Chip Beck Explains HP vs. Torque for Mr. Ferret

ChipBeck_imp

Road warrior
Thread starter
Gentlemen,

In a related thread there are a myriad of attempted explanations about horsepower and torque. Some of the responses are on the mark, most of them are not. Our moderator Mickey asked some excellent questions and I have done my best answer them here. I am copying my post from that thread in post #3 here as a prelude to answering Mick's questions.
_____________________________

What I don't understand is if there is this symbiotic relationship between torque and HP expressed in the formula - Torque x RPM = HP, why don't the lines on dyno charts reflect this relationship and mirror each other?

Why would the lines be any different?

Why does it not show a corresponding dip in horsepower where it shows a dip in torque?

Why would there be a dip in torque when rpm is increasing? One chart is going up in the same spot the other chart is going down and vice versa.

Do you see what I am saying?

As far as carbs and cams and valves go, they are the same ones in the motor when you start the dyno runs as when you end the dyno runs, and they are made of metal so they don't radically alter shape (lift duration etc.) from 2000-6000 rpms where the dip in torque shows up on the dyno chart of 600s I posted.

I will probably never understand this so the explanation is moot I suppose. It just doesn't make any sense to me. With my last breaths I will probably still be saying torque makes you go and HP makes you go fast. Lol
________________________________

Mickey,

I’m going to start by answering your specific questions and then I’ll go into why.

---“What I don’t understand is if there is this symbiotic relationship between torque and horsepower expressed in the formula - Torque X RPM = horsepower, why don’t the lines on dyno charts reflect this relationship and mirror each other?” –

A - The answer to this question is because torque is constantly changing, both up AND down, as RPM increases. The reason why torque would decrease as engine speed increases I will explain later, there are many reasons for this, and the two curves (torque and horsepower) cannot mirror each other because the horsepower curve involves a second variable and that is RPM whereas the torque curve does not involve engine RPM. Stay with me and this will become clear as well.

---“ Why does it not show a corresponding dip in horsepower where it shows a dip in torque?”--

A - Because the torque number is multiplied by RPM to arrive at horsepower, as long as torque is decreasing at a slower rate than RPM is increasing, horsepower will continue to rise. So if torque decreases by 10% with an increase in engine speed of 20%, horsepower will continue to increase even though torque has decreased. Again you are asking yourself, “why would torque decrease as engine speed increases?”. Again, I will explain that below so just take what I say here as a given for now.

--- “Why would there be a dip in torque when rpm is increasing?--

A - In an internal combustion engine, Torque is the force applied to the top of the piston when the air fuel mixture is ignited, pushing that piston straight down. In other words, how hard is each “individual” push on the top of the piston? The force of each individual push changes primarily because of two different variables. 1. How much fuel/air mixture is in that cylinder at the time the spark plug lights it off and 2. How optimum is that mixture? The optimum mixture of fuel and air in a modern internal combustion engine is approximately 13 to 1, or 13 parts air for every 1 part fuel. As you deviate from that optimum mixture power will decrease. At a mixture of 10 to 1 each explosion will produce less power than a mixture of 13 to 1. A mixture of 15 to 1 will also produce less power than that optimum 13 to 1 mixture. Another component also comes into play and that is exhaust gas contamination which takes up room in the cylinder yet produces no power. So maximum torque is achieved when we get the maximum amount of air/fuel mixture into the cylinder, with as little contamination as possible, and at the optimum ratio.

A good way to visualize torque is to imagine you are driving a long nail into a block of wood with a hammer. As you swing the hammer down upon that nail and strike it, it penetrates into the wood. Obviously if you strike the nail harder it will penetrate farther with each blow. The force of each blow of that hammer is torque. So will the strongest carpenter always drive the nail in fastest? After all, he hits the nail harder than any other carpenter. The answer is no and the reason is that we need to know how many times he strikes that nail each minute. If the strong carpenter drives the nail .25 inches deep with each blow but only swings the hammer four times a minute, it will take him a full minute to drive the 1 inch long nail in. If a weaker carpenter is only able to hit that nail hard enough to drive it .10 inches deep with each blow but instead of four strikes a minute he hits the nail with 20 strikes a minute, the weaker carpenter will have that same nail driven all the way in, in just 30 seconds. The weaker carpenter who is applying less torque during each hammer blow has double the horsepower of the stronger carpenter because he is operating at an RPM of 20 strikes a minute where the stronger carpenter with more torque is only operating at an RPM of four strikes a minute. In this example the weaker carpenter has twice the horsepower of the stronger carpenter.

