Pop N Wood
-
Posts
3012 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Pop N Wood
-
-
No. I don't feel abused. Mainly because I don't feel lied to. I feel those who are keying in on WMD are uniformed. There were a 100+ reasons for invading Iraq. The potential for WMD was just the one everybody latched on to and the one Bush made a selling point. There is a difference between being wrong and being lied to.
I really don't want to argue whether the war was right or wrong. Out of all the reasons I could think of there are unquestionably people who won't agree with them. But unlike some of the depressed individuals flaming all these political threads, I recognize there are other, fully legitimate points of view beside my own.
Also you may want to go back and read Mike's post to you. He didn't say gun deaths in Oz went up. He said violent crimes went up. Big difference. Some would claim one could be prevented by the other.
-
Send me the link. I would be interested in what others have to say. This thread has digressed a bit.
-
Guess I just don't agree with the money motive. In the short run, the contracts are being paid with our money anyway (at least a good chunk of it). Not to mention American lives. In the long run, that country is still going to hate us. Eventually they will get on their feet and start chanting Death to America again.
Guess one could argue that we will turn them into a puppet state. But if our current relationship with Germany is any guide I wouldn't bank on that. People will always do busines with us because money talks and we have a lot of it. But you don't have to agree with someone or even like them to want to make money off them.
Let's face it. I would be suprised if we regain even a portion of our investment in this struggle. All we will have to comfort us is the idea that we at least tried to do the right thing.
And given the current divide in our country it is not much to hang our hats on, now is it?
-
As to Boner Boy wanting U.N Secretary General, I believe their constitution prohibits an American from holding that position.
He will claim he is Canadian. No one will ever know. After all, people like Linda Ronstadt think Micheal Moore is a great American.
-
Kofi Annan stated the war was probably illegal. But if it's not pursued, it really doesn't matter.
That's OK. Boner Boy will have that job soon so then it will be legal again.
-
An actual email exchange between a convervative and liberal friend of mine.
Dave, have you decided what country you’re moving to yet? : PYou say it in jest' date=' but Meghan and I are seriously discussing it. I’d betalking to a real estate person about selling my house today if we weren’t
stuck here until Meghan graduates.
At the very least, I have given up on America and 50-some percent of its
people. I really don’t give a shit what happens to this country anymore. I
will never set foot in a voting booth again. It’s a waste of effort.
There are no checks and balances in this country. The ultra-conservatives
are in charge. Theory is that the undecideds voted along moral lines—so
Bush’s gay marriage amendment red-herring worked like a charm. You’ve got
the house, the senate, and soon there will be at least one (up to three)
additional Scalias and Thomas-es on the Supreme Court. I hope you like
Nathan learning about God (the Christian God, of course) in school—it’ll
be part of the No Child Left Un-Reborn Act pretty soon.
I would gladly renounce my citizenship at this moment if I could. And I’m
perfectly serious. The lemmings in this country deserve whatever they get.
[/quote']
Funny but sad all the same. How will our country ever heal?
-
Unfortunately' date=' it is all about money, and has very little do to with the people that actually live there. Our country also has much to gain economically by our invasion.
[/quote']
A truly amazing statement given the state of our country today.
Oil prices are the highest in history and John Kerry made incredible headway with his 200 billion dollar swan song about the war's cost.
Could you please tell me exactly what economic gains we are seeing?
Also you do remember we were placing American service members in harms way the entire 12 years they were flying over Iraq to defend the no fly zones? I don't think a week went by that they didn't take at least one pot shot at a coalition aircraft. It was only the quality of our service members and our technology that prevented American deaths in that time.
I suppose allowing the international sanctions to cripple the Iraqi economy and further impoverish the Iraqi people was acceptable? What benefit did we derive when Bush convinced the world to forgive Iraq's foreign debts? Wasn't that for the benefit of the Iraqi people? Or did we somehow make money off that too?
-
From
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6386157/
Armed with some of the strictest anti-terrorism laws and policies in Europe, the French government has aggressively targeted Islamic radicals and other people deemed a potential terrorist threat. While other Western countries debate the proper balance between security and individual rights, France has experienced scant public dissent over tactics that would be controversial, if not illegal, in the United States and some other countries."You do see France making an effort to cast itself as the friendly Western power," as distinct from the United States, he said. "When it comes to counterterrorism operations, France is hard-core. . . . But they are also very cognizant of what public diplomacy is all about."France has embraced a law enforcement strategy that relies heavily on preemptive arrests, ethnic profiling and an efficient domestic intelligence-gathering network. French anti-terrorism prosecutors and investigators are among the most powerful in Europe, backed by laws that allow them to interrogate suspects for days without interference from defense attorneys.
