1998 Grand Caravan

Show us the math then. First though, you need to look up efficiency and
post that definition and then work from there.

No, we're more than happy to have you post some data, calculations,
references to others who have done the calculations, etc. The fact is
that you can't.

Matt

 

I never said you had to be selective.

Matt

 

OK, post just one technical reference to them. Just one and I'll admit
here in print that I was wrong and you were right. Just one...


Matt

 

--

Reading all this reminds me of when I was a kid fighting with my sisters and
brothers always wanting to get the last word in. "I got you last" Doesn't it
get boring after awhile?

 

ROTFLMBO!!!!! Gawd you are sure full of funny statements.

If a ratio results in a reduced ability to perform an operation or function
for a given input, the ratio is less efficient.

Lever anaology: the longer the handle side of a lever, the more efficiently
a person can do a job for a given input force.

And changing final drive ratios and adding underdriven transmission ratios
results in greaterr efficiency.

For someone that keeps putting me down you have very little grasp of
reality. Obviously you are set in the ways you were brainwashed into.


--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
(John Adams)

 

No, I don't have to post anything. Efficiency: the ratio of input to
reslutant output. If your output isn't within the design parameter, it's
either more or less efficient than required. Overdrive ratios are
inheriently inefficient. the proof is the almost mandatory need to shift
down to a lower ratio to climb a hill UNLESS YOU'RE TRAVELING AT A SPEED FAR
ABOVE THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT.

The true fact is it wouldn't matter if I did. You'd just wave your wallpaper
around and find some fault with it, most likely, my high school education.


--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
(John Adams)

 

Sure, Roy, just follow these two around. It's dripping off them like sweat
off a rabbit in hunting season.

--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
(John Adams)

 

ROTFLMBO!!!! Well, you just stuck your foot in it. According to the Summers
Brothers, the car was wind tunnel designed to handle 500 mph, then the
engineers determined the engine outputs and ratios needed. And they blew it.

The real life facts call you a liar. Besides, lowering the final drive
ratios would have resulted in an unusable first gear due to the slick salt
conditions, a slower acceleration and no speed record.

Like I said, and your attitude continues to prove it: it wouldn't matter if
I did, mr bigot engineer.

Btw, how about you explain how the marvelous inventions of the past 6000
years came about before your ilk contaminated the Earth?


--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
(John Adams)

 

Sorry, I didn't write any technical manuals at the time. . . I was too deep
in grease and oil.

Of course, I also didn't think I was going to have to finish your education
for you.


--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
(John Adams)

 

No, you didn't, but you did try to DENY me the option to be selective.

--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
(John Adams)

 

Budd Cochran wrote:

Yes, I'm sure correct statements are pretty funny to someone without a
clue about physics.

No, it isn't more efficient at all as you have to move the lever farther
to accomplish the same amount of work on the other end. The longer the
handle the less force is required, but more distance is required in
direct proportion to the reduced force. Since work is a force acting
through a distance, the end result is no change in efficiency at all.

Since you aren't able to show the math or physics as you several times
claimed you could, here's a really simple example using a lever which
you claim to understand. I won't complicate things with gears, but they
are just two levers touching each other, but that adds a little
complexity and you don't deal well with that.

Definition: Efficiency = work out/work in (the / means "divided by")

Here's a reference simple enough that you should be able to understand
it:
http://www.s-cool.co.uk/topic_quick...1&subject_id=68&ebt=435&ebn=&ebs=&ebl=&elc=13

Definition: Work = force * distance (the * means "multiplied by")

Again, here's a pretty simple reference (high school level):
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/CLass/energy/u5l1a.html

Now we have a lever that is 10 feet long with the fulcrum in the middle.
Let's say we put a 100 lb. weight on one end. If we move the other
end of the lever down by 1 ft we will lift the weight 1 ft. The work
out is the work done on the weight, which is 100 ft-lbs. The work in is
the work done by whatever pushed down on the lever and this is also 100
ft-lbs since we had a force of 100 lbs acting through a distance of 1
ft. Thus the efficiency is 100/100 or 1.