Torque is the force of each individual blow of that hammer or, in an engine, the force of each individual push upon a piston.

Horsepower is a measure of the amount of work that an engine, or a carpenter, can accomplish and it is expressed by the formula - torque X RPM = horsepower. Is it starting to make sense now?

Which brings us to the question of “Why would torque decrease when engine RPM increases?” After all, as Mickey has accurately stated, “As far as carbs and cams and valves go, they are the same ones in the motor when you start the dyno runs as when you end the dyno runs, and they are made of metal so they don't radically alter shape (lift duration etc.) from 2000-6000 rpms where the dip in torque shows up on the dyno chart of 600s I posted.”

A – Mick is right in his statement above, but there are other factors that do not remain constant and those other factors are the reason that torque can fall off, or dip, in the middle of an engine’s RPM range and why torque ALWAYS falls off rapidly when engine speed increases near an engines redline speed. First we must understand that an engine is nothing more than an air pump. Any gas will move from an area of high pressure to an area of lower pressure and this simple principle is what makes an engine work. Here I want to use another example to help you visualize what is going on. I assume most of us have held a medical syringe in our hands at some point and, with the needle on, you could note that when you pulled the plunger out there was a lot of resistance because the air could not flow into the body of that syringe very fast through the tiny opening in that needle. As such, when you pulled the plunger out you were drawing a partial vacuum and it might have taken a couple seconds for enough air to flow in through that tiny opening before the syringe was completely filled with air. If you took the needle off that syringe which would leave a much larger opening for air to flow through you could still pull the plunger out fast enough to draw a partial vacuum but now instead of a couple seconds that were required to fill that syringe with the restriction of a needle, it might only take one half of a second before the body of the syringe was completely filled. In both cases, the faster you pulled the plunger out to create that vacuum, the faster the body of the syringe started to fill BUT…. If you pulled the plunger out twice as fast, would that syringe fill with air twice as fast? The answer is no. Even if you pulled that plunger out extremely fast creating a nearly complete vacuum inside the body of the syringe, the atmospheric pressure on the other side (14.7 pounds per square inch at sea level) is the only pressure available to push air through and the restriction of the small needle opening will only allow so much air to flow per second. By taking the needle off the air will flow much faster through the larger orifice however we run into the same limitations. Once we pulled that plunger fast enough to create vacuum quicker than air pressure allows that gas to flow through the orifice allowing it into the cylinder, a harder pull ceases to fill that syringe faster.

Now let’s introduce another variable that we are dealing with in an internal combustion engine and that is time. Obviously, if our syringe was an engine cylinder and the plunger in that syringe was the piston in an engine, the cylinder would eventually fill completely even through valves as small as the hole in that syringe IF there was enough time for air to flow through that extremely restrictive intake. But that’s not how an engine works. Go back to our syringe example and imagine that with the needle on, we pulled the plunger out rapidly and then after 1 second we put our finger over the opening in the top of the needle stopping airflow into the syringe. The syringe would not be completely filled because that restrictive opening requires two seconds to flow enough air to fill the syringe. Do the same thing with that syringe with the needle removed and it would be completely filled because it only takes .5 seconds to flow enough air through the now less restrictive opening. But if we really speed things up and choke off those openings after only .25 seconds, neither syringe would be completely filled. The syringe with the needle would only be 1/8 filled and the syringe without the needle would be 1/2 filled.

