Removing transmission

Page 4 of 8  


It's really funny, Tom, that you apply the "It's physics" claim yet have denied it existed at other times.
And my statements do not violate the laws of physics.

<LOL> Gee, a double standard. You can disrespect me but get ticked off ifsomeone disrespects you.
-- Budd Cochran
WARNING!!!
Poster still believes that intelligence, logic,
common sense, courtesy, and religious beliefs
are still important in our society, and might include
them in his posts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Back to the unfounded accusations again? Care to back this statement up? This is degrading quickly and this time, it is not me doing it.

Yes they do. The equal and opposite reaction part. Unless something is resisting the system venting pressure to the reservoir, it cannot apply pressure to the slave cylinder.

The difference here Budd is that this is an obvious attack that you just admitted to (so much for your word). I did not do this and I cannot help it if you seem to still be a bit paranoid and are looking for me to attack you. The funny thing about that is if you are really looking for it, you will find it, even if it doesn't really exist and in reality Budd, when I did attack you in the past, I was far from subtle about it so if I was attacking you now....
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tom, any time you put down a person's experiences or knowledge, you degrade them and you did it first.

Wrong law of physics, Tom. Newton wasn't involved in this one, Bernoulli was, pressure is exerted equally in all directions.
But here's one for you to explain: Robert Goddard is recognized as a developer of modern rocketry, especially, liquid fuel rockets. In his early experiments, the engines blew up, not the tanks, the engines. Now, since there's this big old hole in the back, why did they blow up?

As I said, degrade a person's experience or skill and you insult them.

Nope, no paranoia. I have no fear of you.

And you were not subtle at all when you put down my skills and experiences.
-- Budd Cochran
WARNING!!!
Poster still believes that intelligence, logic,
common sense, courtesy, and religious beliefs
are still important in our society, and might include
them in his posts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, but no. I didn't put you down in any way, I simply said that you were wrong in this instance. Now if you take that as a putdown, then there is no point discussing anything with you because a childish attitude like that is incapable of discussion. But if we use your current definition of things, I simply said that air alone could not cause the type of failure that the OP said happened and I wasn't even responding to you, I was responding to Max. You then jumped in and made the claim that it could happen and I was wrong using your forklift example, which by YOUR current definition, put down my experience and knowlege so again, who did it first?

Ok, then if the master cylinder is operating properly, how would the expanding gas build pressure on the master cylinder side? Remember, the pressure must be equal on all sides or it will flow toward the path with the least resistance which means away from the slave and into the master.

First of all, we are talking about explosive expansion here due to combustion. Do you really think that the gas is expanding that quickly or with anywhere near that much volume in a hydraulic clutch assembly????? I hate to say this Budd but now you really are starting to make yourself sound like an idiot and this is not a lame revenge insult, it is an honest opinion and if you really think about it, you should see where I am comming from. As for the rocket, do you not consider these early failures defective engines and in the successful ones, what happens in the chamber the second the fuel is cut off.

I did no such thing and I can't help it if you take it that way. You are not always going to be right Budd, no matter how much experience you may have and it takes a real man to admit that they don't know everything and admit to being wrong every now and then. I thought that you were that kind of man, am I wrong?

I never said that you did and why would you?

I was not subtle because I had no reason to be. I didn't attack you, I said that you were wrong here, big difference.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Not to change the subject, boys, but I just finished bottling a batch of Red Ale. Three weeks and it'll be tipping time! There's more to life than arguing with those that will never agree with you! ;) Cheers!! HD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You did.

Now here's what I was trying to show you and John, exactly, but you both kept up with the arguments that I was wrong, unskilled, inexperienced and a liar.
The system was a new rebuild; master, slave, line, fluid. The port was uncovered, I could see it thru the new, crystal clear brake fluid and when the pedal was pressed fluid escaped from it as indicated by the rippling of the fluid surface.
And the system was causing slippage until I bled the air out . . .the only work I did on it. No adjustments, no parts replacement other than a quart of brake fluid.
Now, you figure it out.

WRONG!!!! even in rocketry, you DO NOT want explosions anywhere. Rapid burning, yes, explosions, no.

No.
And if you could see what I'm saying you wouldn't be insulting me. It's a parallel, a extreme parallel, but nevertheless, a parallel. In both instances, the same laws apply.
And the cause was from the gases not being able to get out fast enough. Goddard had the throat too small.

The point I'm trying to get thru to you, Tom, is that you claim that there's no way air could cause clutch trouble, and I say there is. The rocket throws your claim that as long as there is an exit, pressure cannot build up right out in the trash.

No, I am that kind of man and I have admitted to errors WHEN I AM WRONG. In this case, I am not. The problem is that my experience was outside of what you can accept as happening. To you and John, that makes me a liar.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong on all counts.

Look up the definition paranoia, Tom, then learn the English language. You have a problem of not writing what you mean.

No, you degraded my skills and experience again.
-- Budd Cochran
WARNING!!!
Poster still believes that intelligence, logic,
common sense, courtesy, and religious beliefs
are still important in our society, and might include
them in his posts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As usual, you just see what you want to see, truth be damned.

