My valve cover leaks and i need to know how much to torque it is there any website i can go to to find out how much to torque it
If it leaks you're probably going to have to replace the gasket.
the gaskets are cheap,and ask the auto parts place if they have a manual,they are worth the few dollars that they want.that way you do not have wrench monkeys torqing your wheel nuts to 250 ft lbs.. these gasket amounts vary from 25 to 50 ft lbs.
Way way lower than that. Around 80 inch-pounds.
an what classifies a wrench monkey?
A wrench monkey is someone who's stupid enough to...
...Torque valve cover gaskets to between 25 and 50 "ft lbs". A wrench monkey might also be someone who isn't smart enough to know that you torque to lb/ft or lb/in.
Yah, I've never heard of a valve cover needing to be torqued 25-50lbs. Nor have I ever seen someone break out a torque wrench for it. Just make it good and snug.
Good God almighty!!! I thought everyone knew all valve covers were the
The proper specs is 35ft.4in. lbs and is done with a torx wrench!!! :laughing:
It's Foot-Pounds. Using that would be "85 Foot-Pounds." I'm not sure if you were saying it would be "85 Pounds-Feet" or not, but if so that is wrong.
with alot of things tight enough to hold but not tight enough to strip the threads is fine, but with gaskets and mating flanges, if you can do it with a torque wrench then by god do it with a torque wrench, everyone says fel-pro cork is crap or (insert company name here) is crap , a gasket seal is only as good as the installer. even torque across a valve cover is crucial because you can warp it easily or flatten the gasket very easily. these gaskets will work properly if installed properly
Yeah, sorry I didn't make it simpler for you kiddies to understand but that
IS in fact what I was saying. However as an American it's your right to be
wrong on a public forum... A right you continually seem intent to
The correct measurement terminology is lb/ft, lb/in, oz/in, etc. It matters not if you're talking about a torque measurement taken from an engine on a dynomometer or if you're installing valve cover gaskets. No matter how many times you repeat wrong information (something you have elevated to a fine art), it is still wrong information.
Here are a couple of examples of what I'm talking about. The first is from a website of the premier torque measuring tool manufacturer in the US and maybe the world. Never heard of them? Only because you're not smart enough to know that they've been making torque wrenches for various companies, including Snap-On, for years.
Here's a site you should be very familiar with. It's the one you still claim that I plagiarized, even though you know that's incorrect as well. No matter how many times you say it (the sky is falling, the sky is falling) it doesn't make it so. At any rate, if you spent as much time reading the article as you do lying about it you might already be aware of this information.
So here's the deal. Before you make an attempt to correct me, make sure you have the facts. Once again you've assumed that you know something... And once again you've proven in a very public way that you don't. Remember that the long time members of this forum can still recall when you where as bad as CarExpert... and you're not much better now. DildoRida67, or maybe Chicken Little, is back! Have a wonderful day, and don't forget to attempt to flame me. I'll be waiting for it, you're so very predictable.
And newton/meters, and kg/cm, gram/m.. etc etc. I've never seen them used in any applications, but they are there... And probably will start being used in the short future due to the fact that everything is going metric.
the 250 ft lbs was not for the valve cover gasket,I was making reference to
the guys at canadian tire that torqued my WHEEL nuts to 250 lbs.do to the
overwhelming response in a smart way, I re- read my original answer,and I
said 25-50 ft/lbs. that is too high.ESPECIALLY AN ALUMINUM ENGINE.the
exact amount will be found with the manufacturer of your engine.AND I stick
with the engineers at haynes on that one,with ft/lb.see page 2a1 isbn# 1
56392 212 6 manual.its for a 1987 3.0 l ford v6 the valve cover bolts are
6-8 ft/lbs ,NOT LB/FT.if you torque a bolt down,the torque remains ,maybe
it is different for something that generates torque.hmmm.