And this is what happens when an internal combustion engine nears it’s redline. An intake valve opens and closes faster and faster as the engine turns faster and faster. No matter how big the intake valves are they are still restrictive and when the “duration” of their opening gets short enough the cylinders are no longer completely filling with air/fuel mixture. When an engine is turning 8000 RPM the intake valves are only open for one half the time that they are open when that same engine is turning 4000 RPM. As long as the time available allows for the complete filling of that cylinder it doesn’t matter much that the intake valve opening duration is getting shorter. But at some point, like our syringe example, the intake valve opening duration get’s so short that there just isn’t enough time for air to flow through and completely fill that cylinder so we are now lighting off the spark plugs with lesser and lesser charges of fuel/air mixture. When this lesser charge explodes the “hammer blow” is not pushing on the piston as hard as each individual push was at a lower RPM which allowed for a complete cylinder fill.

At first, these less powerful hammer blows are made up for by their increasing frequency as RPM increases. The carpenter is hitting the nail with slightly less force but the nail is still going in faster because he is hitting the nail more times per minute. And so horsepower continues to go up even though torque is going down because RPM is multiplying the smaller hits faster than the force of those hits is decreasing. But soon as intake valve duration gets so short that cylinder fills are really falling off, torque decreases at a faster rate than RPM increases and horsepower starts to fall off rapidly as well. There are other limitations to engine speed because the stress on engine components goes up to the square of RPM so airflow is not the only limitation but for the sake of this discussion I’m leaving these other factors out for now.

---“Why would torque decrease in the middle of an engines RPM range and then increase again?”

A - A number of factors could cause this. With the knowledge that our engine is an air pump and knowing that gases move primarily because of pressure differentials, we will acknowledge now a second component to the movement of gases through an orifice or a passageway and that second component is momentum or velocity. Pressure differential can be created one of two ways, by increasing pressure on one side or decreasing pressure on the other side. An example of this would be moving air through a garden hose by placing your lips on one end and blowing or going to the other end of the hose and sucking. Obviously, a combination of the two would move the most air through that hose. In an engine, when a piston moves down in the cylinder it is sucking, or creating a vacuum which allows ambient air pressure (14.7 pounds per square inch at sea level) to rush in and fill that vacuum. To move even more air into that cylinder you could blow into the intake using either exhaust driven turbochargers or belt driven superchargers. Such devices can double or even triple the amount of fuel/air mixture forced into the cylinder during each cycle, producing a lot more power. An example of the smaller component of momentum would be turning one end of the hose so that the opening faced into the wind and then sucking on the other end. Here we are using a little bit of ambient velocity to aid in our creation of pressure differential. In this way we can move slightly more air than we could if there were no wind, or air velocity (momentum). Two examples of using this principle on vehicles would be the hood scoop on a car or the velocity stacks you see sticking up out of the top of old hot rod engines. The tuned intakes on most modern motorcycles utilize air velocity in this manner to produce slightly more power as well.

As an internal combustion engine operates there are times when both the intake valves and the exhaust valves are open at the same time. This is called valve overlap. When the exhaust valves open and the high-pressure air starts to rush out of the cylinder, the momentum of that escaping charge helps draw additional vacuum because it’s mass and motion does not stop when pressure inside the cylinder drops to zero. Much the same as a ball does not stop moving after you stop pushing it across the floor. It continues to roll for a while. Depending upon valve overlap, total valve area, and several other factors, engines all have sweet spots where escaping exhaust is exiting smoothly helping to draw additional incoming fresh fuel/air mixture during that valve overlap leaving minimal spent exhaust gases to contaminate the fresh air/fuel charge. At a slightly higher or lower engine speed turbulence may build up impeding this optimum flow resulting in more contamination or a fuel air mixture that isn’t quite optimum. This can result in less powerful hammer blows in that RPM range but again, as long as RPM is increasing at a higher percentage than torque is decreasing, horsepower will continue to increase even in the range of that dip in torque.

This is been a rather lengthy explanation both for you to read, and for me to write. If it’s helped at all please consider it a thank you to Mick for all the time and effort that he puts in here on behalf of all of us. All the best.

