Chip Beck Explains HP vs. Torque for Mr. Ferret

[JustJohn_imp]

Actually Chip Beck is 100% on the money. 1 hp is 1 hp, 1 ft lb of torque is 1 ft lb of torque, no matter how you slice it. My view of things is a little skewed. Facts are facts.

[metallyguitarded_imp]

Actually Chip Beck is 100% on the money. 1 hp is 1 hp, 1 ft lb of torque is 1 ft lb of torque, no matter how you slice it. My view of things is a little skewed. Facts are facts.

I find myself waiting for the, "Ha! Just kidding!"

Taking you at your word, it shows strength of character to admit your view of things was off. Hats off to you John.

[DGShannon_imp]

Excellent write up, hitting the main points of a complex mechanical relationship. So many variables come into play.

Now, lets have some real fun, and bring two strokes and expansion chamber design into the mix! Or, the effects of bore and stroke on piston side loading friction! I always enjoy reading Kevin Cameron's stuff, such as [url=http://www.amazon.com/Classic-Motorcycle-Race-Engines-Technical/dp/1844259943]THIS, on engine design.

[the Ferret]

I have been a Cycle World subscriber for many many years. Read it cover to cover including all ads except for Kevin Cameron's articles. Lord knows I've tried. Two paragraphs in and my eyes glaze over, my mind drifts off, and I might as well flip the page because there is no way I'm getting through the rest of the article. I miss Egan. Him..I could understand lol.

[ChipBeck_imp]

I have been a Cycle World subscriber for many many years. Read it cover to cover including all ads except for Kevin Cameron's articles. Lord knows I've tried. Two paragraphs in and my eyes glaze over, my mind drifts off, and I might as well flip the page because there is no way I'm getting through the rest of the article. I miss Egan. Him..I could understand lol.

Gentlemen,

Certainly different strokes for different folks here. If I could spend one afternoon having a discussion with anybody in the motorcycle industry, it would be Kevin Cameron. Top Dead Center is the first thing I read when I get Cycle World each month. I have read and reread both of Kevin's books. I know I'm strange but one of the most enlightening and surprising series of articles I've ever read was Kevin's history on the development of the pneumatic tire from it's first beginnings on the new "safety bicycle" in the 1800's to the car and motorcycle tires of today.

Kevin ranges effortlessly from steam locomotives to WW2 aircraft radials to space shuttle booster rocket engines. Reading his explanations of the properties of different metals, how they endure stress and transfer heat, and what makes them crack and fail is fascinating to me. As someone said earlier in this thread, his ability to take a complex subject and make it understandable makes his writing special. But he's not just a tech guy. Kevin writes a lot about personality characteristics and how they effect an individuals performance and behavior both on and off motorcycles. I love the guy and can't get enough of his writing.

That said, I have read every one of Egan's books as well. Cheers.

Chip

[the Ferret]

You are a well rounded man Mr Beck!

[cbdtran_imp]

torque + horse = energy released by the engine.

assume no energy lost due to heat released due to speed - in 10 min on 3th gear then 10 min on 6th gear you have more torque in the first and more horses on the second. during this time on 3th and 6th gear, the gasoline consumption are the same. on the first, you can climb stiffer road, one the second you gain more speed on straight road reflected on MPG

[cbdtran_imp]

torque + horse = energy released by the engine.

assume no energy lost due to heat released due to speed - in 10 min on 3th gear then 10 min on 6th gear you have more torque in the first and more horses on the second. during this time on 3th and 6th gear, the gasoline consumption are the same. on the first, you can climb stiffer road, one the second you gain more speed on straight road reflected on MPG

torque + horse = energy released by the engine.

assume no energy lost due to heat released due to speed - in 10 min on 3th gear then 10 min on 6th gear you have more torque in the first and more horses on the second. during this time on 3th and 6th gear, the gasoline consumption are the same. on the first, you can climb stiffer road, one the second you gain more speed on straight road reflected on MPG
wikipedia

1 HP = 745.6998 Watt
1 hp ≡ 33,000 ft-lbf/min by definition

horse and torque are energy

[JustJohn_imp]

What I find interesting may not mean a hill of beans to others, but here it is: The perfect overlap of HP to torque on dyno graphs. The difference between brake HP and HP. The difference between diesel engines, naturally aspirated and turbo'd. Same with gas jobs. C.I. vs C.C. RPM vs ability to attain RPM's. Throw in engine braking, stall speed, "feel in the seat", absolute sustainable torque, quickness vs. being fast, and its alot to take in. Then there's 2 stroke vs 4 stroke, Rotary's, Jet propulsion, turbine's, valves per cylinder, scavenging, yeah I got a headache now. But Chip is on the money. My little view of unique situations doesn't change mechanical facts. I'm gonna read all I can of Kevin Cameron and report back at some point. But I apologize for clouding this thread with my limited experience with engines, large or small. And before anyone jumps any conclusions, this is not tongue in cheek. But further research is called for. I'm only going by experience, so I have to do the research. And I will. But so far the numbers are the numbers.

[rboe]

John; you forgot steam engines...... then there are steam piston and steam turbines. Also; electric drives (diesel electrics, stepper, universal and induction motors.

In general; efficiencies rule the day when the customer and engineer are deciding what power plant to use. But other considerations can hold sway depending on the job and where the machine will be used. The military is less interested in efficiencies and more interested in winning the battle. Costs can take secondary importance to winning also. In general, efficiencies will reduce costs for a customer but high maintenance or difficulties in obtaining cheap fuel will guide power plant choices too. Large radial engines lost out to jets and turbines because they were more efficient to operate at high altitude, became much more reliable (cheaper to operate!) and longer times between major overhauls (cheaper to operate!) even though they are bloody more expensive to buy.

Gas engines work well in environments where speed is always changing (commuter cars) where diesel works best where speed is a steady state (boating, transports); mainly because of their efficiencies and the way they put power to final drive.

So when it comes to power plant choice there are many criterion that are taken into account; the order they are taken will depend upon the job and who is paying the bills.