Differential torque

[Sylvia Else]

Since so many people are sure they're experts, I thought I'd restart the
differential thread.

Here goes:

The torque on the two wheels attached to a differential is the same,
regardless of whether neither wheel, one wheel, or both wheels, are turning.

Have at it.

Sylvia.

[Clocky]

Oh no, not this one again...

[Jeßus]

No thanks. My desk can't take too many more hits from my forehead.

[jonz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My take on it during the last go-round was (and remains) "torque distribution in an open differential is always equal" (Disregarding any internal frictional losses)
>
> Sylvia.

[Xeno]

let me add a little. In the case of neither wheel turning, no "work" is
being done.

--

Xeno.

[Sylvia Else]

Certainly.

Sylvia.

[dbr]

Why not add what speed would the turning axle be doing relative to the
the diff carrier if one axle was held and the other allowed to spin.


Hint (the differential speed of the wheels when turning is proportional)

Now than may create a little frendly debate (or not)

[F Murtz]

Don't change the question Make it a separate debate as it is not the
specific question asked and is only going to sidetrack the debate, if any.

[jonz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your contention does not make one iota of difference To my conclusion (Along with the majority)

[dbr]

I would have thought it was the same question. I added the rpm to the
torque. They are both part of the operation of the gear set

Basic principle is here once you get past the intro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4JhruinbWc

[Xeno]

If your read the original statement, you will see that RPM is irrelevant.

I suggest you look at difference between force and power.


--

Xeno.

[jonz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nothing to do with the question...OK?

[Xeno]

I think I will stay out of this one. It looks like it could be far more
interesting to just watch. ;-)

I'm already seeing "whoosh" moments....

--

Xeno.

[Noddy]

I understand that your ego is hurting, but this isn't going to help it
get better.


--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Jason James]

There are quite a few phenomena that need physics type jibbering to explain them properly. With the much maligned diff question, where one wheel was free to spin while the other was on the ground,.. we need to measure power by 2 methods> 1. torque times rpm for the spinning wheel and 2. a spring and meter, like used to weigh vegetables, only mounted sideways to measure the pull of the wheel that is stalled [by the gauge attachment]. The wheel that is denied the ability to spin, will exert a rotational force.

How we view these 2 conditions, which were the subject of the first differama question a couple of years back, was not defined.

Jason

[Noddy]

On 02/02/15 7:00 AM, Jason James wrote:

> How we view these 2 conditions, which were the subject of the first
> differama question a couple of years back, was not defined.

They were defined quite well at the time, but that's beside the point.

The point here is that Sylvia made a complete twat out of herself in the
thread about increased fuel consumption when she tried to talk all over
the top of everyone and show how clever she was, but in reality all she
managed to do was to show is that she has a very limited capacity for
understanding basic physical problems and a willingness to blame that on
everyone but herself.

What she's *now* trying to do is save face by setting a trap. She wants
to punish the people who made her look like a fuckwit by inviting them
to comment on a subject that was done to death originally so she can
jump in and say "Ah-HA! You're wrong, and I'm smarter than you so N'yer".

Such is the narrowness of her mind. Of course, the person she should be
blaming for her lack of understanding is herself, but that ain't ever
going to happen because her head's so far up her own arse that she can't
tell if it's night or day.

If you want to play her game then that's your business Jase.





--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Xeno]

On 2/02/2015 8:53 AM, Noddy wrote:
> On 02/02/15 7:00 AM, Jason James wrote:
>
>> How we view these 2 conditions, which were the subject of the first
>> differama question a couple of years back, was not defined.
>
> They were defined quite well at the time, but that's beside the point.

If they were defined as well as the recent situation was defined, then I
would say there's plenty of room for further discourse.

>
> The point here is that Sylvia made a complete twat out of herself in the
> thread about increased fuel consumption when she tried to talk all over
> the top of everyone and show how clever she was, but in reality all she

No, she put forward a hypothesis that no one here was able to disprove.
What does that mean? That she was correct? If she was wrong, somebody
should be able to prove that. No one has.

> managed to do was to show is that she has a very limited capacity for
> understanding basic physical problems and a willingness to blame that on
> everyone but herself.

I think you might find she has a better understanding of physical
problems than you ever will. You are far too much of a concrete thinker
to even comprehend the level of her thinking. Your limited understanding
of planetary gearsets shows the limits of your ability for abstraction.