Chip
 
Thread starter
Gentlemen,

Below is a copy of my post from the other Horsepower vs. Torque thread.
____________________________________

---DBXXX Wrote: Horsepower = Torque x RPM. Torque is a measure of how much force is transferred to the crank each rotation, so you multiply by how fast the rotations are to get the total power.---

Gentlemen,

DBXXX nailed it in the post quoted above. Forget everything else that has been guessed or theorized about in this thread. Torque is turning force at the crank. Horsepower is that turning force multiplied by the number of times that force is generated in one minute. If torque is 10 and RPM is 10 that is the same amount of horsepower as another engine where torque is 5 and RPM is 20.

To create a mental picture think of an engine that is built to lift weight straight up on a pulley. If one rotation of the crank would lift one pound of weight one foot high then the torque is 1 foot pound. But that doesn't tell us squat about the work that engine will do without knowing how many rotations per minute the engine will turn. If a motor with 1 foot pound of torque only turns 10 times a minute (10 RPM) it will lift that 1 pound weight 10 feet in a minute. Another engine with the exact same torque that spins at 30 rotations per minute will lift that 1 pound weight 30 feet in one minute. Horsepower is a measure of how much work an engine will do. Torque is only a measure of turning force.

Now if you cut the torque in half but double the RPM, horsepower remains constant. In the last example above we have an engine with 1 foot pound of torque turning 30 RPM lifting a 1 pound weight 30 feet in a minute. A different engine with half the torque that spins at 100 RPM will lift that 1 pound weight 50 feet in a minute.

This is a simplified example for engines that run at constant RPM but you get the idea. Torque is meaningless as a measure of power without multiplying it by RPM. Given optimum gearing and holding other variables constant, two motorcycles with 100 HP engines will accelerate at the same rate even if one of them has only half the peak torque of the other. The lower torque engine must turn twice the RPM to do the same amount of work.

In short, it is horsepower, not torque, that determines how fast a motorcycle will accelerate or how much total work any engine will do.

Some people like the feel of slow turning engines that chug along at 2000 RPM like Harley Davidsons. High torque per turn is important here as that turning force is only being generated 2000 times a minute in 6th gear at 50 mph. A 600cc sport bike that is turning 6000 times a minute in 6th gear at 50 mph may only have half the torque per revolution but that turning force is being generated 6000 times per minute or 3x as often. So that sport bike will have 1.5 times the power of the Harley and will accelerate much faster. Comprende'?

Cheers.

Chip
 
Thanks to Chip and Mickey, his muse, for these remarks. I guess that makes him Mickey Muse. :rofl:
 
Like the fuel-air mix in a cylinder, EmptySea, you're explosive today. And you didn't have to torque much to get there either.

Chip, seriously, thank you very much indeed for that explanation. It was extraordinarily helpful to a person who has always been challenged by physics. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
 
Absolutely fantastic post. I take back my Dr. Seuss inspired rhyme. Mostly. I've said this before and will write it out now, a true sign of intelligence is the ability to take a complex subject and explain it in an easy to understand fashion. Chip, you have done just that. I appreciate that there is more going on and that you've spared us many other details but still, I'm impressed and appreciative. Thanks to Mickey for asking the questions and to you for taking the time to write out your explanation.

Another thing I believe is that the best way to learn something is to teach it. So, tonight, after a glass of wine, I will set out to teach my wife, our dogs, anyone or anything that will listen, the intricacies of engine dynamics. I am confident that I will be able to impart that HP = torque x rpm and I'll get to the part about the strong carpenter vs. the weak but fast carpenter. Things will undoubtedly get fuzzy when I start talking about blowing on hoses and sucking on hoses but I'm sure I'll muddle my way through it. But as soon as my wife starts asking whether those carpenters are building an addition to the house and when are we going to build on an addition and when am I going to sell my other motorcycle to be able to afford hiring a carpenter, I'll lose the rest.
 