The valve cover gaskets vary, some might be 8 ft lbs.SOME 12,and some big engines are more than that. I did not think it was so important to specify lb/ft or ft/lbs as to the reference of the fact that the haynes manual I am reading for the 1985 thru 1995 sable,says FT/LBS for ALL THE TORQUE SPECIFICATIONS. SO DOES THE MANUAL FOR MY OTHER CAR. I know pilots out there who are so expert that they skip using a checklist.THEY ARE EXPERT.Well I have been flying aircraft for 26 years and still use one.They are usually the ones that end up getting killed over a stupid mistake.If someone works on cars everyday,a torque wrench might seem to be a waste of time especially for flat rate work,but when a guy is trying to save a dollar,WHY BEND A VALVE COVER ?or go thru 4 gaskets?.furthermore..some designs do not use a gasket but a sealing compound.better quality gaskets are laminated.Do BMW torqe specs say"tight"? A LITTLE TOO MUCH ?OOPS
There are varying degrees of self proficiency out there,such as :"tight and then a quarter turn".thats why i just replaced a stripped oil pan on a 2000 vw 2.o because someone stripped the fine pitch oil pan bolt.IT IS AN ALUMINUM PAN.the bottom line is this:if you want to guess,thats o.k..it comes with CHANCES..BUT WHEN THE ENGINES ARE ASSEMBLED AT THE FACTORY,they use torque wrenches,robots,computerized torque jigs etc. The torque settings are there for a reason,especially for the home fix it guy.I TELL YOU SOMETHING, my father was a jet turbine overhaul engineer,and EVERY BOLT on that aircraft was done right.If cars were given the same care and nuts subject to vibration were wired and drilled,LIKE AIRCRAFT half of these problems would not exist anyway.You take any car on the road and if it has seen 3 years worth of warranty work,and you pull it apart,every goddamn bolt will be out of spec.,that was ever touched .just think,....all those broken bleeder screws. I WORK ON CARS FOR FUN,BUT I AM A PERFECTIONIST AND I DO NOT GIVE A @##$#@! IF IT TAKES A FEW MINUTES EXTRA.,BECAUSE IT IS DONE PERFECT.
wonder what the valve cover specs are on a lycoming 500 series aircraft
engine? think they only torque those bolts to 80 inches so they can fall
its a 4 cylinder air cooled engine producing 200 horsepower.gaurantee you that this engine needs more than the 8 ft/lbs in the 3 litrev6 and thats why i said to guy originally,CHECK THE MANUAL......there ARE valve cover bolts that
high ,i am going to waste some time and post all of them when i find them...
in the 25 to 50 ft/lb range.
It's not a quotient so its Nm, sometimes annoted N-m and no pesky conventions like ft-lbs for tension and lbs-ft for torque or whichever way it is. We stopped using the FPS system in 1966 and moved to the MKS system.
My torque wrench says otherwise. I'm sure yours does too. And everyone
elses. Also, my stack of books that give torque figures agree with me.
All I gotta say is..
I've said it plenty of times, but being the the immature and under educated
child that you are you still don't get it. No matter how many times you
repeat incorrect information it is still incorrect information.
I personally don't have the time, online research skills or inclination to link you to sites giving you in depth explanation to show you just how wrong you are. I certainly won't waste my time transcribing information from an engineering manual. It wouldn't matter anyway because you already have your mind made up. I'll keep it simple... A site that uses mostly single syllable words so it'll be easy for you to understand. Hell, even you refer people to it from time to time. Sorry, but facts are facts and once again you're wrong.
As for your little ass clown 88GrandPrixSE, before you decide that somebody is "owned" (talk about a sixth grade expression) make sure you know they're right. Don't you feel like a bit of an idiot now?