>
> What she's *now* trying to do is save face by setting a trap.

She is not setting a trap. What you are seeing is a "test" of your
ability to conduct formal operations. She's even put it into a context
you should be familiar with. Thus far you are a failure. You will get a
DNS report on this one.

> She wants to punish the people who made her look like a fuckwit by

When did that happen? What I saw here was a bunch of people who didn't
even understand the hypothesis.

> inviting them to comment on a subject that was done to death

And nobody came up with anything of substance that disputed her hypothesis.

> originally so she can jump in and say "Ah-HA! You're wrong,
> and I'm smarter than you so N'yer".

You're a concrete thinker through and through.

>
> Such is the narrowness of her mind. Of course, the person she should be

By your statement you are showing the narrowness of your mind.

> blaming for her lack of understanding is herself, but that ain't ever
> going to happen because her head's so far up her own arse that she can't
> tell if it's night or day.

If anyone has their head up their arse, it's you by a huge margin.

>
> If you want to play her game then that's your business Jase.

It's a public discussion forum related to cars. If YOU don't want to
play, that says more about your level of thinking than it ever will
about anyone else.


--

Xeno.

[Xeno]

On 2/02/2015 7:00 AM, Jason James wrote:
> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:41:14 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Since so many people are sure they're experts, I thought I'd restart the
>> differential thread.
>>
>> Here goes:
>>
>> The torque on the two wheels attached to a differential is the same,
>> regardless of whether neither wheel, one wheel, or both wheels, are turning.
>>
>> Have at it.
>
> There are quite a few phenomena that need physics type jibbering to explain
> them properly. With the much maligned diff question, where one wheel
was free
> to spin while the other was on the ground,.. we need to measure power by 2
> methods> 1. torque times rpm for the spinning wheel and 2. a spring and
> meter, like used to weigh vegetables, only mounted sideways to measure
> the pull of the wheel that is stalled [by the gauge attachment]. The wheel
> that is denied the ability to spin, will exert a rotational force.

I am going to watch this particular discussion - if it gets off the
ground. Could be interesting. Very much a social experiment! Noddy has
already squibbed out but I expected that! ;-)

>
> How we view these 2 conditions, which were the subject of the first differama
> question a couple of years back, was not defined.

Ah, that's why I don't recall it..
>
> Jason
>


--

Xeno.

[Jason James]

I just learned by virtue of an old clip on diffs, which was mentioned by the OP, that early cars got around the need for a diff by chain driving *one wheel*. Brilliant, but destined to be inadequate due traction limitations. OK if you stay on the black-top.

Jason

[Sylvia Else]

I don't know why you'd think I have a problem with my ego. No one has
even tried to contradict my final argument relating to a single cylinder
and single cycle. Notwithstanding the usual proclamations of lack of
interest, general insults, and attempts to derail a discussion, on
Usenet few refutable positions remain unrefuted. A reasonable view is
that no one can see how to refute it, because it's correct.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 2/02/2015 7:00 AM, Jason James wrote:

This thread is about torque, not power. I don't find the power question
very interesting, but by all means start a separate thread about it, and
I'll comment there.

Sylvia.

[Jason James]

Are you saying torque can exist without power ? I dont think it can as a stationary wheel maybe holding the vehicle from moving down a slope for instance.

Jason

[Xeno]

If you understand the difference Jason, you will have the answer to that
question.

let me give you another.

We have a car with an automatic trans. We apply the brakes so the car
does not move. We rev the engine to stall speed.

Q1 Is there any torque (remember, the rear wheels don't turn)?
Q2 Is any work being performed if said wheels are not turning?
Q3 If work is being performed, what is the result (output)?

--

Xeno.

[Sylvia Else]

Certainly torque can exist without power. Power equals torque times
angular velocity - always. If there's no rotation, then there's no
power, even if there's torque.

But I'll not further pursue this conversation here - start a power
thread if you're interested.

Sylvia.

[Clocky]

Right, such as is the case with electric motors where maximum torque is
at 0 rpm.

[Xeno]

Don't forget the humble external combustion engine!
>
>


--

Xeno.

[Noddy]

On 02/02/15 11:02 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

> I don't know why you'd think I have a problem with my ego.

Because you apparently can't comprehend not understanding anything.

> No one has even tried to contradict my final argument relating to a single cylinder
> and single cycle.

That's because no one cared about your useless irrelevant argument.