Thread starter
JustJohn_imp said:
Ok. So what about flywheel weight and "stored energy"? Where would you put those variables in the equation?
John,

Flywheel weight is not relevant to the discussion of horsepower and torque as that weight does not effect either component. Flywheel weight is simply rotating mass or inertia. An engine with a heavy flywheel will accelerate slower than an engine with a light flywheel because it takes power to accelerate that mass in addition to the weight of the vehicle. But as you note, that energy is not lost because most of it is stored as inertia and heavy flywheel engines are often smoother operating and harder to stall. But changing flywheel weight does not change horsepower or torque.

Chip
 
No comprende. As a life-long fan of stationary engines, huge diesels, ship engines, etc I'm seeing a few holes in this story. Ok, for example: I lose whats left of my mind and install a 2500 H.P. Funny Car engine in an overseas vessel. I fully expect it to perform as well as a giant Volvo inline 6 diesel. A slow turning, torque laden engine. I wouldn't even get out of the port of call. Not looking for an fight at all. But not seeing it.
 
JustJohn_imp said:
No comprende. As a life-long fan of stationary engines, huge diesels, ship engines, etc I'm seeing a few holes in this story. Ok, for example: I lose whats left of my mind and install a 2500 H.P. Funny Car engine in an overseas vessel. I fully expect it to perform as well as a giant Volvo inline 6 diesel. A slow turning, torque laden engine. I wouldn't even get out of the port of call. Not looking for an fight at all. But not seeing it.
I know this isn't a fight but I just got a text message from my bookie that simply reads: "ChipBeck (-320), JustJohn (+210)". Gotta go with the smart money.
 
And some of what Chip mentioned about exhaust flow plays in to the discussion on Helmholtz resonators we talked about last year.

Great post Chip!!
 
Read it once, need to read it again. Lol

Want to thank Chip for taking the time to type all that out, and try and make it understandable to a fellow who sometimes has trouble grasping things that others understand easily. Simple math I'm good at ( been balancing our checkbook for twenty years) ... algebra not so much. Something about letters and numbers in the same equation just sends my brain all helter skelter
Same with mechanical principals.

Thing is, I'm not afraid to ask questions. How else are you going to learn?
 
metallyguitarded_imp said:
JustJohn_imp said:
No comprende. As a life-long fan of stationary engines, huge diesels, ship engines, etc I'm seeing a few holes in this story. Ok, for example: I lose whats left of my mind and install a 2500 H.P. Funny Car engine in an overseas vessel. I fully expect it to perform as well as a giant Volvo inline 6 diesel. A slow turning, torque laden engine. I wouldn't even get out of the port of call. Not looking for an fight at all. But not seeing it.
I know this isn't a fight but I just got a text message from my bookie that simply reads: "ChipBeck (-320), JustJohn (+210)". Gotta go with the smart money.
I know this isn't a fight but I just got a text message from my bookie that simply reads: "ChipBeck (-320), JustJohn (+210)". Gotta go with the smart money.
Well go with who you like, but in my brief 55 years experience with engines I will take torque EVERY time. Something as simple as an old 300 HP Cummins will take a 300 HP small block Chevy to school and OWN it every time. And I'm not saying I'm smart enough to know every single variable,but Torque wins in power. Always does. Gotta turn them RPM's up? More heat, more fuel, more wear.
 
Thread starter
JustJohn_imp said:
No comprende. As a life-long fan of stationary engines, huge diesels, ship engines, etc I'm seeing a few holes in this story. Ok, for example: I lose whats left of my mind and install a 2500 H.P. Funny Car engine in an overseas vessel. I fully expect it to perform as well as a giant Volvo inline 6 diesel. A slow turning, torque laden engine. I wouldn't even get out of the port of call. Not looking for an fight at all. But not seeing it.
John,

Modern funny car engines produce substantially more than 2500 hp, they're probably approaching double that figure and they are so highly stressed that they must be completely rebuilt after every four second quarter-mile run. So you probably wouldn't get out of port unless you could do it in about four seconds. And the frictional losses involved in transmission gearing to use a 10,000 RPM funny car engine to turn a massive ships propeller 100 RPM would be astronomical. That funny car engine is highly stressed and wears out extreemly fast. The massive diesel engine in a ship is designed to run near it's rated power for weeks on end without stopping and because they turn at very low RPM the frictional losses gearing them down to turn the slow-moving propellers of modern ships would be far more modest. So the funny car engine is not suitable to drive a slow turning ships propeller but it would be a poor choice for reasons other than power. For the same reason, that big 2500 HP inline six Volvo diesel would be a poor choice for a funny car but again, for reasons other than power.