You are a self proclaimed perfectionist, but it just doesn't wash. A perfectionist would ensure correct spelling, grammar, syntax, etc. Be that as it may your "25 to 50 ft lbs" valve covers WERE specifically addressed by me. You're just so perfect you didn't bother to read it. Now let's talk about your Lycoming valve cover gaskets. I have a 550 hp big block Mopar sitting in a car on my trailer at my shop as we speak. The valve covers or torqued to 115 lb/in, which is just a hair under 10 lb/ft and they're not going anywhere so why wouldn't it work on your 200 hp Lycoming. Hmmm... Hey, wait a minute. The rocker covers on the Lycoming are torqued to 100 lb/in if memory serves correctly. Yeah, I know these things because I've been an A&P certified mechanic for a long f*cking time. By the way, on that engine it doesn't really matter anyway. You see, they're safety wired. It might even be on your pre-flight checklist to look at them.
Wally, wally, wally. You had to go and try to explain metric to them. I'll bet most of these pinheads think a newton meter is how much force it takes to move a fig newton about three feet.
Finally, just for grins, a picture of my new donkey. His name is Ted but when he walks away from me he makes me think of most of the people on this forum... A donkey's ass.
:laughing: I like that
Second: "No matter how many times you repeat incorrect information it is still incorrect information. "
Third: Every book I have and torque wrench I've ever used gives measurements in ft-lb. Until millions of manuals are stopped being printing "wrong", I'm going to continue saying "torque that lose screw in your head there to 90 ft-lbs, hobo"
As I've said before it's your right to be wrong and it's everyone elses right to not take you seriously.
You're all arguing about something quite stupid!!!!
It could quite frankly be either.
It's not lb/ft or ft/lb because (as Wally pointed out) it's not a quotient, you're not dividing any two values. For example, speed can be km/h, or rev/min. This is how many revs are being done PER minute.
Torque is in Nm or lb-ft or ft-lb or whatever you want, because it's multiplying, not dividing. There are certain conventions (you generally use Nm, not mN), but it's still the same - it's the force applied (in lb or N or whatever), multiplied by the distance from the pivot point (in ft or m or whatever).
Last time I checked, 5 x 9 was EXACTLY THE SAME as 9 x 5.
However 5 / 9 is NOT THE SAME as 9 / 5.
So if it's a rate you're measuring (velocity, acceleration, idiotic sentences per post ... etc etc etc), then the units must be expressed in the right order, but if it's not a rate and there's no division involved, it really doesn't matter.
IT MEANS THE SAME THING!!!
what is the big hairy deal here - all of my car manuals call give torque specs in ft-lbs while the engineering texts I used in engineering school called it lbf-ft (pounds force/ft). For all practical purposes, it means the same thing. We are becoming too "overtorqued" about this.
Well I agree. Problem starts in when hobo starts in on the personal attacks. I don't take attitude from someone like him.
lets be nice.
Actually Dildo, I said nothing to you either directly or indirectly until
after you addressed me first. Re-read the thread, the facts are on my
side. You are the one who interjected yourself into the conversation.
Your are right on this point and I stand corrected as it is in fact not a quotient. Actually the way it should be written in the US is "100 lb.ft." I have gotten used to writing it with a slash in a shop environment simply because it's easier to read when scribbling something down for someone. But I know that's wrong and should have been more careful in public. Mea culpa.
This is the crap I'm talking about:
That has zero to do with our conversation about torque mearsure. It's bullshit. This is the kind of shit that makes a forum... well, shit.
And oh yeah, about the part where you said something about me lying about you saying you plagiarized car-craft. "Your" artical matched theirs 100% without any inconsistencies. I know this, Wally knows this (he is the one who informed me about it - I still believe I have the PM) and JanieR36 knows about it. All the people who read your artical and Car-Crafts. One other person that knows they match, Y-O-U.
Ah yes, the old unwarranted personal attack. Strange how you accuse me of
having an attitude and attacking you when it's the other way around.
That's okay, your schoolboy bully tactics pale next to your
So here's something else concerning the matter at hand. Pay special attention to the fifth paragraph. Sorry if the words are too big for you to comprehend sweetie.
No personal attack there.
I guess you are refering to paragraph 5 as...
"A few basic definitions will help make the issue clear. First, TORQUE is defined as a FORCE around a given point, applied at a RADIUS from that point. Note that the unit of TORQUE is one pound-foot (often misstated), while the unit of WORK is one foot-pound."