> Notwithstanding the usual proclamations of lack of
> interest, general insults, and attempts to derail a discussion, on
> Usenet few refutable positions remain unrefuted. A reasonable view is
> that no one can see how to refute it, because it's correct.

A *more* reasonable view is that you cannot possibly comprehend the idea
of what you say not being right, so you conclude that people simply
don't *understand* it.

In other words Sylvia, you have the social skills of a fucking dead cat,
and are *so* far up yourself that you think everyone loves you as much
as you do.





--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Sylvia Else]

On 2/02/2015 12:51 PM, Noddy wrote:
> On 02/02/15 11:02 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> I don't know why you'd think I have a problem with my ego.
>
> Because you apparently can't comprehend not understanding anything.
>
>> No one has even tried to contradict my final argument relating to a
>> single cylinder
>> and single cycle.
>
> That's because no one cared about your useless irrelevant argument.

Did I mention proclamations of lack of interest? Oh yes, I did.

>
>> Notwithstanding the usual proclamations of lack of
>> interest, general insults, and attempts to derail a discussion, on
>> Usenet few refutable positions remain unrefuted. A reasonable view is
>> that no one can see how to refute it, because it's correct.
>

Sylvia.

[Noddy]

On 02/02/15 12:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Did I mention proclamations of lack of interest? Oh yes, I did.

Oh yes, you did, and I'm quite certain that there was a fair degree of
sarcasm involved in you doing so because you're of the opinion that
people cannot possibly be uninterested in anything you have to say.




--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Sylvia Else]

I'm pretty sure you're interested in what I have to say - you appear to
read (I use the term loosely in your case) everything I write.

Sylvia.

[Xeno]

LOL

--

Xeno.

[jonz]

On Monday, 2 February 2015 08:48:02 UTC+11, Noddy wrote:
> On 02/02/15 7:00 AM, Jason James wrote:
>
> > How we view these 2 conditions, which were the subject of the first
> > differama question a couple of years back, was not defined.
>
> They were defined quite well at the time, but that's beside the point.
>
> The point here is that Sylvia made a complete twat out of herself in the
> thread about increased fuel consumption when she tried to talk all over
> the top of everyone and show how clever she was, but in reality all she
> managed to do was to show is that she has a very limited capacity for
> understanding basic physical problems and a willingness to blame that on
> everyone but herself.
>
> What she's *now* trying to do is save face by setting a trap.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trap? what trap?

She wants
> to punish the people who made her look like a fuckwit by inviting them
> to comment on a subject that was done to death originally so she can
> jump in and say "Ah-HA! You're wrong, and I'm smarter than you so N'yer".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Translation: I am scared to express an opinion on this subject.........

>
> Such is the narrowness of her mind. Of course, the person she should be
> blaming for her lack of understanding is herself, but that ain't ever
> going to happen because her head's so far up her own arse that she can't
> tell if it's night or day.
>
> If you want to play her game then that's your business Jase.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Middletons rousabout eh?....
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.

[jonz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have a look in the archives......
> >
> > Jason
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Xeno.

[Noddy]

"jonz" <johnhh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6da611ed-6392-4503...@googlegroups.com...

> Have a look in the archives......

I'm sure he is doing that as we speak, as he wasn't here at the time and
will be looking for something he can plagiarise for his own miserable
benefit. Those of us who *were* here remember that Athol Mullen answered the
question perfectly.

Everyone except you Fatso. You still have a problem with truck diffs going
forwards :)

[jonz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Once again, Numby attempts to turn a thread into a personal attack session, I reckon Sylvia has a chuckle at yer puerile scribblings...She definitely has U by the short and curlies HAHAHA
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.

[jonz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NWAC.

[Xeno]

On 2/02/2015 2:29 PM, Noddy wrote:
> "jonz" <johnhh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6da611ed-6392-4503...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> Have a look in the archives......
>
> I'm sure he is doing that as we speak,

Indeed, I am going over the discussion.

> as he wasn't here at the time and will be looking for something
> he can plagiarise for his own miserable benefit.

Oh, suddenly you now agree I wasn't here in another guise. You really
are a slow learner. I really do wish you lot would make up your mind.

>Those of us who *were* here remember that Athol Mullen answered the
> question perfectly.

If *you* think Athol Mullen answered the question perfectly, that would
be one hell of an excellent reason to doubt the veracity of Athol's answer.

