[DMCForum] Re: Martin's Blinding Grasp of Science
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DMCForum] Re: Martin's Blinding Grasp of Science

Cut and pasted from Message #9307 for your easy reference:

"A lot of the time, I have no idea what you're going on about - eg the
first paragraph in your e-mail below. I take issue with sweeping
statements that are often just plain wrong. I quote them in my replies.
You then seem to attempt to blind me with science but contradict
yourself at the same time."

Methinks thou dost condemn thineself...

Re: "The correct statement is that HP is a product of torque and
speed" (below) -- surely you don't mean MPH, Mr. My Education Has
Taught Me To Be Precise. Could you mean "speed of the engine"? No,
that would agree with me (RPMs). Hmmm, wonder what speed Martin is
talking about...

It has ocurred to me that your recalcitrance could be a frightened
response to the overwhelming POWER of my various domestic power
plants. If so, I apologize. They were purchased for my own ease of
transport, not to intimidate citizens of the former empire from which
my own nation is now independent. Please rest your troubled nerves --
when we do meet in person next June, I plan to be driving a much less
powerful vehicle imported from territory that some people in your own
country claim as their own. It produces enough torque to carry itself,
myself, and very little luggage into the mountains of Tennessee, but
nowhere near as much as my other vehicles that apparently upset you
so. Those bad old cars are staying in North Carolina.

Driving uphill backwards -- must add that one to my list...

Bill Robertson

>--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Martin Gutkowski <webmaster@xxxx> wrote:
> content22207 wrote:
> >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.
> >
> Only if you measure torque in ft-lbs. The correct statement is that HP
> is a product of torque and speed. The fact that you also multiply by an
> arbitary constant makes no difference as it's unitless. Which brings me
> onto my next bit...
> >HP is basically a measure of TIME,
> >
> Utter utter utter bollocks. HP is a unit of power and is (from memory)
> equal to 768W. A watt is 1 joule of energy transferred in one second.
> Again from memory, it's the energy required (in a 100% efficient
> to lift a mass of 1kg to a height of 1m at sea level (gravity =
> 9.81m/s^2 meaning a force of 9.81Newtons is acting in the opposite
> direction). If you do it in 1 second, you've made your 1 watt. Lift it
> in half a second, and it'll take 2W of power to do it. You can do it
> over 2 seconds and the power required is half a watt. Get where I'm
> going with this? Power is directly proportional to speed and in this
> case, we're keeping the force Torque is rotational force, measured in
> terms of newton metres - ie 1Nm is the rotation induced by a metre long
> stick with a 1N weight on the end.
> I dont know what age you guys did this basic physics at school, but I
> did it at 14-16.
> >I *HAVE*
> >seen vehicles with low torque engines struggle to reach the top of a
> >long steep grade with NOTHING coupled to their rear.
> >
> OK, and what did your driving instructor tell you to do in dire
> circumstances like this? Turn around and do it in Reverse as it's the
> Martin
> > 
> >

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
click here

Yahoo! Groups Links

Home Back to the Home of PROJECT VIXEN

Copyright 2006 ProjectVixen.com.  All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in posts reflect the views of their respective authors.
DMCForum Mailing List Archive  DMCNews Mailing List Archive  DMC-UK Mailing List Archive