Gears
#131
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Aug 24 2005, 10:56 AM
Actually, it does. You're just not recognizing it. Horsepower of the engine is the invisible parabolic line on the plot that the two gear lines are approximating.
#132
Registered User
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Aug 24 2005, 11:56 AM
Actually, it does. You're just not recognizing it. Horsepower of the engine is the invisible parabolic line on the plot that the two gear lines are approximating.
please tell me!
the gear lines aren't approximating horsepower, since horsepower remains unaffected by gearing. yet the two lines are quite different. am i missing something here?
#133
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: █ SF, CA █
Posts: 16,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wisconsin S2k,Aug 24 2005, 11:04 AM
oh, you never made that point? interesting.
hmmm. seems to me like you did try to make a point, and instead of defending it, all you've done is dodge the matter and retort with "straw man" and "you're wrong".
hmmm. seems to me like you did try to make a point, and instead of defending it, all you've done is dodge the matter and retort with "straw man" and "you're wrong".
#134
Registered User
i'm well aware hp is related to torque and rpms.
however, that does not mean that horsepower is used to determine acceleration. which was my argument from the start.
F=ma. again, point out to me where horsepower is used in this equation to determine acceleration.
speaking of grasping for straws... i'm not the one using the "straw man" argument and dodging the question and saying i need to use a calculus book.
however, that does not mean that horsepower is used to determine acceleration. which was my argument from the start.
F=ma. again, point out to me where horsepower is used in this equation to determine acceleration.
speaking of grasping for straws... i'm not the one using the "straw man" argument and dodging the question and saying i need to use a calculus book.
#135
Registered User
Originally Posted by Wisconsin S2k,Aug 24 2005, 11:06 AM
the gear lines aren't approximating horsepower, since horsepower remains unaffected by gearing. yet the two lines are quite different. am i missing something here?
It's not in the equation used to generate the plot -- it's in the physics behind that equation.
#136
Registered User
Wisconson, Jason,
There's a classic argument that occurs in aviation forums about how planes acheive lift. Some people fall on their swords defending Bernouli, saying that lift has to be generated by pressure distribution on the wing. Others talk about momentum theory and say that lift is generated by reaction by pushing the airstream down.
The truth, of course, is that both are true, and that they are linked phenomena. When the one happens, the other happens. So it is STUPID to argue about "which one" is happening.
You both recognize that power and torque are related by speed, right? So I would suggest you stop arguing about "which one" is more important to this problem. Unless you are enjoying this debate, of course.
There's a classic argument that occurs in aviation forums about how planes acheive lift. Some people fall on their swords defending Bernouli, saying that lift has to be generated by pressure distribution on the wing. Others talk about momentum theory and say that lift is generated by reaction by pushing the airstream down.
The truth, of course, is that both are true, and that they are linked phenomena. When the one happens, the other happens. So it is STUPID to argue about "which one" is happening.
You both recognize that power and torque are related by speed, right? So I would suggest you stop arguing about "which one" is more important to this problem. Unless you are enjoying this debate, of course.
#137
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: █ SF, CA █
Posts: 16,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wisconsin S2k,Aug 24 2005, 11:12 AM
i'm well aware hp is related to torque and rpms.
however, that does not mean that horsepower is used to determine acceleration. which was my argument from the start.
F=ma. again, point out to me where horsepower is used in this equation to determine acceleration.
speaking of grasping for straws... i'm not the one using the "straw man" argument and dodging the question and saying i need to use a calculus book.
however, that does not mean that horsepower is used to determine acceleration. which was my argument from the start.
F=ma. again, point out to me where horsepower is used in this equation to determine acceleration.
speaking of grasping for straws... i'm not the one using the "straw man" argument and dodging the question and saying i need to use a calculus book.
#139
Registered User
Originally Posted by jasonw,Aug 24 2005, 12:19 PM
This is in fact, another straw man fallacy. When you try to distort something I've said in an attempt to create an opening.
there, now mike had the courtesy to simply try to explain it to me in one post, rather than argue with me bout it for 3 pages. which makes it look like you really had no clue in the first place.
#140
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: █ SF, CA █
Posts: 16,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wisconsin S2k,Aug 24 2005, 11:21 AM
there, now mike had the courtesy to simply try to explain it to me in one post, rather than argue with me bout it for 3 pages. which makes it look like you really had no clue in the first place.
How you can calculate area under the curve with Physics but not Calculus?