>
> Everyone except you Fatso. You still have a problem with truck diffs going
> forwards :)
>
>

Like your problem with the concept of planetary gearsets providing
direct drive?

--

Xeno.

[Noddy]

On 02/02/15 1:20 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

> I'm pretty sure you're interested in what I have to say - you appear to
> read (I use the term loosely in your case) everything I write.

It's not your week Love, as you're wrong on that as well :)



--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Noddy]

On 02/02/15 2:31 PM, jonz wrote:

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Once again, Numby attempts to turn a thread into a personal attack session, I reckon Sylvia has a chuckle at yer puerile scribblings...She definitely has U by the short and curlies HAHAHA

At least she'll be able to make out what I'm saying Cletus.


--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Xeno]

You read, you answered.....

QED

--

Xeno.

[Xeno]

Even if it makes no sense at all....

--

Xeno.

[Jason James]

Okey dokey, roger and out :-)

There's nothing wrong,..as higher order primates, branching a discussion out to a related topic. I think we can all keep track. :-)

Jason

[dbr]

Yes = to the stall torque of the torque converter / gear ratio This
torque is shown only as load on the brakes and not at the tyre

> Q2 Is any work being performed if said wheels are not turning?

Not in usable output but would the heat generated along with the noise,
Air movement for cooling/ engine breathing etc etc etc constitute work.
Would the work done or power produced not equal the energy in?

> Q3 If work is being performed, what is the result (output)?

Think I covered that one

I am amazed that a simple concept like differential gear set operation
can again create so much argument. Torque may be what you are trying to
determine but in a moving diff how can you not include the rotation if
you are trying to work out the torque balance when cornering. Is it not
this balance that goes to the heart of the original question.

With my very limited grasp on physics from my year 11 trade school
education power as it relates to the diff operation is a combination of
torque and rpm. The torque applied to the diff output axles is equal. As
1 wheel speeds up and the other slows to allow cornering the rpm of each
axle changes. This will mean that a different amount of power is sent to
the two axles but the torque will still be equal.

I do know however this balance is affected by frictional forces within
the diff. If you add some clutch packs behind the side gears you will
end up with a limited slip diff and the statement of the torque being
equal on both axles may no longer be true

The other thing I have missed in this post is the apparent desire to
ridicule others rather than understand the workings of the gear set in
question. This is a game I in which I may have to surrender as I was
never that good at it; But please do continue as it can be amusing at times

Darren

[F Murtz]

I do not think that she wants to do any such thing, the topic was very
specific.
You seem to want to introduce other things and change the question.

[Sylvia Else]

Threads become unwieldy, both in length and in nesting depth. I was
going to say that it's bad enough when the thread stays on topic, but
actually I don't know that, because I've never seen it happen except on
threads that quickly die.

It's not difficult to start a separate thread for a separate topic.

Sylvia.

[Xeno]

On 2/02/2015 7:38 PM, F Murtz wrote:
> dbr wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:

<snip>

>>> Q3 If work is being performed, what is the result (output)?
>>
>> Think I covered that one
>>
>> I am amazed that a simple concept like differential gear set operation
>> can again create so much argument. Torque may be what you are trying to
>> determine but in a moving diff how can you not include the rotation if
>> you are trying to work out the torque balance when cornering.
>
> I do not think that she wants to do any such thing, the topic was very
> specific.
> You seem to want to introduce other things and change the question.
>

What you and most other people here don't seem to understand is that
Sylvia has not asked a question at all.

This is what she wrote;

> The torque on the two wheels attached to a differential is the same,
> regardless of whether neither wheel, one wheel, or both wheels, are
> turning.

Now, to my understanding of the English language, what she has written
is a "statement". It is not postfixed by a question mark. It does not
even look like a question.

If it is not a question then, how can Noddy intimate that it is a "trap"?

I am very sure that Sylvia can prove that her statement is 100% correct
with ease. In fact, I would guarantee it.

The problem is that the people who are in dispute with her do NOT have
the "ability" to disprove the statement. That is obvious from the
comments thus far and from the comments I am currently reading in the
past differential thread(s). They are working from their "visual"
understanding of differential theory, not from the physics and
mathematical viewpoints.

People who know what they don't know - can learn.
People who think they know - are impeded in their learning.
People who won't admit they don't know - resort to vitriol and epithets.


--

Xeno.