Right? Well, I said earlier...
Thank you. When torquing a bolt you are only doing work until the bolt stops, i.e. when the torque wrench clicks. At that point you are only applying force. It is the potential for work, hence the terminology lb-ft. Remember "TORQUE is defined as a FORCE around a given point, applied at a RADIUS from that point. Have you got it now?
WORK is done when a force (or torque) moves an object through a distance
TORQUE is a twisting force applied by a linear force acting at a distance (radius) from the pivot point (ie Fxd)
So the equations, and hence the units (lb-ft or whatever you want to use), look the same too - eventhough the two distances being multiplied are different.
Basic example showing differences:
Torque a nut with a 0.5m long socket wrench (long I know, but easier for calcs)
Apply 10 Newtons (approx 2.25lb I think) of force at the end of the wrench to tighten the nut.
With this much force, the nut travels 1 revolution before stopping (more force would tighten it more, but we're stopping at 10N)
The TORQUE applied to the nut is 10N x 0.5m = 5Nm (approx 3.7lb-ft I think)
To rotate one revolution, the end of the socket wrench has travelled 2 x pi x r = 2 x pi x 0.5 = 3.14m (approx 10.5 ft I think)
Therefore, the WORK done to move the force through this distance is 10N x 3.14m = 31.4 Nm (approx 23.2 lb-ft I think)
So change your lb.ft to ft.lb or whatever if you want .... but as you can see, even though the units are similar, WORK and TORQUE are not the same.
Well, at that point you're finished. It's out of the topic. What happens
after you've finished torquing a bolt is out of the scope of our
discussion. What you're saying would be true if you say, had a bolt torqued
to 100 ft-lb, took your trusty torque wrench and applied 20 ft-lb of
torque. Well, you just applied 20 lb-ft of torque because you didnt move
the torque wrench.
From that link you gave...
"WORK is defined as a FORCE operating through a DISTANCE"
When you torque a bolt, you are doing work. That is the ft-lb. I do see your point and it is a valid one. It brings gray to the matter. All the more reason to believe what tbaxleyjr said in (I think) another thread. BUT, since my torque wrenches and all my books give torque figures in foot-pounds, that's how I'm going to refer to it.
How can you say work and torque are not the same (which is correct) and then say lb-ft and ft-lb are "similar"? Like I said before... work is the ft-lb and torque is the lb-ft. Therefor, lb-ft and ft-lb are just as different as work and torque is.
Did Anyone Ever Answer The Guy's Question??? I Thuoght This Forum Was To Help Each Other
bet thats the end :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
I believe I did.
i really do not care for proper spellig punktuation etc.this is not a
spelling or english test.HOWEVER ,IT IS FT/LB.torque is a rotational
force.work can be a linear measurement.or non linear for that matter,such
as torque produced by an accelerating engine.the energy that remains AFTER
THE TORQUE IS APPLIED,IS ACTUALLY KINETIC ENERGY.AS FAR AS CHECKING THE
BOLTS ON AN AIRCRAFT,good point ,all pre flight checks say check the engine
oil,etc under the cowl.did you know that the only people allowed to service
their own aircraft,other than an AME are owners,if they have built their
speaking of if we ever helped that poor kid out,if he puts the manufacturer,and displacement of the engine,i or any of us can look it up,and he CAN USE A TORQUE WRENCH AND TORQUE IT IN THE SEQUENCE,USING THE EVER SO POPULAR FOOT/LBS. speaking of what is a foot lb? is it the energy required to move one pound 1 foot in one second,or 1 minute? does torque change at say 50000 feet? we can get into that too.hey if you torque something to 100 ft pounds,and then heat it up yo 350c
does the torque energy ,stored as kinetic (in a spring say) change?.
and then a purple monkey flew out of my ass :ticking:
No, but you're getting there. Let me make this just as simple for you as I
possibly can using an imaginary engine.