The nation pursues such policies at a time when France has become well known in the world for criticizing the United States for holding suspected terrorists at Guantanamo without normal judicial protections.
-
Doesn't the JTR manual say something about replacing the guts of the early tachs with the later ones? What year was the cut off for that?
I think the early tachs worked off current where the later ones work off voltage. If this is true, then the tach could be working like a short.
All the ballast resistor is suppose to do is keep you from buring up points. If you have replaced the points then you don't need it. Can't see how that would make a difference with the tach.
-
F the UN.
I have never understood the concept of a war being "legal".
War by its very nature implies a break down in social order. It is (or should be) a fight for survival. The Geneva convention isn't so much a set of rules as a gentleman's agreement that we won't do these nasty things if you don't.
And who the hell enforces the law anyway? What authority stands above the US constitution? Laws are only laws if the people agree to be governed by them.
-
The second part threw me though... so because of the multiplication, the torque from the higher rpm motor would be the same at the wheels? I'm trying to figure out how this all relates to my car... in which torque falls off relatively soon and pretty rapidly after 4000rpm, yet, horsepower is tabletop flat from 3500-6000rpm. So I'm trying to figure out at which point in the power curve my car is accelerating the fastest.
Because of the multiplication, both motors should be producing the same torque at the wheels. You would have to go through the math and take the gear ratios for both cars times the engine torque they are actually producing. But if you are saying that both vehicles are going the same speed and both engines are kicking out exactly 228 HP, I claim that tells you all you need to know. Mathematically torque times RPM yields HP. HP is the constant and can neither be “created nor destroyedâ€. So in your example, both cars have the rear wheels spinning at the same RPM so the higher reving engine must use a lower gear. This will multiply the torque, but you know that when all the math is done both cars will be producing the same torque at the rear wheels. Why? Because they are producing the same HP and HP = torque X RPM. Changing gearing to affect RPM means the torque will go the opposite direction. Same HP at the same RPM = same torque.
When you include gearing acceleration is directly related to engine HP. So the two cars should be able to accelerate equally.
For your engine, torque is dropping as engine speed increases. But if HP stays constant, then that means torque is dropping at the same rate that the engine RPM increases (HP = torque X RPM). So if you believe what I say that the available acceleration at any vehicle speed is directly proportional to engine HP, then it really doesn’t matter if your engine is spinning 3500 or 5500 RPM. The potential acceleration should be the same. This is especially true if your HP curve was measured on a rear wheel dyno where drivetrain losses are accounted for. Go with whatever gear you can hold the longest at that portion of the track.
BTW. That is an unusual engine to have such a flat HP curve. I personally have seen lots of dyno curves with flat torque curves, but not many with super flat HP curves.
-
Would you clarify that a little bit?... if it's 400ftlbs or whatever... it's 400ftlbs... why does it make it faster when it occurs in higher RPM? [/quote']Because a higher engine RPM means you can select a lower gear ratio for any particular vehicle speed to create even MORE torque at the rear wheels.higher engine rpm...compared to what?
lower gear ratio...compared to what?
more torque...compared to what?
Thanks.
Think of it this way. You are cruising along at 30 mph in 4th gear when someone jumps you. You want to downshift and accelerate as quickly as possible. What gear will you choose?
At that exact instant in time your car is going a certain speed, so that means your rear wheels are turning at a certain speed. If you drop down to 3rd gear, your engine revs will jump to some speed. If you drop down to 2nd gear (i.e. a lower gear), your engine revs will jump to higher speed. All of this assumes you don’t lose traction.
Let's say you have one of the new Dodge hemis. Those things have torque curves that are almost completely flat from something like 2000 RPM to 5000 RPM (at least that is what I remember from an old post). Let's also say going to 3rd gear will put you at 2500 RPM, but going to 2nd puts you at 3500 RPM (I made this up just for an example). At both RPM's the engine is kicking out the same torque, so it shouldn't matter, right? But the torque at the rear wheels is the engine torque multiplied by the overall gear ratio. So going to a lower gear will give you more torque at the rear wheels and faster acceleration.