Now shift the fulcrum such that it is 9 feet from the weight and 1 foot
from whatever or whoever is pushing on the lever. Now to lift the 100
lb weight, we will have to push down with a force of 900 lb. You keep
claiming that we have now lost efficiency since it now requires more
force on the lever than before. However, let's do the math. Again,
let's raise the weight 1 ft to keep the work out the same as before at
100 ft-lbs. How far does the lever have to be pushed down to raise the
weight 1 ft? Since the ratio is 1:9, we have to push the lever down
only 1/9th of a foot to raise the weight one foot. So how much work
does this require? It requires force * distance or 900 lbs * 1/9 ft
which equals ... drum roll please ... 100 ft-lbs. Now lets calculate
our efficiency again. It is equal to 100/100 or 1. Doesn't this sound
familiar? Let's see, why yes, it is the SAME as when the ratio of the
lever was 1:1. Imagine that, the lever ratio doesn't change the
efficiency at all.

If you equate understanding basic physics and math with being
brainwashed, then I'm guilty as charged. OK, I demonstrated pretty
clearly above that changing the ratio of a lever has NO affect on the
efficiency of the lever. It changes the ratio of forces, but has ZERO
affect on the efficiency of work/power transfer.

Now it is your turn to show a clear example that supports your assertion
that changing a ratio does change the efficency.


Matt

 

Right, you don't have to, but you also can't. The need to shift down
has nothing to do with efficiency, and has everything to do with torque
multiplication which is an entirely separate topic.

That is where you are wrong. You post one single reputable reference
that supports your claim, and I'll concede that I'm wrong and you are
right. I don't care what your education level is. I only care that you
are claiming physics support for an argument that isn't based on
physics. I wouldn't care if you had a Ph.D., I'd still point out the
fallacy of your argument.

This is the classic "I lost the logical argument and now need to bail
out" statement. No matter what I do you will just keep picking on me.
I haven't heard that since grade school.


Matt

 

I didn't say you had to have written the reference yourself. Feel free
to post any link, book citation, SAE paper, whatever you like. It just
has to clearly say that gear or lever ratios change the efficiency of
power transfer.

Yep, another "I've lost and now how do I save face and get out of this
predicament" statement. There is no shame in being ignorant, but being
unwilling to learn is very shameful.


Matt

 

Budd Cochran wrote:

You have yet to show a real life fact. That is why most cars are pushed
several hundred yards down the run by another vehicle. Have you ever
actually been to Bonneville?

I knew you couldn't, but it has been fun watching you try to weasel out
of the hole you've dug.

You mean the attitude that simply is asking you to provide even one fact
to back up your claim?

Since you've conceded above that you are wrong and unable to support
your claim, my work here is finished. However, Bill is usually more
persistent than me so he'll probably entertain your ignorance a little
longer.

Matt

 

Keep your thumb here - you'll need to come back to that sentence of yours.

Oh really? What tense of the adjective is that? Sorry - adjectives do
not have 'tense'.

Again - adjectives do not have 'tense'. Looks like you could have used
some more of that there book-learning that you despise so much.

No - no problem with Merriam. What's really sad is you think you're in
agreement but are not.

Here - I'll use the two words in a sentence (though not sure why I'm
wasting my time): "33% is the *accepted* power loss figure on the 300M
Club for the 42LE transmission, but those same people complain about
that huge amount of inefficiency and think that it is not *acceptable*."

If the two words mean the same thing, then you have to not believe that
it is possible for the same person to accept the 33% figure, yet
consider it as unaccpetable inefficiency in a transmission. If you
can't understand that, then there is no hope for you.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Budd Cochran wrote:

<snip>

Hi...

Here's the answer for you all. You're simply using the
word "efficient" differently.

To the engineer it's simply a mathematical formula. ie; 12 volts
in and 11 volts out equals blah blah blah.

