[DMCForum] ATTN: Jim Strickland -- "300 HP" Does *NOT* Mean "300 Horses
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DMCForum] ATTN: Jim Strickland -- "300 HP" Does *NOT* Mean "300 Horses Coupled Together"
- From: "content22207" <brobertson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:59:40 -0000
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.
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".
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 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
Go back and read the history of HP calculation, courtesy of Mr. Watt.
He *NEVER* envisioned a team of horses coupled together. His whole
theory is based on one horse going in a circle turning a big wooden
gear. Horsepower measures revolutions of that gear (made by one horse,
hence the name).
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.
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.
Bill Robertson
#5939
>--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jim Strickland <ihaveanaccount@xxxx>
wrote:
> and torque doesn't exist without horsepower, what's your point?
>
> > A low rev'ing high torque engine will out pull a high rev'ing low
> > torque engine every time. Absolutley 100% guarantee it.
>
> how sweeping as usual. What's low? what's high? what "pull"?
>
> The only reason that high torque engines are used vs low torque/high
> horsepower engines is because low RPM horsepower is more convenient than
> high RPM horsepower. There is no difference in the "power", just how
> fast the engine has to turn when it's available.
>
> Don't lecture about horsepower- it looks like you're making up $hit
> anyways.
>
> Horsepower was defined when someone realized that an average horse could
> pull about 330 pounds one hundred feet in one minute out of a coal mine
> shaft, not turning a wheel or whatever else BS you're spreading.
>
> Torque is nothing more than the measure of horsepower in relation to the
> RPM at which it was achieved.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 06:04:20 -0000 "content22207"
> <brobertson@xxxx> writes:
> > Torque, torque, torque.
> >
> > Horsepower doesn't even exist without torque (it is one half of the
> > equation).
> >
> > A low rev'ing high torque engine will out pull a high rev'ing low
> > torque engine every time. Absolutley 100% guarantee it.
> >
> > Some buzzy little engines produce 100 lbs *OR LESS* of torque. Their
> > HP numbers are totally dependent on rev'ing the ever living mess out
> > of them. BUT ONCE YOU LOAD THEM DOWN (a trailer, a hill, etc) THEY
> > CAN'T REV UP! Are then as useless as nipples on a man.
> >
> > With all due respects, I'm not holding my breath for you and Martin
> > to
> > engineer a workable transmission to replace Mack tractors with Honda
> > Civics...
> >
> > Bill Robertson
> > #5939
> >
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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