T-Bonehead, the math whiz

if there is a 'fallacy', it is in the original numbers posted:

that 'an OEM filter' removes 98 percent of dirt, and that a K$N removes 97 percent

all else followed frome those figures

if you have better figures, verified by real-world testing, with URL to fact-check, please, trot 'em out

otherwise, your statement of 'fallacies' is so much phlogiston

LOL, you are really not very good at semantics arguments but now that you bring it up, unless the fulcrum is centered on the lever, the force of gravity alone will cause it to produce torque. Are you really this desperate? Unless you can show me where I specifically stated that it can produce torque without input of any kind, you are just desperately reaching and making an ass out of yourself.

How is it changing the discussion? Poor attempt at spin there Gary but don't worry, we all know the truth and your level of desperation

No need to since levers do create torque and until you prove otherwise, you are once again full of it.

Bonehead huh, sorry Max, you have no chance of catching up to me now.

I agree man. Come one guys, the horse is dead and bbq'd.

Where do you come up with these complete garbage. The converter / transmission combo does not lose anything, so there is nothing to re-create. It converts 4 - 8% of the energy it receives into heat. We call it a loss because that is not what we want done with the energy but your attempt at spin (and I really hope that it is spin) did little to change the subject. The fact is that it does produce heat as well as torque from the energy being put into it and you have yet to prove anything different. But keep trying, it is most entertaining.

And you really are a fool.

Yup, and the fulcum is not the lever, its the pivot point. A lever is a lever, and a shaft is a shaft, and the two aren't the other.

While true, the two still cannot be confused as being the other. An apple couldn't be an apple without the tree, but an apple is definitely NOT a tree.

Nope. If the lever pivots, it exerts linear force, if it rotates, it exerts rotational force.

The two aren't the same, no matter how you try to run from the original topic of the thread.

I will compare my credentials with yours any day of the week.

Mike

No, he said, converts RPM to torque, hence the name, TORQUE CONVERTOR

If yer gonna quote someone, then you find out what they said.

Well, as the name implies, it transmits power. It doesn't produce power, thats the job of the engine. But the engine cannot transmit the power in the variety of ways its needed, so there is a need for the transmission, despite the fact that it produces nothing.

Nope! Gary, Tom, me, a bunch of us, have been WAITING for you to use the right term for a couple of days now. But you NEVER even thought of touching on the torque/hp/RPM relationship. THis despite Gary actually typing it in a couple of times.

Yeah, it is. Clay is deadnut on, and you'll argue that simply because you couldn't figure it out.

Wow, did you backpedal in a hurry......You are now depending on a fluid coupling to disprove the basic theory of a transmission. OK, explain how it happens in a manual shift.

Well, it must be a really special unit if its used without a transmission. But this is another attempt at backpedalling. Remember, the more ya back up, the closer to being against the wall you become.

Sure, it produces heat, but it'll never produce torque.

1) all of us other than you are NOT wrong. Its simple math, but we know thats not easy for you either. 2) you don't have the knowledge, or you'd have seen where this was going.

Well yeah, thats why they use HP, something you never mentioned. You insist on "produces", "brings forth" and a myriad of other "silly" terms, but not once did you mention HP.

No, its reconfiguring energy, but you are starting to get the hang of how stupid your semantics game gets when used effectively against you.

Well, unless the crankshaft is not part of the engine, it comes from the engine.

The 98% figure for paper, and the 97% figure for K&N came from K&N's website and are from testing they claim to have run. If you'd like to dispute those two figures, you'll have to find a place that did an objective test on the K&N. However, having looked for such testing in the past, you'll likely find what I did, and that is that K&N does not filter as well as a good paper filter. I know a Mustang site did a very comprehensive flow/filtration test on a number of different filters of two basic styles, cannister and flat element. They found the K&N to be mid pack on both styles, and worse than a couple of the well known brands.

Good luck in your search.

Yes it converts, no it does not produce. Said that before.

LOL, now you are lying to cover your lack of knowledge. 50 more points for me.

No, it converts or changes, it does not produce. Again, you are grasping at straws.

Nope, thats wrong.

Try again, and I get more points for making you post more crap.

LOL, Um, better not forget that the formula for HP, it might help ya here......

If thats correct, then you are wrong about it producing anything as well.

Hang on, I think its a left turn right about ....... HERE! (this line will be replaced by more Tbone gibberish/spin, just wait and see)

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life.

That line above says "a lever creates torque".

1) it creates nothing. 2) It changes direction of a force. 3) It cannot create energy, force, or anything else.

But a shaft by itself is simply a solid object and can be either part of a lever.

Boy, you are really getting bad at this. Both the apple and the apple tree are independant objects and the apple can and is very much an apple without the tree. When I buy apples at the store, I don't get a tree with them. What have you been drinking? A lever is a simple machine and while the solid object and the pivot can exist as independant objects, they are not a lever unless you have them both combined together. There is no valid point about confusing anything and the only thing confused here now is you.

W R O N G ! ! ! Hahahahah, you really are funny Max. Please explain exactly how you pivot in a straight line. A lever can never produce a linear force because it NEVER moves in a straight line and the minute it does, it is no longer a lever because it is no longer in contact with its pivot.

There isn't any two of anything. A lever is a combination of a solid object and a pivot point IOW, a single machine. As for the movement, by definition, pivoting is moving in a circular motion so you cannot have linear motion around a pivot. Now how ma I running from the topic of this thread. Sounds like more of your lame spin to me.

I know what he said but converting something is just another way of producing something.

It does more than that.

Correct and I never said that it did.

Again correct but we are not talking about power, we are talking about a specific component of power and that can be produced at the cost of the other component, angular velocity.

Again correct, because it cannot produce enough torque at the required RPM's so the TC and transmission does it for the engine by reducing the higher RPM and producing added torque when needed. See, I knew that we were on the same page.

Now you fell on your face again. It does produce the required torque at the required time.

Really, when did Tom get involved in this part of the thread?

You are saying that because he fell for your spin. You cannot increase torque without producing more of it, regardless of the method.

We are not talking about a manual shift Max, we are talking about a TC and an automatic. Please keep in line with the subject and BTW, you are still wrong here.

The only one backing up here is you. We were talking about the ability of the TC and the transmission to create torque, not just the transmission. Since the TC doesn't have gears OR a direct coupling capability (with the exception of a locking converter at lockup), your theory is full of holes and the only one backing up at light speed it you.

You just said multiple times that the transmission and the TC are both incapable of producing anything and now you are backpedaling and saying that it can produce heat. Please make up your mind and how can it produce heat and not torque?

What does math have to do with it?

Knowledge has little to do with predicting your spin.

Because HP is a combination of torque and angular velocity and since the HP must remain constant (although it actually doesn't due to losses not counted in the equation) if you drop RPM, you must increase or produce more torque to keep the equation balanced.

Just like the transmission does and the TC too for that matter which now by your own words, either all three can produce torque or none of them can, your choice.

But that would mean that a conversion DOES in fact produce something, imagine that.

Do you mean Power = Torque * Angular velocity

Now since the engine supplies power to the TC and trans, if you change angular velocity, you have to change the torque or you will be changing the power. If you reduce the angular velocity, they you will increase or produce more torque and if you decrease the torque, then you will increase or produce more angular velocity for any given power. There is no magic here Max.