To the mechanic; it's more practical. ie; if you can't reach the
ignition key to crank the starter, then it's blah blah blah

There it is, now all of you sit down, have a beer or whatever, and
get back to helping others and each other fix your cars efficiently

Ken

 

Exactly, that is what we've been trying to show Budd. He claimed his
argument was based on physics, so I used the physics definition of
efficiency. He then started making up his own definitions, but
continued to claim they were based on "physics."

Maybe his definition of physics is also other-worldly.


Matt

 

It *was* in the context of idle and on up.

Here's part of the dialogue from that thread
(http://groups.google.com/group/alt....makers.chrysler&rnum=1&hl=en#5822519de5a6e323):

Me:
"A regulator cannot force an alternator to put out full regulated
voltage if the alternator is not turning fast enough - often the case at
idle on vehicles with typical loads turned on."

(see how I was talking about real world cars at idle)

Your response:
"False. Voltage will be at whatever the VR sets it to be, regardless of
RPM. CURRENT on the other hand, may vary due to load and RPM."

There are at least two problems with what you said:
(1) It disagrees with the inarguable fact that the voltage in many cars
will drop a little at idle as the engineers designed the alternator
speed at the edge of its capability to produce the voltage that the
regulator is demanding for the idle speed and nominal loads.
(2) You say that voltage will not vary with rpm, yet current will. A
denial of Ohm's law.

Another place in the same thread, you said:
"Revving the engine will do NOTHING to increase alternator output
voltage; amperage maybe a little."

Again - an ignorance/denial of the laws of physics (primarily and
fundamentally Ohm's law). You made a real world observation but failed
to make the real world connection to the laws of physics that control
the real world (see next paragraph).

Some of you guys seem to think that laws of physics are an inconvenience
that get in the way of understanding real world observations. For one,
if you had an understanding of the theory, the first time you caught
your brain thinking: "I didn't vary the electrical load - I know voltage
was constant - the regulator will ensure that. Yet, I saw the ammeter
change when I rev'ed the engine. Hmmm - constant load, constant
voltage, yet current changed - that seems to violate Ohm's law - which I
know to be true. I better check this out!" So you get your voltmeter
out and discover that - "...lo and behold - the voltage actually does
increase a little when I rev the engine above idle. Well what'd'ya know
- it doesn't' violate Ohm's law - Ohm's law said that if the load is
constant and the current changes, the voltage must be changing too. I
guess my assumption that the voltage will be fully regulated even at
idle speeds was incorrect". So you see how knowing the theory helped
you fine tune your erroneous real world understanding (I mean the
generic 'you' in that sentence - you probably still won't see it, and
will resent my even illustrating this absolute truth to you).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

OK - so some of these guys maybe have the valid excuse that they didn''t
have the educational opportunities. You, on the other hand, apparently
had the means to learn and better yourself, but, thru laziness or having
everything handed to you or whatever, chose not to cure the gross
ignorance that you have displayed.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Not even close...

but I still HIGHLY

Actually I think there is some good evidence that the DC electronic
transmission family does have an inefficiency issue compared to others.
I haven't ever really researched it hard, but here's my hunch about why
its a bit on the lossy side:

Like all automatic transmissions, its gears are in constant mesh so in
various different drive ratios (by which I mean "first gear" versus "4th
gear" etc.) some of the whirly bits are spinning at various speeds but
aren't actually in use. All automatics do that... but what all
automatics *don't* do that the A-604 derivatives do is have multi-plate
clutches that are released but the drive and driven plates are spinning
at different speeds while in cruising gear. I think the shearing of the
fluid due to the driving and driven plates spinning at different speeds
is a loss mechanism that other transmission designs (for example, the
old rear-drive Torqueflites in both 3-speed and 4-speed models) do not
have. In high gear with an A-904 or A-727, both of the multi-plate
clutches are engaged and the whole gear-train is locked into what
amounts to a solid shaft, and only the bands are released. Bands don't
exert a lot of shear force on fluid when released- multi-plate clutches
do. In the case of the 4-speed versions (A500 and A518) the O/D clutch
is released in 3rd gear, but in 4th its locked and the gears in the OD
unit are working, but the main transmission section is still locked into
a solid shaft.