Re: [DMCForum] ATTN: Jim Strickland -- "300 HP" Does *NOT* Mean "300 Hor
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DMCForum] ATTN: Jim Strickland -- "300 HP" Does *NOT* Mean "300 Horses Coupled Together"
- From: Jim Strickland <ihaveanaccount@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:51:27 -0500
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:59:40 -0000 "content22207"
<brobertson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> You've got the equation a bit backwards: HP = Torque x RPM /5252. I'm
> not making "$hit" up -- that's how HP is calculated.
and what? Horsepower is nothing more than torque measured at a specific
RPM. Does that make you happier?
> I think the problem is: you continue to labor under the mistaken
> notion that HP somehow equates to a mythical number of horses
> coupled
> together. Makes sense, I know, but that concept is totally wrong.
> Think about it -- merely counting the number of horses coupled
> together would tell you NOTHING about what kind of horses they are.
> 300 Clydesdales coupled together would be able to pull a lot more than
> 300 circus ponies coupled together, but in your vision both are "300
> horsepower".
So you're saying that your american muscle has clydesdales power and
japanese engines are pony power? Can ponies run faster once they get
going?
horsepower is a static measurement, I don't see why you think it changes.
The assumption is an average horse, I'm sure ponies, over time, sustain
much less than 1 HP. FWIW, I've seen horse pulls, where a horse can
generate about 35 horsepower over very short intervals.
> HP is basically a measure of TIME, expressed not in the rotation of
> hands on a clock, but in rotations of an engine crankshaft. A high
I'll respond to this comment in about 15 horsepowers.
> HP
> engine is doing one of two things:
> -Spinning slowly with a lot of torque in each revolution
> -Spinning rapidly with very little torque in each revolution
WRONG. 1000HP at 20,000RPM is still more torque than 170HP at 3600RPM
> The reason high torque engines are used to pull heavy loads is not a
> simple matter of convenience. It's because a low torque engine
> simply
> couldn't do it. At least not without Martin's mythical transmission
> (which would render the vehicle totally impractical, I hasten to
> point
> out). We're talking about real world applications, in which I have
> *NEVER* seen a vehicle with a low torque engine pull anything bigger
> than a little 2 wheel trailer with personal watercraft, but I *HAVE*
> seen vehicles with low torque engines struggle to reach the top of a
> long steep grade with NOTHING coupled to their rear.
Martin is correct that gearing multiplies torque.
> BTW: Andrei himself quoted 350 HP for his Porsche in Message #10020.
> If you don't like that number, complain to him, not to me.
He never said this, you're lapsing again. He said "A porsche".
Apparently his porsche in the future.
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Yahoo! Groups Links
Back to the Home of PROJECT VIXEN