[DMCForum] No salt. No pepper. No facts, either, apparently.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DMCForum] No salt. No pepper. No facts, either, apparently.



Bill and list:

First I tried levity. Then I tried fact-finding. Nobody cared about
levity, and nobody's been any help on the fact-finding.

Bill, I'm not even going to attempt to respond to what you wrote below,
because you're proceeding from suppositions which are false, and
obviously were highly emotional when you wrote it. Calm down. I'll buy
you a beer in Fort Myers if you do.

I should say two things to quiet these suppositions of yours, though,
and everybody else should know these as well:

1. I didn't make anything up; none of the math is mine. I gleaned
information from the Internet and a textbook. Then I presented it to the
brains on the DMCForum so that you guys could make some sense out of it.
Unfortunately, emotion and ego got in the way of any helpful digestion
of information.

2. I have no point to prove. I didn't jump online saying "Well, I'm
gonna teach this guy a lesson," because I can't. I never made it past
beginning Calculus in high school and my only physics course was in the
ninth grade and I only had one semester of it. I'm just trying to figure
out what's going on here. I'm curious, and trying to learn more about
this stuff, and the more I research, the more confusing it becomes. So I
presented the information to the DMCForum, hoping that it would be less
confusing to more highly-trained minds. Unfortunately, emotion and ego
got in the way of any helpful digestion of information. Again.

So, for all who have information to share, here's what I'm trying to do:

1. Find out what torque is.
2. Find out what horsepower is.
3. Find out what they mean as far as towing things with my truck.

Leave your emotions and rampant egotism out of this. I'm just looking
for facts and figures. I started following this argument because it
related to towing capacity. I am not going to comb through hundreds of
messages over months saying "I was right FIRST!" because I don't care
who was right when. I'm just trying to get some factual information,
which is REALLY hard to find. The Internet is full of opinions, but
opinions are like assholes - everybody has one, and they all stink.

Unfortunately, thanks to rampant over-emotionalism and egotism, when I
try to bring some math into the argument so I can try to look at it from
a different perspective, people start puling and puking and saying "I'm
right," which is no help to me at all. I don't care who was right first.
I just want to know what the hell is going on.

Another problem is that people don't say what they mean. "Time" means
"time" in one message and "rotations per minute" in another message.
Then "torque" means "torque" in one message and "power" in another
message. Basic math I found on the Internet is contradicted without
proof on the DMCForum. If I can find out WHY, it would be a lot easier
for me to learn this stuff. But I can't because there's no consistent
terminology.

Even with an I.Q. of 172, I don't know what people are thinking -- only
what they're saying. If somebody says one thing to me and I take it and
see what I can do with it, and then they come back and look at it and
say "No, that's not what I meant", then it's useless.

I guess the only good thing to come out of this is that now I know what
it's like to have a wife. "That's what I SAID! But it's not what I
MEANT!" Good grief.

Bill, stop taking everything so personally. No one should be so upset
over an Internet forum that he wants to puke.

As for me, I've decided there's no facts to be found in an electronic
medium. I'm going to have to take a couple of physics and chemistry
courses and possibly review some calculus to try to come to my own
understanding. Obviously there's no help here.

Farrar





content22207 wrote:
> OK Farrar, let's use your "Work = Force x Distance" standard:
>
> Watt may have never used the word "torque" in his journals,
> substituting instead the word "force", but if you look up the
> definition of "torque" in Barnhart's dictionery (better than
> Webster's) it reads: "1) *FORCE* causing rotation 2) the moment of a
> system of *FORCES* causing rotation". (Emphasis is mine because THEY
> MEAN THE SAME THING!).
>
> Even your Webster's definition uses the word "force".
>
> "Distance" is of course circular rotation, not a linear direction,
> which is what crankshafts do.
>
> Do you want salt or pepper with that eMail...
>
> Your argument that torque doesn't exist because Watt never used the
> word is like saying this whole issue hasn't become ultimately "outre'"
> because no one on the Forum has ever used that word (it means
> "ridiculous"). Torque exists even if Watt merely gestured and made
> unintelligible noises.
>
> BTW: approximately 1/3 into your post you state:
>
>
>>Says one scientist, power = torque * rpm. This is closer to what
>>Martin said when he said "Power is a product of torque and speed."
>
>
> Not to be technical, but way back in Message #10025 I reiterated the
> classic calculation of HP = Torque x RPM / 5252. Don't worry about
> acknowledgement -- I've come to NOT expect it. I do hasten to point
> out that nowhere in your scientist's formula is Martin's bizarre
> "speed" comment to be found, yet *MY* RPM's are there in glaring black
> & white. Don't worry about acknowledgement -- I've come to NOT expect it.
>
> Forget the shaking head emoticon, I need a vomiting one.
>
> Bill Robertson
> #5939



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