LOL! Yeah, no kidding

I kinda skipped all that training and schooling jazz. hhahaah

 

Fun....Fun...Fun

Can I join. My job title says I'm an Engineer V, that ever the F*** that is.

Maybe he's thinking of ft-lb/sec. or BTU/minute or Kilogram-meters/sec. or even watts.

Gosh, isn't this a wonderful world?

OK, I'll crawl back into my hole now.

 

Or even ton-furlongs/fortnight. Anyone have the conversion to horsepower on that?

It should be Newton-meters/sec. Kilogram is a mass, Newton is the force. In English units we really have pounds of force and pounds of mass which even confuses this issue more. Forget I mentioned that.


Fred, I guess we shouldn't mess with you, huh? Seriously, nice curriculum vitae. I graduated in '66. Damn, I might be barely younger than you!

 

How true, how true.

 

hey alright. i don't think i'm grossly missing the point, and the *** laude engineer comes down on me for saying 350 lbs/ft instead of 350 lbs-ft

my earlier post is evidence i meant the same thing as he does

i think it all started when i said foot pounds is not really accurate

i don't really like pound feet either, but i never said it was wrong

 

The original statement you made had two obvious errors saying
"another confusing thing is it's actually pounds per foot, or pounds per inch. that's why it's written 2 lbs/ft not 2 ft/lb"

Then you kept telling others they were wrong and putting up proof that disagreed with your original statement, which you thought actually backed it up.

It was really your original statement of per and "/" that was incorrect.

I think you were just trying to be **** and point out how it's technically lbs*ft strictly based on the physics equation. T=Fd

Right?

So you tried to point that out but you screwed up and wrote per and "/"

But the real issue that you missed is that no matter how you calculate it F*d = d*F

So the whole claim you were trying to make was really pointless because either way is correct mathematically and verbally ft-lbs or lbs-ft... so you basically made a silly point but added to the mess and said lbs/ft or lbs per foot.. which is totally wrong and got some engineers pissed off.

Then you had the gonads to ask if the one guy was even a real engineer! Ouch..And basically said everyone accepts the standard of per and "/" except him which was again another wrong statement.

I found several instances in car and driver where they used the "pounds-foot" notation. Never / or per

Don't worry though we aren't busting your ***** too much on this or trying to tick you off. I think you were just trying to point out a technicality and goofed. So everyone was just trying to clear up the facts.

The truth is engineers are very ****. If they weren't they would screw up bridges and buildings and lots of things we take for granted. We(they) just spend wayyyyy too much time studying this stuff to ignore the little details and let something that obviously wrong go unnoticed.

Also, regarding the original point I think you were trying to make.. there are two distinct science groups.. mathematicians and physicists... physics guys would probably agree it's F*d and nothing else is allowed but the math guys will tell you it's all the same and to quit being so stuck up. in the end we're both nerds and it doesn't matter so let's all go have a beer

 

jeez alright

foot pounds: everybody says it

pounds-feet: engineers like it

lbs of torque: I like it! even though it's not 100% techically schematically perfect


ok i'm deleting that part. and you guys are right...it's pound feet

i was being **** and trying to point something out

but there are better ways of doing it (that goes for yous guys too )

 

D@mn.... did this thread get totally out of control.... all the original question required was a simple 3 word answer.... the one that Mikey97Z gave on the 2nd reply. Sure went downhill from there.

Just checked the latest issue of R&T - they use "lb.-ft." in all their road test panels and written articles. And there's an ad for the new Cadillac "4-door Z06"..... and it quotes the torque in "lb.-ft.". Checked into Chilton's - "lb-ft". Looked at a David Vizzard engine book - "ft-lb". Nowhere did I see "lb/ft" or "xxx pounds of torque".

 

jeezzz........what is there to argue about?


W = F * D

W = D * F

Measurements of work is the Joule which is equal to Newton-Meters

Or Foot-Pounds or Pound-Feet


Its simple multiplication order of numbers dont matter.

 

If it would have been too much downhill it would have been locked. BUT, in this rare case of a thread degrading, there was actually some very good info being put out I didn't lock it because of this. Most people who read this topic will learn something so that's a "good thing"