T-Bone, I understand you love these endless pissing matches and that's why I don't usually reply to your posts, but you're heading down a really dark path if you try to compare your credibility in this newsgroup to Mikes. Don't go there..
Denny
Why? It doesn't lose anything but it can and does waste some of the input power overcomming internal friction which results in it PRODUCING heat as well. Now what were you saying????
Another sign that your argument is without merit and that should be what, about 100 points for me. Not that I need them with the huge boost Gary has been giving me.
TranSurgeon wrote: >
Damn Tbone ............... just because I don't visit here very much lately doesn't mean you have to take my place in getting shade tree to cry and throw his tantrums for everyone. Poor little fellow must have lost his pacifier again.........
Jerry
really ?
then why is it called a torque CONVERTER ??????
once more:
horsepower at high RPM (hence lower torque) IN......................horsepower at lower RPM (hence higher torque) OUT
a CONVERTER.......not a 'producer'
why don't you two go get a room ?
Why don't you look at the purpose of the stator and then you will see where it gets it name. What it does and how it does it can be two very different things.
No they don't. The .03 and .02 are not a percentage of different whole portion or denominator. You can change a percentage to a decimal. You can divide, add or multiply a decimal by a decimal but you cannot divide a percentage into a percentage.
DECIMAL ........ A linear array of digits that represents a real number, every decimal place indicating a multiple of a negative power of 10. For example, the decimal 0.1 = 1/10, 0.12 = 12/100, 0.003 = 3/1000. Also called decimal fraction.
PERCENTAGE ...... A fraction or ratio with 100 understood as the denominator; for example, 0.98 equals a percentage of 98.
So when you change the 3% and 2% to a fraction/decimal with both from the same denominator you have created two new whole/denominators.
Gary is full of shit.................
Jerry
In all honesty, I don't like them as much as I used to but old habits die hard.
It really has nothing to do comparing my credibility to Mikes or anyone else's. I have a lot of respect for Mike and he does have one of the lowest noise levels in the group but if he comes after me with a silly semantics attack about the definition of RPM's then I will respond. Respect or not, he is not God and I have enough to deal with the two real crybabies.
HOO BOY !
this takes the f-ing cake
and this is relevant exactly why ?
no shit, Sherlock
WTF are you babbling about here ?
'from both with the same denominator' ??? to what ?
and the obligatory personal attack
Bwahahahahahaha!
Doc
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
LOL, the sad thing it really just doesn't take much to get him going but it takes more than I have to get him to shut up.
Does proving your ignorance really make you feel good. I said the they produce torque, not power therefore, perpetual motion has nothing to do with it. However, your demonstration of perpetual stupidity really is amazing.
IOW, you are calling my you, now I really am insulted.
My reply was not a silly semantics attack. Nor was I "coming after" you. I was merely pointing out your flawed statement, which I quote:
While it can't put out more than it gets in, it
Now there are two possibilities here; either you believe your above statement to be true in which case your fundamental understanding of fluid dynamics and conservation of energy is flawed.... or.... if you acknowledge that your previous statement is incorrect (which it is!) then you must certainly recognize that your ability to communicate your thoughts and understanding of the processes involved leave something to be desired.
I'll leave you to decide which is which whilst I attend to more important things like rearranging my sock drawer.
Mike
I'll bite.. How do you arrange your sock drawer?? By color?? By how thin the heel is?? Sniff test??
Curious minds need to know....
Denny
acknowledge
The fact is that although the wording does have something to be desired, the idea is still valid. The TC and the transmission both have the ability to use the incomming angular velocity (RPM) to produce more output torque and if you don't understand that, then it is you who is lacking in your fundamental understanding of fluid dynamics and conservation of energy.
Gee, and I guess that this is not an insult toward me either, silly me.
And what is being measured started with a value of 100% but you are attempting to use new values to make your point. 2% is only 1% more than 3% when the denominator of all three points is the same. You've been listen to gary blabber so long your starting to believe him.
Jerry
Good point, I wouldn't go there either. Shade Tree, good for laughs and blabber listening. Max, like you he just wants to argue. Tom L, don't know about him anymore.
Jerry
I have no need to redeem myself. You, on the other hand...
LOL, talk about trying to change the subject. What does me explaining the internal workings of a TC have to do with you errors? Oh yea, nothing. Just another lame attempt of yours at trying to change the subject again and then try to accuse me of it.
LOL yeah, ya did. Then ya said it "brings forth", as in a person who "produces" a deck of cards, Jeez.... you lie like a rug.
I'll wait to see if you tell the truth, or at least your version of it, before I start answering again.
No, I mean the one that applies to engines and hp being transmitted to drive wheels. Your attempt to weasel out of actually dealing with the proper formula is dually noted and recognized for the crap that you normally spew. NOW, back to the topic at hand, which is of course, one that you started to get out of being wrong on yet some other topic.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.