But for the sake of argument, if the gearing horsepower losses were equal to get to a final prop speed of 100 RPM (or whatever RPM that ships propeller requires), it doesn't matter a whit whether the 2500 hp required to move that ship is generated by a massive Volvo diesel, a funny car engine, or wound up rubber bands. Horsepower is a measure of work, it has a finite value that is as absolute as 1 pound of weight.

What you are attempting to argue is that 100 pounds of feathers would have to weigh less than 100 pounds of lead. Even if it's hard to grasp, they both weigh 100 pounds. Believe it or not, understand it or not, a 2500 hp gasoline engine in a top fuel dragster, a 2500 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin engine in Reno air race plane, and a 2500 hp Volvo diesel in an oil tanker all have the exact same amount of peak horsepower which is their ability to do work.

Let me turn your example around. Do you think your massive Volvo in-line six diesel would ever be able to propel a car through the quarter-mile in under four seconds? In this case even if that big diesel didn't weigh any more than the funny car engine, it's slow RPM would require overdrive transmission gearing so steep that again, frictional losses would be astronomical. But assuming that gearing horsepower losses were equal, and assuming that your big diesel and that funny car engine were the same weight, and assuming they had the same horsepower, they would both propel both that ship and that funny car at the same velocities. 100 pounds of weight is 100 pounds whether it's feathers or lead. 2500 hp is 2500 hp regardless of what type of engine we are talking about.

Again, horsepower is an absolute measurement of energy, no different than a calorie, or a watt, or a volt. 100 W of electricity produced by a windmill will light a bulb precisely as bright as 100 W of electricity produced by a hydroelectric dam.

All the best.

Chip
 
So what are the "Frictional losses" called? And "weeks" without end? How about years? Whats that called? Balls? Its not hard for me to grasp...but your theory of it is. I totally appreciate your insite and time to post. However you will not convince me. Nor will simple physics lessons. NOT for motorcycle engines per se...but put a few locomotives or ships out there and tell me about torque and HP.
 
Chip,

Thanks for taking time to put HP vs. torque into tangible context for us laymen!

JustJohn-
Different engines are designed for different purposes in mind. Locomotive or commercial freight ship motors are optimized for low-end torque because maximum "twist" is required to get that much mass moving from a standstill; likewise, as was demonstrated in the CBR vs Chopper video, massive amounts of low-end torque can help you get off the line faster, however, if that race allowed for the CBR to reach near the high-end of 2nd gear (or even 1st), it would be lights-out. The CBR is optimized for maximum HP, which takes place near redline, whereas the V-twin chopper (undersquare, long-stroke) is optimized for low-end torque. Massive amounts of low-end torque may be perceived as "responsiveness", particularly off the line; whereas engines optimized for maximum power typically experience peak torque and peak power near the upper end of the RPM range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My interest and curiosity piqued, I decided to watch videos on horsepower vs. torque during my treadmill run. Talk about making an already painful experience worse. A few things I've come away with:

First, there are an immeasurable number of people who understand this stuff much better than I do or ever will.

Second, the theories explained by Chip are not ones he made up. Instead, they are grounded in physics and mathematics and shared by many who, by all appearances, know what they're talking about. I think Chip's explanations are among the best I've read/seen so far.

Third, there's more to acceleration than horsepower or torque at a certain rpm. There are a whole host of factors that figure in, only a small fraction of which I have some idea about. That includes gearing, weight, traction, wind resistance and I'm sure scores more.

Finally, as much as I'd like to pretend I don't care about this stuff, I find it fascinating. I don't have aspirations to become a mechanical engineer or engine designer but the fact that we can build a machine that propels us forward at the twist of the wrist is mind boggling. Something I take for granted. Getting a peek backstage and seeing how the magician performs his tricks is pretty exciting.
 
