torque and horsepower at 5250
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 3
From: Upstate NY
It made you think, which is good.
FormerVendor
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,065
Likes: 6
From: Houston, Tx.
Wow a Hp AND Torque thread that hasn't even had one chair thrown! I guess it didn't have the usual "VS" component in the title that causes so much trouble like Hp and Tq are some kind of enemies with each other! Cool!
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 3
From: Upstate NY
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 3
From: Upstate NY
I just read this whole thread and wow, you guys know what yall are talking about.....I think. I just started college this semester and I really hope I never have to do equations like yall are doing (I know I will though). Just wanted to inform yall that yall sound like geniuses.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
Five Reasons the Camaro Was the Most Pivotal Player in the Pony Car Wars 2.0
Brett Foote
TECH Apprentice
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
From: Blackwood, NJ
That doesn't make any sense to me. I didn't think it was possible to have greater than 100% efficiency. I'm assuming it has to do with sub-atomic particles and all that crazy nonsensical stuff.
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 3
From: Upstate NY
I don't think a fusion reactor implies >100% efficiency. If it consumes a megawatt while it is producing 1.02 megawatts, that's about 2% efficient, at least the way I figure it. If the hydrogen fuel is fairly cheap (?), even 2% could make a lot of usable power.
Just my take on it. I'm not a particle physicist, however.
Staging Lane
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
The difference with controlled fusion (either magnetic or inertial confinement) is that it takes a big gob of energy to initiate and contain the fusion reaction, not just a tiny spark. However, whether it takes a match or a blowtorch to light a firecracker, the amount of energy that can be released by that cracker doesn't have much of anything to do with how big the flame was that touched it off. Right now, small controlled fusion firecrackers can only be lit with blowtorches that burn about the same amount of energy as the crackers release. Research into bigger crackers (or whole strings of little ones) and smaller blowtorches should be able to greatly change the energy balance sheet -- and that has nothing to do with greater than 100% energy conversion efficiency.
Dynamite isn't transfering to contained, usable work. If you exploded the dynamite in such a way to turn the explosion into mechanical work, you could measure the work produced versus the amount of energy in the chemical bonds of the dynamite, and THAT would be your efficiency.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
Hopefully this is not a hijack, this should go along with the subject. Is there any torque advantage to setup an NA v8 for say 900hp at 10,000rpms (small block) vs 900hp at 5,000rpms (huge big block)? it would seem to me that if these two engines were tested in the same car that the big block would have a big torque advantage since it would put out a little over 900 lbs/ft of torque (and a whole lot more under the curve) and the small block would only put out maybe 700 lbs/ft at 5k rpms and about 450 lbs/ft at 10k rpms. Optimizing a small block for 10k rpms as in a nascar would make it weaker down low, but i guess low gearing makes up for that. i am thinking that if the trans gearing was favorable for both engines, the big block would still out pull the small block.
i was just wondering about this because i saw the historic 1970's era IMSA and CAN-AM car races on the speed channel yesterday, and those big block (500+ cu in) can ams were very impressive- they were in excess of 800hp at lower rpms. i thought those race cars were much more entertaining than the high tech controlled race cars of today- they just don't seem to have any ***** now, just alot of high rpm noise which has the psychological effect of making you think the car is extremely fast (except for Audi's R10 diesel race car).
i was just wondering about this because i saw the historic 1970's era IMSA and CAN-AM car races on the speed channel yesterday, and those big block (500+ cu in) can ams were very impressive- they were in excess of 800hp at lower rpms. i thought those race cars were much more entertaining than the high tech controlled race cars of today- they just don't seem to have any ***** now, just alot of high rpm noise which has the psychological effect of making you think the car is extremely fast (except for Audi's R10 diesel race car).
Last edited by ls1tork; Dec 2, 2007 at 06:43 AM.
Staging Lane
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Almost. You would need to derive the energy content of the dynamite explosion from the work done in order to make the energy to energy comparison instead of comparing work to energy, but you're on the right track. Similar to examining the chemical potential energy content of unexploded dynamite, you would need to examine the mass-energy content latent in the nuclear fuel prior to fusion. In neither case is the energy content of the ignition source a relevant factor in calculating the efficiency of the energy conversion from either chemical potential energy or nuclear potential energy to other forms.
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 3
From: Upstate NY
Hopefully this is not a hijack, this should go along with the subject. Is there any torque advantage to setup an NA v8 for say 900hp at 10,000rpms (small block) vs 900hp at 5,000rpms (huge big block)? it would seem to me that if these two engines were tested in the same car that the big block would have a big torque advantage since it would put out a little over 900 lbs/ft of torque (and a whole lot more under the curve) and the small block would only put out maybe 700 lbs/ft at 5k rpms and about 450 lbs/ft at 10k rpms. Optimizing a small block for 10k rpms as in a nascar would make it weaker down low, but i guess low gearing makes up for that. i am thinking that if the trans gearing was favorable for both engines, the big block would still out pull the small block.
i was just wondering about this because i saw the historic 1970's era IMSA and CAN-AM car races on the speed channel yesterday, and those big block (500+ cu in) can ams were very impressive- they were in excess of 800hp at lower rpms. i thought those race cars were much more entertaining than the high tech controlled race cars of today- they just don't seem to have any ***** now, just alot of high rpm noise which has the psychological effect of making you think the car is extremely fast (except for Audi's R10 diesel race car).
i was just wondering about this because i saw the historic 1970's era IMSA and CAN-AM car races on the speed channel yesterday, and those big block (500+ cu in) can ams were very impressive- they were in excess of 800hp at lower rpms. i thought those race cars were much more entertaining than the high tech controlled race cars of today- they just don't seem to have any ***** now, just alot of high rpm noise which has the psychological effect of making you think the car is extremely fast (except for Audi's R10 diesel race car).
Torque at the drive wheels accelerates a vehicle. The 10000 rpm engine with half the torque of the 5000 rpm engine (at power peak) would have twice as much gear to achieve the same mph. If driveline losses were the same (or ignored for this quick look), and the shape of the torque curves was similar for the two engines, torque at the wheels would be the same as would horsepower.
An extreme example would be the 900 hp+ V10 F1 engines of a few years ago. The flywheel torque for 900 hp @ 20,000 rpm is, of course, 1/2 the torque of the 900hp @ 10,000 engine and 1/4 that of the 900hp @ 5000. engine.
It appears you hijacked back on topic.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
Torque at the drive wheels accelerates a vehicle. The 10000 rpm engine with half the torque of the 5000 rpm engine (at power peak) would have twice as much gear to achieve the same mph. If driveline losses were the same (or ignored for this quick look), and the shape of the torque curves was similar for the two engines, torque at the wheels would be the same as would horsepower.
An extreme example would be the 900 hp+ V10 F1 engines of a few years ago. The flywheel torque for 900 hp @ 20,000 rpm is, of course, 1/2 the torque of the 900hp @ 10,000 engine and 1/4 that of the 900hp @ 5000. engine.
It appears you hijacked back on topic.
An extreme example would be the 900 hp+ V10 F1 engines of a few years ago. The flywheel torque for 900 hp @ 20,000 rpm is, of course, 1/2 the torque of the 900hp @ 10,000 engine and 1/4 that of the 900hp @ 5000. engine.
It appears you hijacked back on topic.