You are assembling the imaginary engine and are to the point of installing the head that is attached by bolts that torque to 50 lb-ft with no intermediate steps. You drop on the head and then drop in the bolts. Let's say for simplicity that the head bolts are 1/2"-20 in size and the bolt head flange is standing 2" above the head surface when you first catch a thread, in other words they thread into the block 2" or 40 threads. With me so far?
Of course because you're a meticulous engine builder the threads in both the block and on the bolts are in perfect condition and properly lubricated. For the first 20 or so threads (1") you simply spin them in with with your fingers. At this time you are doing work, not much, but work non the less. At this point the friction of the threading action (formally know as run-in torque) makes you reach for your speed handle to keep threading them in. For the next 18 or so turns (slightly less than 1") you are still doing work, even more than before. Notice that as long as the bolts are turning you are in fact doing work. Remember, "Work is force operating through a distance".
Now you have the bolts turned in and making contact with the head, good and snug. Time for the final torque. You pull your trusty torque wrench (just wrench from now on for typing ease) out of it's padded case, check the calibration date, look to make sure when it was last stored it was adjusted to the lowest setting, set it to 50 lb-ft and then do 5 to 8 test pulls to ensure the internal mechanism is properly seated before being used on a critical fastener. If you're not doing these things EVERY TIME don't pretend to tell me how to use a wrench and also be aware that skipping these steps makes using said wrench eye candy, but still better than not using one at all. And just as a side note I notice you displayed a Craftsman wrench earlier. They're not a bad tool but are notoriously inaccurate due to poor packaging, rough handling and improper use and maintenance (see above). Back to the engine.
Time to torque the first bolt (I'll only explain it once as the process is the same for all of them). You have the wrench set to 50 lb-ft. You have the appropriate socket and extension attached. You place it on the bolt and begin to move. Even though the wrench is adjusted to 50 lb-ft you are not doing that much work but rather somewhat less. How do I know that? Because if you had reached 50 lb-ft the wrench would have clicked. You turn the wrench 90 degrees and it still pulls easily. You go for another 90 degrees and while you feel it snugging down the bolt it's still fairly easy... and still somewhat less than 50 lb-ft. You go for another 90 degrees and it's starting to tighten up. One more turn should do it. You go for one more 90 and it's almost there. 46... 47... 48... 49... All this time the wrench and the fastener are moving. As long as they are moving you are doing work "Work is force operating through a distance". Finally the moment you've been waiting for, CLICK. You have now reached 50 lb-ft. Are you still turning the wrench? You shouldn't be. Is the fastener still moving? Hope not. Why? Because you are applying a force of 50 lb-ft but what you are not doing is any work... You are only applying force.
I really don't understand why this concept is so hard to comprehend. It's quite simple really and painfully obvious to boot. More importantly I can only think of one other way to explain it. I honestly hope that you will try to open your mind, see the light and learn. If you can't do that at your age I can just imagine how closed minded you'll be at my age. Have a nice day.
Final note. I don't really care if you like me. I certainly don't care if you call me an asshole. But I don't appreciate you spewing in various posts that I never do anything to help anyone on this forum. If you're honest about it you know I provide at least as much useful help as anyone else and far more than most. And like it or not YOU'VE continually benefitted from my knowledge, experience and help as well.
Why don't YOU answer his question? :banghead:
You sir are a verifiable waste of oxygen... and bandwidth. Everyone makes
the occasional and understandable misspelling, what you do is pure laziness
or stupidity. Maybe both.
Since you asked, yes, I know do who can and cannot work on aircraft. I have a ticket that says I can... or didn't your read that part of the post. Maybe you just don't know what an A&P certified mechanic is because the only aircraft you've ever flown came out of a Cracker Jacks box.
Finally... let's look at the second sentence (if you want to call it that) of your post. I have read that, or something very close to it, on this forum perhaps a thousand times. Every single time it ends up being some twelve year old trying to pass himself off as a racing driver, millionaire, international playboy and now a pilot. If I'm correct, and I think I'm close, that would back-up my idea in the second paragraph. Think about it, I have.