Complete BULLSHIT on your part. I said that you were wrong and nothing more. All the rest is just part of your imagination or perhaps a defense mechanism to make far more out of it than really exists.

All that shows was that the valve was still moving in the bore, not that it was actually opening as required.

I didn't say that your repair had no effect. If there was an exceptional amount of air in the system (which seems to be the case with your quart of fluid) AND the master cylinder was not allowing for venting (and your ripple with pedal movement does not prove that it was), then your bleed of the air in the system could stop the clutch slippage issue but the problem that allowed the pressure to build up to begin with still existed. The thing Budd, is what got the fluid so damn hot to begin with? Hell, the operator may have been resting his broken foot on the pedal causing the problem and when the clutch began to smoke, lied to you about it. Unless you were riding on the lift with him all of the time, you simply cannot say that it didn't happen that way. I am not saying that it did, just that it is another possibility that you cannot absolutely deny. Another thing to consider is that if the master was functioning properly to begin with, there should not be so much air trapped in the system as some of it would have vented out from gravity alone.

I don't have to figure it out Budd, the design of the system says that it cannot happen that way and if you are positive that it can, EXPLAIN HOW.

LOL, sorry Budd, but it IS a continous controlled explosion.

Then your argument holds no water.

It is NOT a parallel, hell, it is not even close to being one. One is dealing with the violent creation and expansion of gasses and a device at the output amplifying that force for the purpose of propulsion and the other is a slow expansion of gas and liquid for that matter due to heat build-up and a port designed to prevent ANY pressure from building at rest.

LOL, you are joking right??? Not about the reason for the failures but how this in any way compares to a hydraulic clutch.

And you are wrong but if you think different, then explain how.

Hahahahahahahahaha, I must say Budd, you do make me laugh. A rocket builds up pressure because that is what it is designed to do and like I said and you seemed to have ignored, the instant that you cut off the fuel supply and the combustion stops, the pressure rapidly drops to nothing, just like it will in a clutch master cylinder. The vent in a clutch master is designed to prevent expansion pressure buildup, not amplify it for propulsion like a rocket.

Does it make you feel better to accuse people of or believe that people are attacking you even when that is the last thing on their minds? Please give an example where you were wrong on a key point and admitted to it. I am not saying that you never did, just that I can't remember any. Now while I am not saying that you don't believe what you are saying or are lying about what happened with the forklift, what I am saying is that if everything was functioning properly, what you say happened simply could not happen for the reasons that you gave and if you believe different, explain exactly how without the whining about being insulted or attacked.

P R O V E I T !!!!!

http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Paranoia.html
Please find the word fear in any of the definitions. It is not my writing that is the problem, it is your PARANOIA causing the problems. BTW, what you wrote above sure does look like a flat out insult to me. So much for your word.

I did no such thing Budd, I said that what you saw simply may not have been what it appeared to be, nothing more.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are these the same laws of physics that said helium was unaffected by gravity?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I never said that it was unaffected, I said that on the surface of this planet, the force of gravity is negated by the force of the atmosphere pushing it back up and therefore, it has no weight. Perhaps I should have said measurable weight but for that light conversation, it doesn't matter. And you should be the last one to talk with your theory that an object in freefall has no weight. If it had no weight, it would not fall, pretty much like helium :-)
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"Tom Lawrence" < snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Spin it any way you want, Tom, but that's EXACTLY what you said:

First, it's not "my" theory. Secondly, it appears that the physics professors over at MIT agree with this theory:
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/VideoLectures/detail/Video-Segment-Index-for-L-7.htm

No, Tom.... it falls because gravity acts upon it. Gravity acts upon it because it has MASS. As I explained once before, you can calculate the weight of an object under acceleration as follows:
Weight is the product of mass times (gravitational acceleration - the acceleration of the mass).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Funny, I don't see where I said no effect. I said that gravity does not have enough force to hold it down against ut upward force of our atmosphere, not exactly the same thing but feel free it spin it as you see fit.

And other professors say other things, that is why it is called a theory.

And it has weight for the same reason if you define weight purely as the force of gravity acting on a mass (W = MG) as many do..

LOL, really??? This looks more like the equation for G-force. Either way, who cares and what does it have to do with the topic at hand. Does it really bother you this much when I am right about something that you have to jump in with this old crap, how sad.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LOL, helium always has mass and that point cannot be argued but does it always have weight? By the following definition: 1. The quality of being heavy; that property of bodies by which they tend toward the center of the earth; the effect of gravitative force, especially when expressed in certain units or standards, as pounds, grams, etc.
Lets break this down to its components
1. The quality of being heavy;
It is not heavy, actually, it is lighter than air.
that property of bodies by which they tend toward the center of the earth;
It actually moves (is pushed) away from the earth
the effect of gravitative force,
Which is counteracted and negated by the forces of the atmosphere
especially when expressed in certain units or standards, as pounds, grams, etc.
Find me a scale that can weight it without resorting to artificial means such as containment or being in a vacuum.
Sounds like the point of weight can be debated to me but even at that, the fact that you had to resort to a completely off topic argument just shows that you are completely out of gas in your failing hydraulic argument and I'll just claim my victory now. Have a good day Maxi.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"Max Dodge" < snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My brother's 12 foot yacht displaces a mass of water equal to it's weight, 165 pounds, therefore, it has no weight when on the lake?
The boat still masses and weighs 165 pounds on this planet because even out in the middle of the lake it gravity attracts it.
Helium's mass is higher than that of Hydrogen, so it has weight in a gravity well. Gravity, although minutely, attracts all masses together..
-- Budd Cochran
WARNING!!!
Poster still believes that intelligence, logic,
common sense, courtesy, and religious beliefs
are still important in our society, and might include
them in his posts.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sorry Budd, but that is an old thread and while it was fun back then, it is done now. BTW, 12 foot, 165 lbs, and yacht don't really go together :-) and the boat will still have the same mass no matter where it is and once that boat is buoyant :-)
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