What is the difference between 2500 RPM and 3500 RPM? Horse power.
Take this example one step further. Say going to 1st gear would put the engine at just under 5000 RPM. Same assumed torque, yet lower gear, so should accelerate even better, right? Yes BUT dropping down to first and accelerating will quickly put the engine over 5000 RPM, torque will start going down and depending on the power curve the engine might go past it’s HP peak. At any rate you will run out of top end very quickly all the while running the risk of lighting up the tires with all the rear wheel torque. So in this case you are probably better going to 2nd and winding the engine out.
-
A good Z shop can rebuild a manual transmission in less than a day. It is actually pretty cheap too. I had mine done for $250 about 15 years ago.
Post where you are and maybe someone can direct you to a good shop.
Or get the free 4 speed and have the 5 speed rebuilt when you get the money
-
Probably just lost all the clutch hydraulic fluid. You might need new master/slave cylinders and possibly the rubber line. But having all the internals rusted together is not too unbelievable either.
If that thing has been sitting for 10 years I would bring a trailer and not a tool box. Brave man.
-
I have a small garage so I have quite a few "multi purpose" tools. All I can say is what a PITA. End up not using most of them because half the time it seems like too much trouble to reconfigure the tool.
Need a bigger shop with dedicated tools that are always set up and ready.
Oh, and empty plastic peanut butter jars make great storage bins for fasteners. Screws and nails in particular because you can just grab the enclosed jar and take it to the job site. I have several sets of shelves just to hold all the jars. Even built a rack into my workbench with enough room behind it to store the MIG cart.
-
I have *heard* you shouldn't mix brands of oil since you can't be sure how the different additives will interact. I have also read that 10W 40 is not a good oil, that 10W30 is all the wider of a ratio you should use. Something about the polymer chains being too long to try and get the 40 part.
Both of my Toyotas recommend 5W30, so that is all I run.
-
How many poeple would have died if we had not gone into Iraq?
I guess it depends on whether you consider Iraqi lives as valuable as American lives. How many "people" was Saddam reportedly responsible for killing? I can't remember exact numbers but it wasn't insignificant. Artillery battles and poison gas attacks will do that sort of thing. How many more would have died by him staying in power?
I hear your arguments about whether this was our battle to fight or not fight. And I won't contest the idea that it could have been handled differently. But it seems kind of hard to argue that taking him out wasn't for the greater good.
-
If you had two cars making the same amount of peak HP, but vastly different amounts of torque, but the cars were basically identical otherwise, oh but they are geared to take advantage of their relative power curves (i.e.: the S2000 with it's 6 speed, relatively short gears and 9000rpm engine). THEN given identical conditions which one should be faster or would they be about the same given the same HP numbers? Shouldn't the torquier motor be faster?
This type of discussion is common on web boards so I have had a good bit of time to think about it.
Some of the problem is wording. Most people use the word "torque" like you do above. It is interpreted as having a wide power band. I think of torque as HP divided by RPM. Thus having a wide torque curve is the same as saying you have a lot of HP over a wide range of engine speeds.
When you think about it, peak HP is doesn't mean anything unless the engine is always spinning at that speed. Shifting takes the engine revs away from the HP peak. So when you shift you have less HP to convert into rear wheel torque. A car with a wide power band doesn't have to shift as much and can thus be faster, simply because it spends more time at higher HP.
I think it is Drax240 who always says it is the power under the curve that matters.
I personally can't tell you what the best shift points are. This takes more driving experience than I have. I would imagine it varies with different types of racing. Obviously you don't want to power shift in the middle of a turn or it will upset the balance of the car.
But I can tell you from the math involved when the maximum theoretical acceleration occurs, and that is when the HP is maximized.
-
Did you say Viper engine?
Man, you have to post some pics.
-
The one with more HP, not torque, would be faster.
Forget torque curves. Only look at the HP curve.
at what point has the torque dropped off enough in first gear, that shifting into 2nd would NOT cause the rate of acceleration to lessen?When the shift is performed such that the HP rating both before and after the shift are identical. As you round the top of the HP curve you start to go down in HP. When you shift, you will drop back to the other side of the HP peak. If the HP is the same at both points, the acceleration will be the same. Or so says the math.
You want to shift in such a way that you keep the highest HP possible, but you also need to account for the time it takes to shift. If the HP curve is too narrow and peaky, you will need a whole bunch of narrowly spaced gears to stay in the power band. So the spacing between the gear ratios will dictate you shift points as much as the shape of the HP curve. Ideally you will select gear ratios in conjunction with the engine power curve.
One other thing. Shifting into a higher gear will cause the torque multiplier to go down. But not power (provided the drive train losses don't change much). Power can neither be created nor destroyed. Torque times RPM equals power. This is true for the rear wheels was well as the engine. So if the engine is pumping out 300 HP, you can divide that by engine RPM to get the torque rating. Multiply the engine RPM by the gear ratio (including diff), you can get the revs of the rear wheels. Take the engine HP, subtract for driveline losses, then divide by the rear wheel revs and you now have the torque value at the rear wheels.
... if it's 400ftlbs or whatever... it's 400ftlbs... why does it make it faster when it occurs in higher RPM?Because a higher engine RPM means you can select a lower gear ratio for any particular vehicle speed to create even MORE torque at the rear wheels.
Or more simply, because it is making more HP. HP is good. More is better.
-
Torque moves a car. Period. HP is a theoretical number' date=' and the actual number is derived from the torque. Only torque is measured on a dyno. (correct me if I'm wrong on any of this).
[/quote']
Most of this is wrong. Unfortunately there are so many incorrect and misleading articles on the web that this problem becomes very difficult.
HP and torque have very precise mathematical definitions. Unfortunately this is very poor way for most people to understand it. But it gives the best understanding of the problem when the math is understood. The biggest problem with this argument is the conflicting definitions people give to torque and power.
To take the statements one at a time.
Torque moves a car. Period.This should read
Torque at the rear wheels moves a car. NO Period. Much more to it.The trick here is gearing. A lower gear will multiply the engine torque yielding greater rear wheel torque. Pick up a good book on vehicle performance and you may find an equation to compute rear wheel torque from the engine HP. What the equation shows is the maximum rear wheel torque for any given vehicle speed is produced when the gear ratio is adjusted so that the engine is spinning at the HP peak. And the higher the rear wheel torque, the higher the acceleration.
HP is a theoretical numberNo. HP is not a theoretical number. It is just as “real†as torque. HP is a measure of power which is the amount of energy dissipated in a period of time. It is energy that is covered by the first law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created or destroyed, only altered in form). If an engine is producing 300 HP, that HP has to go somewhere. If it doesn’t go into accelerating the car, it is consumed as heat in the driveline losses or in smoking the tires.
Only torque is measured on a dyno.Torque is frequently measured on most common dynos. But I have seen dynos that measure power directly. This was on a submarine power plant that used a generator instead of a transmission to gear down the steam turbine. For testing, the electricity from generator was dissipated into a bank of resistors. Measuring the current and voltage at the resistors yielded the power produced by the turbine. Electrical generating stations compute power in the same way.
You are correct in that torque and HP are mathematically related. But the equation works both ways. You can just as easily compute torque from power and RPM as the other way around.
By it’s very definition, it is power that determines how much work can be done over a period of time. The more power you produce, the more “work†that can be done (meaning the faster you can accelerate). This statement could have a period after it.
Go back to the equation computing vehicle acceleration from engine HP. Assuming driveline losses can be controlled, the fastest way to accelerate a car would be to use a continuously variable transmission that keeps the engine spinning at the HP peak. With a 5 speed tranny, you need to match the gearing to the engine HP curve so that shifting keeps the HP from dropping too low.
So what you want to do is build an engine that produces the maximum amount of HP over the range of RPM's that it will be used. If your gearing is too wide that a shift takes you out of the power band, then you will be slower at the speed.
-
Wheelbase length has a lot to do with the stability of a tow vehicle. Engine and braking power are really the least of your worries.
-
When you write "you" I expect that you must mean The Guardian newspaper, and not the British public, the British Government, or anybody else. Certainly not *me*.
A common grammatical nuance in American English.
What is the phrase? Two great people separated by a common language.
-
That is one of the funniest things I have read in regards to this whole election. I am still laughing.
Amazing the wide range of responses.
But really, we have enough dissenting opinions of our own. Don’t need another nation of outsiders stirring up the pot. I grew up in the midwest. I think you should heed the warnings about this backfiring on you.
I would be interested to see what some of the UK to US emails said.
Iraq War Illegal?
in Non Tech Board
Posted
You're being non causal.