My gravity theory

Motor Daddy said:
Aqueous, You have no idea what you are talking about. This conversation will go nowhere by you typing paragraphs at a time. Torque and HP are VERY complex subjects, and the conversation must be slow and accurate, not paragraphs at a time. Do you want to debate torque with me?
Click to expand...

No, you have no idea what I am talking about. You have no idea what first moment of a force is.

You have no idea how draw a free body diagram of an engine, and model the system elements.

You have no idea how to write the state equations for the system and solve it using linear algebra.

You have no idea what I just said.

There is nothing at all complicated about this conceptually. The hard part you are apparently referring to is calibrating your measurements, which all or most of the science folks here understand. A physicist doesn't complain to a chemist that he doesn't know how to use a spectrometer. They both understand calibration.

The reason I'm giving paragraphs at a time is that there is no conversation. There is just you not wanting to learn, and me offering suggestions of how you can get ahead.

There is nothing to debate about torque (or engine torque) because it's not controversial.
 
Aqueous Id said:
No, you have no idea what I am talking about. You have no idea what first moment of a force is.

You have no idea how draw a free body diagram of an engine, and model the system elements.

You have no idea how to write the state equations for the system and solve it using linear algebra.

You have no idea what I just said.

There is nothing at all complicated about this conceptually. The hard part you are apparently referring to is calibrating your measurements, which all or most of the science folks here understand. A physicist doesn't complain to a chemist that he doesn't know how to use a spectrometer. They both understand calibration.

The reason I'm giving paragraphs at a time is that there is no conversation. There is just you not wanting to learn, and me offering suggestions of how you can get ahead.

There is nothing to debate about torque (or engine torque) because it's not controversial.
Click to expand...

Is that A or B?
 
Motor Daddy said:
And please, in your next reply, since you obviously have superior knowledge about torque, tell me what your answer to the example is, so I know your world view.
Click to expand...

I told you a couple of times, torque is F cross r. I understand you have no idea what that means, so...

F x r is not a world view. It's just a simple law.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Is that A or B?
Click to expand...

I think the answer is calibration. I think you're trying to tell us that it's complicated to calibrate voltage from a dyno to the true net system torque of an engine. I would tend to agree, although it's not nearly as complicated as a lot of other calibration problems.
 
Aqueous Id said:
I think the answer is calibration. I think you're trying to tell us that it's complicated to calibrate voltage from a dyno to the true net system torque of an engine. I would tend to agree, although it's not nearly as complicated as a lot of other calibration problems.
Click to expand...

A or B?
 
Motor Daddy said:
You know why you are having a hard time giving an answer to that question?
Click to expand...

James already gave the answer of B, which seems to be correct based on the RWTQ and that the 2 cars are the same besides the RWTQ develped.

Is the calculation below correct?

For car A you gave this data for 37 MPH

Engine A in second gear (1.98:1) with a 3.23:1 rear gear and 26.5" tire.
3000 496 lb-ft 283 hp 37 mph 3172 RWTQ

496 lb-ft X 1.98 X 3.23 = 3172 ft-lb of rear wheel torque

The force developed by the torque is 3172 ft-lb / 1.104 ft (rear wheel radius) = 2873 lb
 
origin said:
James already gave the answer of B, which seems to be correct based on the RWTQ and that the 2 cars are the same besides the RWTQ develped.

Is the calculation below correct?

For car A you gave this data for 37 MPH

Engine A in second gear (1.98:1) with a 3.23:1 rear gear and 26.5" tire.
3000 496 lb-ft 283 hp 37 mph 3172 RWTQ

496 lb-ft X 1.98 X 3.23 = 3172 ft-lb of rear wheel torque

The force developed by the torque is 3172 ft-lb / 1.104 ft (rear wheel radius) = 2873 lb
Click to expand...

I learned torque and HP when I was 15 years old. Surely you know how it works?
 
gmilam said:
People, don't feed the troll! Seriously. :bugeye:
Click to expand...

Kinda hard to argue with a guy that knows how it works, eh?

When somebody knows theory and principles and knows how to properly apply those principles to a real world application, then there is really not much wiggle room to argue, is there?
 
Motor Daddy said:
Kinda hard to argue with a guy that knows how it works, eh?

When somebody knows theory and principles and knows how to properly apply those principles to a real world application, then there is really not much wiggle room to argue, is there?
Click to expand...

Why you're allowed to continually troll the forum with Motor Daddy nonsense is beyond me. It's good to know your short has a chance of starting after you touch it. I wouldn't bet on it based on the deductive reasoning skills you exhibit in this forum. Yet you might have the sense to keep a few manuals around to help you from messing up. Wow, you might consider having a few manuals on physics to help you from messing up.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Kinda hard to argue with a guy that knows how it works sick mind, eh?
Click to expand...
Fixed.

It does amaze me that MD has shown no evidence on anything - yet he managed to make many (seemingly) intelligent people jump through hoops to answer his "test" questions that have nothing to do with the thread.
 
gmilam said:
Fixed.

It does amaze me that MD has shown no evidence on anything - yet he managed to make many (seemingly) intelligent people jump through hoops to answer his "test" questions that have nothing to do with the thread.
Click to expand...

You never know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop unless you start licking.
 
Motor Daddy said:
I learned torque and HP when I was 15 years old. Surely you know how it works?
Click to expand...

I had never heard of RWTQ (that I recall) until today. Too bad you gave up learning anything new, I guess it is an old dog new tricks sort of thing, which is kinda sad...
 
Motor Daddy said:
I understand gravity, do you?
Click to expand...
So far you haven't demonstrated the literacy in science that's required for you to judge your own level of knowledge, much less the knowledge of others. If you actually believe that an education in science is irrelevant, then your just driving down a blind alley.

Do you really believe that massive objects "magically" attract one another?
Click to expand...
Why do you think astronauts experience weightlessness in space?

If you beleive that objects magically attract one another, do you have any rational explanation for that attraction?
Click to expand...
You don't believe that you're held to the earth by gravity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top