Read this then fight it out amongst yourself you two bookworms 
Carryfast:
m_attt:
Did this at uni cant remeber exactly now, but work an torque are different even though mesured in same unit. Google it or read a physics book.How do you explain an increase in power output of an engine by just increasing it’s torque output without increasing and possibly even decreasing its engine speed in that case ?.
Torque is rotaional force around an axle. Increased torque is more force applied regardless of speed
m_attt:
Carryfast:
m_attt:
Did this at uni cant remeber exactly now, but work an torque are different even though mesured in same unit. Google it or read a physics book.How do you explain an increase in power output of an engine by just increasing it’s torque output without increasing and possibly even decreasing its engine speed in that case ?.
Torque is rotaional force around an axle. Increased torque is more force applied regardless of speed
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)
Carryfast:
You’re saying torque supposedly isn’t ‘work’ but now you’re saying that just increasing the torque output of an engine will make it produce more ‘work’ by shifting a heavier load or shifting it faster.Make your mind up.Did you go to the same uni as Bking.
I didn’t say it would produce more work, I said it would produce more power. Since you appear unable to grasp the difference between force and work, I doubt you’ll understand this point either.
Someone ask professor Stephen Hawking to rule on this PLEASE.
m_attt:
Carryfast:
m_attt:
Did this at uni cant remeber exactly now, but work an torque are different even though mesured in same unit. Google it or read a physics book.How do you explain an increase in power output of an engine by just increasing it’s torque output without increasing and possibly even decreasing its engine speed in that case ?.
Torque is rotaional force around an axle. Increased torque is more force applied regardless of speed
That’s the point.More torque = more force = more work.That’s why turbocharging an engine produces more power at the same or less engine speed just by increasing torque.
Freight Dog:
m_attt:
Torque is rotaional force around an axle. Increased torque is more force applied regardless of speedNot 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)
Torque is independent of rpm.Which is how 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.
Roymondo:
Carryfast:
You’re saying torque supposedly isn’t ‘work’ but now you’re saying that just increasing the torque output of an engine will make it produce more ‘work’ by shifting a heavier load or shifting it faster.Make your mind up.Did you go to the same uni as Bking.I didn’t say it would produce more work, I said it would produce more power. Since you appear unable to grasp the difference between force and work, I doubt you’ll understand this point either.
You actually said it will shift a ‘heavier’ load or shift it ‘faster’.That’s because increasing torque increases work that’s because torque is work and power is torque ( work ) multiplied by speed.The two sides of the equation being interchangeable which means that more torque ( work ) and less speed can still mean more power and/or speed can be traded for torque by multiplying force x distance.
Which is why that 730 hp Scania still needs gearbox and final drive gear reduction to move the truck and without which it’s going no where.
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
m_attt:
Torque is rotaional force around an axle. Increased torque is more force applied regardless of speedNot 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)
Torque is independent of rpm.Which is how 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.
My statement was torque as a value is not independent of rpm in its relationship with HP (sic). Torque IS DEPENDANT on rpm with relationship to HP as my paragraph stated.
We were on the cusp of agreeing with each other then you overlooked what I have said. To give the maths to you (similar to James cat’s post)
HP= torque/rpm /5252
To transpose it;-
Torque= (HP X 5252) RPM
With a given value of HP, torque will always vary with RPM
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
m_attt:
Torque is rotaional force around an axle. Increased torque is more force applied regardless of speedNot 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)
Torque is independent of rpm.Which is how 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.
My statement was torque as a value is not independent of rpm in its relationship with HP (sic). Torque IS NOT independent of rpm in relationship with HP as my paragraph stated.
We were on the cusp of agreeing with each other then you overlooked what I have said. To give the maths to you (similar to James cat’s post)
HP= torque/rpm /5252
To transpose it;-
Torque= (HP X 5252) RPM
With a given value of HP, torque will always vary with RPM
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’.
Carryfast:
Roymondo:
Carryfast:
As I said the only reason why torque won’t translate as work is because there’s an equivalent if not more braking force being applied to stop it.While if torque isn’t work feel free to explain the requirement for all that gear reduction on that truck motor and what it actually does.Assuming the answer isn’t turning useless ‘movement’ in the form of power into useful ‘work’ in the form of more torque.Also bearing in mind that as in the case of power the two sides of the torque x speed equation are interchangeable.The force x distance moved ones are in the case of work.IE in this case we’ve traded distance travelled by the wheels for more force in the form of torque to create ‘work’.Which is why that 730 hp V8 Scania is going no where without loads of gear reduction to multiply its puny torque output into an amount that will provide enough torque ( work ) to actually move the truck.No mate, you have said that “torque is work” and that “force means work”. Now you are saying that “torque won’t translate as work”, all the time referring to brakes (which convert kinetic energy into heat) while actually talking about a rigidly fixed gate hinge (which does no such thing when a load is applied by a bloke sitting on the other end of the gate). You either have no real idea of what you are talking about, or are very poor indeed at putting it into words.
You’re saying a bloke sitting on the end of a 14 ft gate won’t translate as ‘work’ if the bolts are removed from the top or bottom hinges.The clamping force of the bolts holding the hinges to the post being the ‘brake’ in that case.
Or sitting on the end of the same 14 foot bar attached to the hub of a car wheel won’t translate as movement/work in moving the car if the hand brake is released.
Meanwhile if torque isn’t work then feel free to answer that question as to how just increasing torque output of an engine can increase power output with no increase or even a reduction in engine speed.
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.
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.
To drive back to what you said that you are attempting to pull away from
“Torque is independant of rpm”
Not in the context in which you stated, or in the context in which I replied with HP being in the equation. Show me the maths then we’ll talk
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.
Carryfast:
peterm:
Oh my gawd ! I don’t remember ever before seeing so much trouble caused by one poxy trollTo be fair it’s moved on now to whether torque means ‘work’.In which case if it doesn’t Bking is right because we won’t need all that gear reduction anyway because we’ve got enough power at the crankshaft.
Nah, you’ve missed my point. Kingy has started this, ahem, discussion by being either an ignorant t**t or genuinely not having a ckue. My money’s on the former and latter. 
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.
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 ?.
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. 
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.
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?
peterm:
Kingy has started this, ahem, discussion by genuinely not having a ckue.
To be fair he seems to have some good competition even among some who should be expected to know better regards how an engine ‘works’.
The answer is 190 not 1,000,000