Thread starter
JustJohn_imp said:
So what are the "Frictional losses" called? And "weeks" without end? How about years? Whats that called? Balls? Its not hard for me to grasp...but your theory of it is. I totally appreciate your insite and time to post. However you will not convince me. Nor will simple physics lessons. NOT for motorcycle engines per se...but put a few locomotives or ships out there and tell me about torque and HP.
Frictional losses are called frictional losses. If we are measuring horsepower at the crank of an engine that power is what is generated post all engine frictional losses so it is irrelevant to an engines rated horsepower although it would probably have bearing upon fuel consumption. Modern ships can reach any port on earth in less than three weeks. I am assuming that most ships are used to transport goods so they do need to stop to offload cargo. Military diesel powered ships on patrol do stay out for months if necessary but most of them go to port every month or so as well where they are shut down to be serviced. I am not aware of any diesel powered ships, locomotives, or even stationary engines used to pump water on farms that run for years without being shut down for maintenance. But that isn't really relevant here either. You are giving examples of specific applications where low RPM and long term operation is beneficial and you are clearly a fan of such engines. That's great. But extrapolating from those specific applications that turning force in an engine is a measure of that engines power regardless of how many times per minute that turning force is applied is incorrect. What I have described here is not a "theory of mine". These are not original thoughts that I am cooking up. They are established facts you can verify with some study in engineering or elementary science. That the earth is round is not a theory no matter how many people don't believe it. And writing that a pound of feathers will push down upon a scale with exactly the same amount of force as a pound of lead is not a theory, it just is.

One horsepower equals 33,000 foot-pounds of work per minute—that is, the power necessary to lift a total mass of 33,000 pounds one foot in one minute. This value was adopted by the Scottish engineer James Watt in the late 18th century, after experiments with strong dray horses. The electrical equivalent of one horsepower is 746 watts in the International System of Units (SI), and the heat equivalent is 2,545 BTU (British Thermal Units) per hour. This measure of power is not a theory of mine, it's been an established and accepted fact for over 200 years.

You are arguing that the force of an individual hammer blow is a measure of how much work a carpenter can do and you wish to ignore how many hammer blows per minute he strikes. Then you argue that because nobody uses high RPM motors in ships, low RPM motors that produce lots of torque at low RPM must be better. Your final sentence would be the equivalent of me proclaiming, "Show me a winning funny car with a huge Volvo inline 6 diesel and then talk to me about torque and HP". That big Volvo diesel would get owned in every race.

If you want an example of a very heavy vehicle that has been successfully powered by a high RPM, low torque motor in hard use for decades then I'll give you one. It's the M-1 Abrams battle tank. It weighs 68 tons, the heaviest main battle tank in use today yet it is the fastest (capable of 60 mph ungoverned) as well as the fastest accelerating tank that has ever seen service. It has a very high RPM, low torque turbine engine with 1500 HP and about 2700 FT/LBS of torque. A 1500 HP diesel would have over 6000 FT/LBS of torque (over twice as much torque as the turbine). During development diesel engines were considered and tried but the low torque turbine smoked them in performance tests. The battle tanks of almost all other countries are high torque diesel powered and they are no match for the M-1.

A major benefit of that low torque turbine is that it is much lighter. A 1500 HP diesel engine weighs about 5000 lbs, that 1500 HP turbine weighs 2500 lbs. So why aren't turbines used in more heavy trucks and ships? Because they are expensive, require more maintenance, have slightly higher fuel consumption, and don't last quite as long. Again, these factors are unrelated to engine power.

All I can do is present established facts and inarguable long accepted units of measurement and if they run contrary to someones belief system, I can't help. All the best.

Chip
 
Chip,

Thanks for the write up, a lot of time and effort. We ride these bikes and don't realize the engineering that goes into setting up the proper strength of push rods, Pistons, lifters and valve springs to get the proper balance so motors last a very long time.

