kubota vs. kioti

[SPYDERLK]

Actually the boiler is only producing pressure and heat, but no horsepower (power requires movement). You are absolutely right that it produces torque in a stalled state.

The point being, you can have torque without horsepower, but you can't have horsepower without torque. People are stating the relationship backwards. Torque creates horsepower, not the other way around.

....No.

 

[GManBart]

....No.

Yes. His name was James Watt, and nothing has changed in 200 years.

If you're trying to say that the boiler produces horsepower, they do rate them that way to enable comparisons, but it's an equivalent rating (water evaporated over time), not a direct one like mechanical horsepower.

You can have torque without horsepower. You can't have horsepower without torque. The formula for horsepower requires torque (higher than zero) to get a HP number above zero. The formula for torque doesn't involve horsepower at all.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Yes. His name was James Watt, and nothing has changed in 200 years.

If you're trying to say that the boiler produces horsepower, they do rate them that way to enable comparisons, but it's an equivalent rating (water evaporated over time), not a direct one like mechanical horsepower.

You can have torque without horsepower. You can't have horsepower without torque. The formula for horsepower requires torque (higher than zero) to get a HP number above zero. The formula for torque doesn't involve horsepower at all.

Nor does it involve work. Accomplishing work is what we are talking about in the thread - starting with debunking your claim that a generic hi HP engine would not accomplish the work of a lower HP engine having hi torque output. Horsepower requires force and movement. It does not require torque. Torque is a construct of force, a lever, and a pivot. HP defines force and rate of movement.
larry

 

[GManBart]

Nor does it involve work. Accomplishing work is what we are talking about in the thread - starting with debunking your claim that a generic hi HP engine would not accomplish the work of a lower HP engine having hi torque output. Horsepower requires force and movement. It does not require torque. Torque is a construct of force, a lever, and a pivot. HP defines force and rate of movement.
larry

This is completely wrong, but pretty funny.

So, "Horsepower requires force and movement" is your position? Okay, let's go with that. Evidently you don't realize that the "force" you mention in the horsepower formula IS torque.

The definition of horsepower is torque multiplied by RPM, divided by the constant of 5252. If there is zero torque, there is zero horsepower. Horsepower doesn't define anything else in the equation, it is defined by the variables of torque and rpm.

For folks that want to understand the actual math/physics involved, this is a pretty good summary with actual formulas, not inaccurate theories.

Power and Torque: Understanding the Relationship Between the Two, by EPI Inc.

 

[arlen4720]

Actually the boiler is only producing pressure and heat, but no horsepower (power requires movement). You are absolutely right that it produces torque in a stalled state.

The point being, you can have torque without horsepower, but you can't have horsepower without torque. People are stating the relationship backwards. Torque creates horsepower, not the other way around.

Pressurizing the header with steam means that you made "x" amount of steam in a certain amount of time.
To say otherwise, is like saying an idling engine isn't producing power because it's not doing anything useful. The idling boiler is producing power.

Yes power is a function of force and speed, No ****. A steam engine can produce torque in a stall condition, No ****. You can't have power without movement, No ****. You can produce a force without movement, No ****. Congratulations you paid attention to what you learned in 7th grade.

The horse power formula your talking about is for rotary motion. Power, in it's more fundamental form, Is just the rate of doing work...doesn't have to be rotary (as in the case of a boiler).
Wow it's funny the direction this thread has taken.

 

[GManBart]

Pressurizing the header with steam means that you made "x" amount of steam in a certain amount of time.
To say otherwise, is like saying an idling engine isn't producing power because it's not doing anything useful. The idling boiler is producing power.

Producing steam, and pressure isn't creating power until the steam causes parts to move...no movement, no power. It's doing something useful, but it's not producing power.

Yes power is a function of force and speed, No ****. A steam engine can produce torque in a stall condition, No ****. You can't have power without movement, No ****. You can produce a force without movement, No ****. Congratulations you paid attention to what you learned in 7th grade.

Some folks seem to want to argue those points...not sure why.

 

[dragoneggs]

And where are you all going with this??? :confused3:

 

[arlen4720]

Producing steam, and pressure isn't creating power until the steam causes parts to move...no movement, no power. It's doing something useful, but it's not producing power.

Boiler horsepower is producing a certain amount of steam over a certain amount of time.

It's kind hard to follow this thread because people keep flipping between the theoretical, and the practical.

From a pure theoretical perspective, you would always want the highest horsepower engine, knowing that by gearing, you could get whatever torque and speed that you needed for the application. Does anybody debate that?

From a practical standpoint, transmissions have to be reasonably sized, with a reasonable number of gears. And of course they have losses. And we like to shift as little as possible. A slow, governed diesel engine with a nice flat torque curve, would be a smarter choice for a tractor compared to a higher reving, higher HP engine with a lower, peakier torque curve. Right?

I really don't think everybody's opinion on this thread are too far apart, everybody is just kind of jumping around.

Not sure how the steam engine crept into the debate, but wow, that would be a nice torque curve to have in a tractor. They of course are a different animal. Like electric motors, they are kind of a surrogate engine. The steam engine has the boiler all stoked up ready to go behind it, and the electric motor has the power plant revved up with voltage potential on the lines. The poor internal combustion engine is all by himself. He has to convert the chemical energy into mechanical energy all by himself. And, he has to have some power input to get the whole reaction started. And he can't stall, or the whole reaction stops.
So, it's a pretty big stretch to compare them. The torque of steam and electric motors are in a class all their own.

 

[k0ua]

Boiler horsepower is producing a certain amount of steam over a certain amount of time.

It's kind hard to follow this thread because people keep flipping between the theoretical, and the practical.

From a pure theoretical perspective, you would always want the highest horsepower engine, knowing that by gearing, you could get whatever torque and speed that you needed for the application. Does anybody debate that?

From a practical standpoint, transmissions have to be reasonably sized, with a reasonable number of gears. And of course they have losses. And we like to shift as little as possible. A slow, governed diesel engine with a nice flat torque curve, would be a smarter choice for a tractor compared to a higher reving, higher HP engine with a lower, peakier torque curve. Right?

I really don't think everybody's opinion on this thread are too far apart, everybody is just kind of jumping around.

Not sure how the steam engine crept into the debate, but wow, that would be a nice torque curve to have in a tractor. They of course are a different animal. Like electric motors, they are kind of a surrogate engine. The steam engine has the boiler all stoked up ready to go behind it, and the electric motor has the power plant revved up with voltage potential on the lines. The poor internal combustion engine is all by himself. He has to convert the chemical energy into mechanical energy all by himself. And, he has to have some power input to get the whole reaction started. And he can't stall, or the whole reaction stops.
So, it's a pretty big stretch to compare them. The torque of steam and electric motors are in a class all their own.

I like this post! makes sense to me.

 

[dragoneggs]

I like this post! makes sense to me.

ditto... thanks arlen. And it has so much to do about kubota vs. kioti :laughing: