discussing this with someone:-

Torque= (HP X 5252) RPM

You stated torque is independent of RPM. Incorrect. I challenged you.

To make it easier, to emphasise the affect, I did indeed mention a fixed HP.

The only figure you’ve stated as being a ‘given’ ‘fixed’ was HP.IE we don’t know what the RPM is because you’ve only set a HP as a given.In which case we’ll ‘also’ need rpm as a ‘fixed’ given.As I said if HP is the only ‘fixed’ given then the torque and rpm side of the equation could be anything.While ‘if’ you’d have said HP ‘and’ RPM are ‘both’ a ‘fixed’ given then we wouldn’t be arguing at least on ‘that’ issue.

Although that still leaves the question of you seeming to be saying that power isn’t just torque x engine speed with the ‘sum’ of ‘that’ equation ‘then’ subject to the usual 5252 correction.

You’re unbelievable. That’s exactly what I did say, not you. It was yourself who said the contrary.

You stated HP = torque x rpm

I stated , that’s rubbish, there’s a constant!!!

You then proceeded to try and argue the toss about how relevant constants are having been caught with your pants round your knees.

What you mean is I won’t bow to you and let you off the hook that you quoted an incomplete equation. Anyone else, maybe. But you seemed so convinced that constants/ multipliers hardly matter, and working with them - I can tell you they bloody well do. That’s why they’re there. So if you’re in the business of quoting things to argue the toss with. Get them right.

For the first bit, I’m not even reading it. Slippery eel waffle. I know what I said, I know I’m correct, I stand by it and and you were wrong. Sorry I won’t been drawn into conversations about things I didn’t say in your attempts to muddy the waters to hide your boo boos.

Leave it out.For the purposes of my argument,concerning torque meaning work, the statement that power is torque x engine speed was good enough with the 5252 figure just being a given in that case at least to anyone who knows what HP is.

While it’s your statement that makes it clear that it’s you who was referring to the idea of reaching a torque figure from the incomplete equation of just a given ‘fixed’ HP figure.When it’s obvious that we needed the engine speed side of that equation in addition to HP to be ‘fixed’ to do what you were trying to describe in establishing a torque value.

[bluey_circles]

Is 30 to 35:1 about right for entire drive train reductions (gearboxes and diff) when in crawler gear ? i.e. 4mph at 1200 rpm
(it is sort of torque hub reduction related question) and anyone got any rule-of-thumb drive-train loss percentages for trucks (cars with rear diffs are usually around the 15% mark)

[cav551]

Eureka he’s right!

1 In the beginning Carryfast created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Carryfast moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And Carryfast said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And Carryfast saw the light, that it was good: and Carryfast divided the light from the darkness.

5 And Carryfast called the light Night, and the darkness he called Day.

[carryfast]

cav551:
Eureka he’s right!

1 In the beginning Carryfast created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Carryfast moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And Carryfast said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And Carryfast saw the light, that it was good: and Carryfast divided the light from the darkness.

5 And Carryfast called the light Night, and the darkness he called Day.

Blimey it’s bit of an exaggeration to connect a discussion concerning power and torque figures to creation as written in the Bible.

Especially when it all started because Bking thinks that hub reduction means getting more power at the wheels than produced by the engine. As opposed to trading useless engine speed for useful torque ( work ) at the wheels without busting the half shafts or diff doing it.

[raymundo]

cav551:
Eureka he’s right!

1 In the beginning Carryfast created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Carryfast moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And Carryfast said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And Carryfast saw the light, that it was good: and Carryfast divided the light from the darkness.

5 And Carryfast called the light Night, and the darkness he called Day.

And Carryfast said 'Eh by gum, now we can see for ■■■■■■ miles

[newmercman]

Bluey Circles:
Is 30 to 35:1 about right for entire drive train reductions (gearboxes and diff) when in crawler gear ? i.e. 4mph at 1200 rpm
(it is sort of torque hub reduction related question) and anyone got any rule-of-thumb drive-train loss percentages for trucks (cars with rear diffs are usually around the 15% mark)

It’s around the same, between flywheel and the road the losses are 15% or thereabouts, a double drive adds another 5%, so 10% comes from the gearbox alone, hub reduction is a little worse, but I’ve never seen any results from a hub reduction equipped lorry, so can’t say for sure.

[windrush]

Even with hub reduction those Albion back axles used by BL still snapped halfshafts regularly. I don’t recall the Foden’s doing it though.

Pete.