In layman's terms my 100yd dash hit the nail on the head so to speak, think of the runners feet being the hammer and the ground being the nail.
 
ChipBeck_imp said:
JustJohn_imp said:
So what are the "Frictional losses" called? And "weeks" without end? How about years? Whats that called? Balls? Its not hard for me to grasp...but your theory of it is. I totally appreciate your insite and time to post. However you will not convince me. Nor will simple physics lessons. NOT for motorcycle engines per se...but put a few locomotives or ships out there and tell me about torque and HP.
Frictional losses are called frictional losses. If we are measuring horsepower at the crank of an engine that power is what is generated post all engine frictional losses so it is irrelevant to an engines rated horsepower although it would probably have bearing upon fuel consumption. Modern ships can reach any port on earth in less than three weeks. I am assuming that most ships are used to transport goods so they do need to stop to offload cargo. Military diesel powered ships on patrol do stay out for months if necessary but most of them go to port every month or so as well where they are shut down to be serviced. I am not aware of any diesel powered ships, locomotives, or even stationary engines used to pump water on farms that run for years without being shut down for maintenance. But that isn't really relevant here either. You are giving examples of specific applications where low RPM and long term operation is beneficial and you are clearly a fan of such engines. That's great. But extrapolating from those specific applications that turning force in an engine is a measure of that engines power regardless of how many times per minute that turning force is applied is incorrect. What I have described here is not a "theory of mine". These are not original thoughts that I am cooking up. They are established facts you can verify with some study in engineering or elementary science. That the earth is round is not a theory no matter how many people don't believe it. And writing that a pound of feathers will push down upon a scale with exactly the same amount of force as a pound of lead is not a theory, it just is.

One horsepower equals 33,000 foot-pounds of work per minute—that is, the power necessary to lift a total mass of 33,000 pounds one foot in one minute. This value was adopted by the Scottish engineer James Watt in the late 18th century, after experiments with strong dray horses. The electrical equivalent of one horsepower is 746 watts in the International System of Units (SI), and the heat equivalent is 2,545 BTU (British Thermal Units) per hour. This measure of power is not a theory of mine, it's been an established and accepted fact for over 200 years.

You are arguing that the force of an individual hammer blow is a measure of how much work a carpenter can do and you wish to ignore how many hammer blows per minute he strikes. Then you argue that because nobody uses high RPM motors in ships, low RPM motors that produce lots of torque at low RPM must be better. Your final sentence would be the equivalent of me proclaiming, "Show me a winning funny car with a huge Volvo inline 6 diesel and then talk to me about torque and HP". That big Volvo diesel would get owned in every race.

If you want an example of a very heavy vehicle that has been successfully powered by a high RPM, low torque motor in hard use for decades then I'll give you one. It's the M-1 Abrams battle tank. It weighs 68 tons, the heaviest main battle tank in use today yet it is the fastest (capable of 60 mph ungoverned) as well as the fastest accelerating tank that has ever seen service. It has a very high RPM, low torque turbine engine with 1500 HP and about 2700 FT/LBS of torque. A 1500 HP diesel would have over 6000 FT/LBS of torque (over twice as much torque as the turbine). During development diesel engines were considered and tried but the low torque turbine smoked them in performance tests. The battle tanks of almost all other countries are high torque diesel powered and they are no match for the M-1.

A major benefit of that low torque turbine is that it is much lighter. A 1500 HP diesel engine weighs about 5000 lbs, that 1500 HP turbine weighs 2500 lbs. So why aren't turbines used in more heavy trucks and ships? Because they are expensive, require more maintenance, have slightly higher fuel consumption, and don't last quite as long. Again, these factors are unrelated to engine power.

All I can do is present established facts and inarguable long accepted units of measurement and if they run contrary to someones belief system, I can't help. All the best.

Chip
All I can do is present established facts and inarguable long accepted units of measurement and if they run contrary to someones belief system, I can't help. All the best.

Chip
The Internet and cable news...two places where Established facts and unarguable long accepted units of measurement don't seem to matter!

Good stuff, Chip, thanks a bunch.
 
Back
Top