HIS QUESTION WAS IF THERE WAS A WEB SITE FOR THE SPECS. I KNOW OF NONE, BUT WOULD BE INTERESTED IF ONE EXISTS. I HAS BEEN FUN READING YOUR EXPLAINATIONS, BUT REALLY DID NOT HELP WITH THE GUY'S QUESTION. MY HEAD IS SPINNING FROM ALL THIS INFO, GUESS I WOULD TELL THE GUY TO GO TO PARTS STORE AND ASK TO LOOK IT UP IN A MANUAL, THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN HELPFUL TO ME IN THIS WAY.
I don't know what is making my head hurt worse right now, the concussion I
gave myself this morning or the fact that you are yelling at me for no
apparent reason. Find the "Caps Lock" button on your keyboard and USE
I am fully aware of what the original question that started out this thread is/was. As you are also apparently aware, why did it take you TWO posts to acknowledge his question and then not answer it? You are the pot calling the kettle black, bitching about nobody else doing what you didn't do either.
Why haven't I attempted to answer his question? Because it's obvious he didn't take the time to read this;
If he did read it he certainly didn't bother to follow the extremely simple instructions. On the other hand I just looked at your short history of posts on this forum and you don't seem to get it either. The more you're willing to help yourself, the more we're able to help you.
In summary, if you want it done better than go ahead and do it better. Just don't whine because someone else didn't do it for you. And that parts stores are there to SELL manuals, not let cheap bastards read them for free. That's what libraries are for.
I knew that was your thoughts on it... I addressed that in my last post.
BUT, while that is a good point, like I said before, since I've always seen
torque figures given in ft-lbs it's just how I'm going to refer to it.
On your final note, never said I didn't like you. I like the way you operate but... some of the things you do I don't like. Yes, of course you help people around here. Yes, I have benefitted from you.
I love listening to all you people rave about how smart you are and how
much you all know.
vwhobo, just let them torque their valve covers in a scale of feet per every one pounds. It will be fun, i love buying decent cars cheap because some nit-wit royally ****ed it up.
And on a last note, did you say "Since you asked, yes, I know do who can and cannot work on aircraft. I have a ticket that says I can... or didn't your read that part of the post.", (which is perhaps one of the most f*c*ed up sentences on this entire forum) on purpose, as some sort of ironical joke? Or are you really that hypocritical?
As for this dude's question, look it up for christ's sake, do you see what you started hear? It's like the friggen war in Iraq.
It's called a typographical error. Thank you for being my personal spell checker.
Just thought i would comment because you were crawling up the assholes of everyone who made an error earlier.
Un, no... If you took the time to read entire posts instead of selectively choosing words you would see that I fully understand honest mistakes, everyone is is guilty of the occasional misspelled or out of place word. It's the people who chronically f*ck up the language and show no remorse that I go after. Really, is it that difficult to figure out?
Honestly, i really can't fully understand what you said in those couple of sentence. I'm on your side anyways, quit sucking dick.
If you can't figure out what I said then that confirms the fact that you're stupid enough to be counter trash at Advance. BTW, why are you so enthused about "sucking dick". Haven't gotten your protein injection yet tonight?
How's your anal orifice feeling, retard.
As for being countertrash, it is better than being trailer trash, and having no job.
I am working weekends while i get my masters degree in chemistry and minor in mathematics, your foot pounds mean nothing here. Talk to me when you can integrate (sin(2x)^2). Maybe if you google it someone will have solved it for you. (I'll give you a hint, use the chain rule)
If that's supposed to hurt you missed your target by a long shot.
Congratulations on your degree, I'm working on my third one (not Masters)
I still worry about someone who is so interested in my penis and anal orifice though. Maybe you should try some counseling for that.
It has been the name on every one of your posts.
Thanks for the pointer.
