The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Quality Images and Videos (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   Machines (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=31838)

Griff 07-17-2019 06:05 AM

I see what you did there.

fargon 07-17-2019 06:47 AM

It's a tank engine.

tw 07-17-2019 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 1035758)
Because horsepower don't mean shit, torque is what does work.

Any kid from elementary school science can see through that lie. Same torque can be obtained from the motor in an electric clock. Just change gear ratios.

It is a 19.5 horsepower per liter engine. If diesel, then acceptable for that period. If gasoline, it was a marginal design. Which would explain why it was only made for a short time. Too little speed to provide necessary torque - due to insufficient horsepower.

Rhianne 07-17-2019 08:07 AM

TW is right. HP is a calculation taken directly from the torque (HP = Torque lb-ft x RPM / 5252). The low HP figure is a result only of the low-revving nature of the engine.

Undertoad 07-17-2019 08:48 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_A57_multibank

Quote:

The Chrysler A57 Multibank is a 30-cylinder 1,253 cu in (20.5 L) engine that was created in 1941 as America entered World War II. It was born out of the necessity for a rear-mounted tank engine to be developed and produced in the shortest time possible for use in the M3A4 Lee medium tank and its successor M4A4 Sherman medium tank. Each had lengthened hulls to accommodate the A57.

xoxoxoBruce 07-17-2019 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 1035765)
Any kid from elementary school science can see through that lie. Same torque can be obtained from the motor in an electric clock. Just change gear ratios.

That electric clock motor won't provide enough torque to overcome the frictional loss in all the gears it would take to do anything useful.
All the gears in the world won't change the torque the motor produces, just multiply the torque by reducing the speed of the output thereby reducing the calculated horsepower.

Theory is bullshit, torque does the work.

xoxoxoBruce 07-18-2019 12:22 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Who say cheaters never win, both NHRA and NASCAR checked the Carb, Intake, Bore, Stroke and Heads,
but not the bottom end. Taking off the Intake they should have spotted the cam bearings though.

BigV 07-18-2019 09:55 AM

I'm curious about how those connecting rod internal bearing races work. They look like in the picture that there's a race on the bearings... Which makes me wonder how they got the bearing/race onto the crank.

Any help?

xoxoxoBruce 07-18-2019 10:10 AM

This crankshaft is a one piece and is heat treated and surface hardened. The connecting rods and bearing races are split in the middle. The bearing retainers are also split in half and assembled around the crankshaft, and split races are in the block and main bearing caps. The roller bearings run directly on the hardened crankshaft.

BigV 07-18-2019 10:38 AM

Thanks, key phrase "split races", is a new thing to me. I think I can imagine it now.

Thanks!

Diaphone Jim 07-18-2019 11:57 AM

Were the rollers illegal?

xoxoxoBruce 07-18-2019 09:59 PM

Oh yes, very. Especially NASCAR who wants to make everything same same. Using those bearings cut down on frictional losses and you could use a smaller oil pump that took much less parasitic power from the engine. Might be good for 5 mph compared to a legal engine, and in NASCAR that's huge. NHRA it would be OK in modified classes but very illegal in stock, SS, even FX classes.

tw 07-19-2019 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 1035769)
That electric clock motor won't provide enough torque to overcome the frictional loss in all the gears

You have assumed conventional gears.

And have totally ignored the point. Same torque can be provided by all sorts of horsepower - high and low. Irrelevant is torque when speed also matters. Only increased horsepower means sufficient speed at that torque. Only horsepower matters. Even a 2 liter four cylinder engine can provide the same torque. But does not have speed.

Obviously that torque myth is popular among many who forget that simple formula taught in school science.

Torque is obviously irrelevant if enough horsepower does not exist to provide minimal speed. Only horsepower matters.

Why do eighteen wheelers with 350 horsepower engines have enough torque for 60,000 pounds? Many gears. Which eighteen wheelers get up to speed faster? Those with 500 horsepower engines. Both have same torque. More horsepower means better speed (and acceleration).

Horsepower is the relevant number.

How did Shell create a 100 MPG car in the 1950s? A two horsepower engine had plenty of torque - and not much speed. Simple multiplication.

xoxoxoBruce 07-19-2019 08:35 PM

Yes, I assumed conventional gears, my bad for not considering your magical frictionless fairy gears. My only excuse is I'm stuck in the real world.

You have it backwards as usual, horsepower is the product of torque times speed over constant. The 30 cylinder engine was designed to produce the torque they needed at the speed they wanted. Yes the hp rating could be increased by increasing the RPMs, but that would be stupid. All that would be accomplished is more wear on the engine and the need to gear it back down to a usable speed. They already had the torque they needed and Torque Does the Work.

Your 2 liter 4 won't get far in a tank or a semi.

xoxoxoBruce 07-20-2019 11:01 PM

1 Attachment(s)
The basic bicycle is a pretty simple design, but it took a long time and lots of dead ends to get there. I have a feeling clothing had a lot to do with it.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:47 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.