"Budd Cochran" < snipped-for-privacy@SPAM.citlink.net> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It seems that others question your credibility. No surprise.

OK, Scotty, answer this; if the system is open to the reservoir, are you still claiming that the expansion of heated trapped air would apply the TO bearing rather than merely push the fluid into the reservoir? If YES, explain the phenomenon in physical terms. Don't be afraid to get real technical.

Would one of those "odd things" be a blocked return port? If so, why not just say that and end the debate? If the "oddity" is something else give a hint of what it might be.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nah, not pit bulls. But I can think of a couple of more fitting examples. <G>
Roy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, I disagree that air in the system, when heated, will "apply more pressure to the TO bearing". As I stated, the system is open to the reservoir when the pedal is in the released position, therefore any pressure buildup would merely push the fluid back into the reservoir rather than "apply more pressure to the TO bearing".
My proof? A simple observation of the system design. The reservoir MUST be exposed to the system when the pedal is up in order for the fluid to return; this is true in both the brake and clutch hydraulic system. Unlike a hydraulic brake system where the reservoir must replenish fluid as the friction components wear, clutch disc wear results in the pressure plate moving closer to the flywheel and the fingers in the pressure plate moving closer to the TO bearing. If the system wasn't open to the reservoir the TO bearing would be unable to displace the fluid as it moves away from the fingers. Service manuals caution against overfilling the reservoir for this very reason; an overfull reservoir would result in the phenomenom you describe but overfull is not a normal condition.
It's pretty obvious that you know as little about clutch hydraulic systems as you do about transmission hydraulics. Those "schools" you claim to have attended failed to instill basic concepts that any high school auto shop student learns.

No, but I do understand the operation of a normally functioning system and in a normally functioning system the phenomenom that you claim occurs is impossible. Of course, a malfunctioning system can cause any number of problems but the phenomenon that you claim will occur in a system whose only abnormality is air entreapment is total nonsense.

Yes, weird things happen but your chosen "happening" won't happen.

As usual, pointing out rabid examples of bullshit is construed by you as "whining". Go back to school.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thats terrific in a perfect world. What happens if the pedal doesn't fully release? What if the system has a pinhole leak in it somewhere? What if the slave cylinder is leaking air into the system? Your assumption is a perfectly operating system under perfect operating conditions. Thats great, if it happens.

No one said all things were normal. No one assumed (except you and Tbone) that all things were in perfect operating order.

Yet, you've just given an example of how a "normally functioning system" might not be as normally functioning as it should be.

Perhaps thats why, when finding such a situation, you check it for further problems. Instead of Budd saying, "air could be trapped and apply pressure to the TO bearing, " and you saying, "nonsense, never happen, not a possibility, you suck as a mechanic," you might sit back and ask why such an event would happen, and what other possible problems are present. Thats why good trouble shooting is essential, and why instead of backpedalling and putting conditions on your claims (now you admit other problems might help cause exactly what Budd is saying) that it couldn't possibly happen.

But you admit its possible under certain conditions. You also seem to think its a perfect world, and only one problem happens at a time.
--
Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then you have a defective clutch master cylinder or pedal linkage and you would have the same expansion problems regardless of any air in the system, unless ofcourse, you also believe that fluids don't expand when heated.

Then you would run out of fluid and would have shifting problems LONG before the TO bearing failed, unless of course, the TO was defective to begin with.

It would be a highly unusual situation for this to happen but even if it did, the air introduced into the system would cause clutch disengagement problems long before any possibility of trashing the TO but unless we also have a defective master cylinder or pedal linkage, there would still be no added pressure from vapor expansion.

Perfect no, normal yes, and if a component in the system is defective, then IT is the cause of the problem, not the air.

The claim was that the design of the system itself was the cause of the premature bearing failure and was then added that air in the system alone would also cause this and both of these statements are incorrect.

Then if the system has a defective component, then that is the cause of the failure (including the TO itself), no air in the system. The funny thing here is that nobody knows if there actually is any air in the system anyway, LOL.

If it did happen, then the problem is elsewhere, not the air that may be trapped in the system and if one of these conditions existed, it would happen and probably be worse if there was NO air in the system as a expanding fluid puts MUCH, MUCH more pressure than a much more compressible expanding gas.

Actually, he did not. Learn how to read.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.