No shit dumbass. You really are smart enough to have a Masters and be
counter trash. Anal Orifice is my title here, placed there by... wait for
I hope that someday my son can be as smart as you. Well, on second thought I'd rather have him be employable. :banghead:
Keep hoping, it's not likely (maybe if he is adopted). Definitely not if
he is homeschooled though. :ohcrap:
and a very very very loose quote by you "Someone who likes ass so much, as to make a reference to it on their title, on a forum, should see a counselor"
Regurgitating things that I've already said to you is neither flattering to me nor does it show any intelligence on your part. If you want to have a battle of words you had better learn how to employ your limited brain power more wisely.
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT COUNTRY YOU ARE FROM,BUT IN CANADA,AIRCRAFT MAINTAINANCE
PERSONNEL ARE CALLED AN AIRCRAFT MAINTAINANCE ENGINEER.(AME FOR
SHORT).Furthermore ,to say that I got my pilots license in a crackerjacks
box is very rude.Here are perhaps a few things that you might or should
know.First of all the AIP (aeronautical information publication) refers to
AN AIRCRAFT MECHANIC AS AN AME.Lets look at a few other things that no one
other than a real pilot would know,even though it is off topic,you
unfortunately have put me in a position to defend myself.If you are
tracking outbound from czbb to cybl on a 262 radial,and drift off course 4
degrees ,60 nm out ,what is the track correction necessary if the wind is
220@15kts and you are to align at 5DME from the outer marker?hmm.use you
E6B for the answer.Here is a better one:you are flying a 737 400 series.you
are at 33000 ft.what is the n1 turbine pecentage for a 180 kt descent to
maintain a 1500 ft/min approach?would you use 10 or 15 flaps?what is the
speed at the top of the white arc?would you be above 1yse if you were to
reduce the speed to 42n1?.Here is a few more facts that YOU DO NOT GET IN
CRACKERJACKS.There are 2 main runways at CYVR ,26L and 26R.both are ILS
SYSTEMS,but which one is a CATIII ?IS CYPG also a CATIII ILS too?.
If you dial up the ATIS at 1900 zulu time,what time is it in edmonton ?If you get information bravo is the weather stable? GET MY POINT? I have thousands of hours of time on my pilots license.I am for sure not 12 years old,as a matter of fact ,almost 4 times that.I DO NOT NEED SOME MORON TO INSULT MY INTELLECT.AS FAR AS PUNCTUATION IS CONCERNED,I AM JUST LAZY.
You have the worst english skills... :screwy: Before you say that doesn't amount to anything, it does.
Because they're just units .... and both units are a force value multiplied by a distance value. Obviously the distance value is a different dimension, and hence the two are non-interchangeable, but the unit itself means the same thing. For example, while torque is generally measured in Nm (metric), it would be silly, but not incorrect to measure it in mN (metre x Newton, not to be confused with millinewton - 1 x 10^-3 Newtons)
Actually the beauty of the SI system is there are rules and Nm is
designated in that order.
Excuse me while I do a ½ torsional twist followed by a ¼ torque to yield.
torque is described a TWISTING rotary force rotating on an axis.FORCE is ENERGY APPLIED.The explosion causes downward force on the piston,and it is the crankshaft that coverts it to TORQUE.
There is no explosion. There is combustion. An explosion is uncontrolled
combustion. I can assure you that what happens inside of a properly
running engine is controlled combustion... Otherwise for example the area
above the piston would be called the explosion area.
Thank you for working on your spelling, now you just need to realize that words mean things. And don't bother with the lame excuse "you know what I mean". I only know what you said and I'm not married to you.
I AGREE.TORQUE IS A FORCE APPLIED IN A RADIAL APPLICATION.
WORK IS APPLIED IN A LINEAR,NON LINEAR,AND EVEN STATIC APPLICATION.
