[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: fizzicks question

Right, the difference between torque and BHP is the addition of time, there
is no "time" in the torque calculation....
-----Original Message-----
From: glen powell <gpowell@acacianet.com>
To: quattro@coimbra.ans.net <quattro@coimbra.ans.net>;
'vytas@email.nist.gov' <vytas@email.nist.gov>
Date: Friday, February 06, 1998 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: fizzicks question

>I may be wrong, but I thought there was a direct correlation between torque
>and HP. Torque is the 'best' measurement of force or 'power'. 'Horsepower'
>is just the rate at which work is being done and is simply torque * RPM.
>The best measurement of the performance of a given engine, or to compare
>the performance of two different engines, is to compare the area under the
>torque curve between the same lower and upper RPM limits. The engine
>with the most area under the torque curve 'wins'.
>This is why, for example, autos with turbo engines with high and broad/flat
>torque curves beat autos with engines with far higher peak HP. In the real
>world engines must produce high torque across a usable RPM range
>because engines do not run constantly and only at peak HP RPM.
>This may be a gross oversimplification or even totally wrong,
>The horsepower is a traditional unit of power (aka amount of work per time
>unit)roughly equal to 0.8 kW. Torque is a product of force and leverage,
>measured in Newtons per meter (or pound per foot here in USA). There is no
>(physical) relation between the two of them. They are related, though,
>while discussing the internal combustion engines, as both usually increase
>with rpm's, but have different dependences. Hope this won't confuse more.
>86 5kcst 120k (a rocket)
>87 5ks 150k (workhorse)