ONE OF NEWTONS LAWS,(for each reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction.,has some wierd implications:If a train is pushing a car backwards down a train track,but the car is spinning it's wheels,AND THE TRAIN HAS ITS ENGINE OFF,BUT THE 450 HP CAR IS SPINNING TIRES,it is the residual work ,called kinetic energy that is pushing the car.the torque from the engine is multiplied through the transmission,and the axle.the transfer of torque into linear motion is the friction co-efficient x the torque actually delivered to the wheel.if the transfer of energy was perfect on the tires,the kinetic energy stored in the train,produced by thousands of horsepower,will cause the output of the 450 hp to stall.eventually you end up with a negative acceleration on the car.the resistance to kinetic energy is all the forces together.train torque is measured in ft/lbs. so if there is 746 watts to a horsepower,and there is a 24000 horsepower diesel engine?how many blenders can you power with the train? FORCE CONVERTED TO TORQUE,TORQUE CONVERTED TO ELECTRICITY VIA A GENERATOR,LINEAR WORK THROUGH THE WINDINGS,BACK TO TORQUE OUT OF THE BLENDER.
Indeed, "explosion" is the most over-used word for vehicles. My mechanics teacher always refers to it as an explosion, I just let him be though, I enjoy knowing more about vehicles than my teacher. The engine would grenade if there was constant "explosions" in it. Gasoline does not explode, it burns.
for that brilliant composure I have this counter.I do not care for "proper" GRAMMAR or PUNCTUATION in an application such as this one.As long as the
message gets across,and obviously it does,that is all I am concerned with.I
really do not care for the opinions of others ,as far as english skills are concerned.You see,I have a secretary to do my writing for me .So in summary,I am here to see if I can help people ,not get reviews from ENGLISH 101.
ha ha ha :clap: :laughing:
While I generally try to make my spelling and grammar correct (even in this sort of environment), you make a good (and amusing) case.
WOW. I did not expect such a speedy response.If you look at the time that
have been posting replies,It is in the early hours.One is more prone to make mistakes when fatigued.Compounding the problem is the fact that I did really
not go out of my way to accomodate perfection.Thanks for the correction.
What would happen if the air fuel mixture were ignited,but the piston froze just before TDC.Would it result in an explosion.?I always thought that an explosion was a compression of molecules created by heat.An explosion is a combustion,just a different rate.If you put 2 sticks of TNT in a beer can and seal it,then light it,an explosion happens.If you submerse it under water and slow down the expansion,does it become combustion?No .It is a controlled explosion.COMBUSTION CHAMBER = combustible material mixes with oxygen
in a confined area. 'THE AIR AND FUEL ARE MIXED AND COMPRESSED.THE EXPLOSION FROM THE IGNITED AIR FUEL CHARGE IN THE COMBUSTION CHAMBER FORCES THE PISTON DOWNWARD."
It's a free country. If you wish to remain looking as stupid as you can
possibly look, go ahead and do just that. BTW, congrats, you're very good
at it. :thumbs:
It's called detonation and is most definately 100% different from combustion in this context.
Detonation is an uncontrolled SECOND explosion after the spark plug fires. When the spark plug fires, the air/fuel doesnt just explode all at once, it takes time to burn and when the spark happens, the air/fuel burn there and the flame than contnues down while burning more air/fuel but when detonation occures, the last part of the air/fuel explodes by itself without the initial flame hitting it. When the flame goes down to the piston, the air right on top of the piston gets hotter and hoter so it explodes by itself kinda like preignition so the explosion causes pressure waves or somthing witch makes a noise.
Look at this. We're really getting somewhere now. There is hope for the
younger generation. Our very own 14 year old dope smoker has a better
understanding of controlled combustion and flame fronts than the world
renowned self proclaimed perfectionist and pilot, big crawdaddy.
Good on ya kiddo.
torque is defined as a force x distance rotating about an axis. Any
Freshman engineering student in any engineering school of decent repute is
taught that concept in a class titled something like Basic Engineering
Mechanics - Statics which is usually the first real engineering class
From an engineering thremodynamics standpoint, explosion is really rapid combustion. What moves the piston is the rapid expansion of gasses in the cylinder caused by the increased temperature due to rapid combustion
Detonation or spark knock is simply the fuel air mixture burning when it is not supposed to. It is many causes.
I suggest discussions of subjects such as flame fronts and laminar flame speeds be discussed by someone with an adequate engineering/technical background to make sense