[jonz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The question is a YES/NO situation.......
>
> Darren

[Xeno]

On 2/02/2015 6:54 PM, dbr wrote:
> Xeno wrote:


<snip>
>

>> Q3 If work is being performed, what is the result (output)?
>
> Think I covered that one
>
> I am amazed that a simple concept like differential gear set operation
> can again create so much argument. Torque may be what you are trying to
> determine but in a moving diff how can you not include the rotation if
> you are trying to work out the torque balance when cornering. Is it not
> this balance that goes to the heart of the original question.

I am not sure what the original question even was. I wasn't there, I
wasn't involved in any way in the discussion. With THIS thread, there
isn't even a QUESTION, just a statement. Anyone who has done higher
order learning (or research) would recognise it in an instant. It is
therefore up to, as Sylvia put it, the others to "have at it". I know
what she means, I know what she would expect to see as a "proof", I also
know I cannot provide that. There are a multitude of reasons for this
but prime amongst them is the fact that it's been a very long time since
I needed to delve into mechanical theory to any great depth. It was
certainly not required when teaching motor mechanic apprentices in
Victoria for the past 3 or 4 decades.

>
> With my very limited grasp on physics from my year 11 trade school
> education power as it relates to the diff operation is a combination of
> torque and rpm. The torque applied to the diff output axles is equal. As
> 1 wheel speeds up and the other slows to allow cornering the rpm of each
> axle changes. This will mean that a different amount of power is sent to
> the two axles but the torque will still be equal.

The level of understanding that you have is acceptable for a general
motor mechanic of today. When I was an apprentice, we used the earlier
versions of these 2 books or similar ones;

http://tinyurl.com/oyr3a8d

I recall some of the subjects we had to complete.
Motor mechanics theory I, II & III. Each of those was studied over a 1
year period. As well, we also had Motor mech calculations, motor mech
science and Technical drawing, again each subject being of a 1 year
duration. We didn't delve into the above books into great depth.

One of the requirements to get into trade teaching was, at least for the
automotive trade in Victoria, an "Automotive Technicians Certificate".
It wasn't mandatory to have it (I didn't possess it) but it was regarded
very favourably. The Technician's Certificate no longer exists but it
was initially begun at Richmond TAFE by the HOD at the time. It was seen
as filling a gap in the trade. It would have been the equivalent of what
is now the "Associate Diploma of Mechanical Engineering" but with much
more relevance to the automotive industry. Anyway, if you were studying
the Technicians Certificate, you would be delving into the above books
much more deeply. Most of the subjects in the Technicians Certificate
were much more advanced versions of the apprentice syllabus but there
were niceties like "Heat Engines I & II" and "Advanced Diesel". That's
where the engine dyno, the one Noddy says is a genset, came in very
useful as it involved determining the performance of an engine by
calculation, then testing the veracity of the calculations by testing
the engine on the dyno.

>
> I do know however this balance is affected by frictional forces
> within the diff. If you add some clutch packs behind the side gears you
> will end up with a limited slip diff and the statement of the torque
> being equal on both axles may no longer be true
>
> The other thing I have missed in this post is the apparent desire
> to ridicule others rather than understand the workings of the gear set
> in question. This is a game I in which I may have to surrender as I was
> never that good at it; But please do continue as it can be amusing at times
>
> Darren
>

What gets me are those who ridicule people with a higher order level of
comprehension than they themselves possess. I number among my long term
friends a number of engineers, some unfortunately deceased, and they
cover a range of disciplines; civil, mechanical, electrical and
electronic. Some of those engineers excel at the theoretical and the
practical, some just the theoretical. Regardless, I would never ridicule
them for their theoretical abilities. Rather, I respect them. In fact, I
envy them for their talent as I would have loved to have taken on
engineering myself. I did try but maths was my limitation. I seem to
have inherited my mother's "talent" for maths. Had I inherited my
father's maths abilities it might have been a different story.


--

Xeno.

[Diesel Damo]

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 10:31:54 PM UTC+11, Xeno wrote:

> What gets me are those who ridicule people with a higher order level
> of comprehension than they themselves possess.

You mean like calling simple geometry "gobbledygook" because you
couldn't grasp it? Especially when my "higher order level" only
required a year 7 level of understanding.

<pretentious waffle snipped>

[Noddy]

On 03/02/15 6:53 AM, Diesel Damo wrote:

> You mean like calling simple geometry "gobbledygook" because you
> couldn't grasp it? Especially when my "higher order level" only
> required a year 7 level of understanding.

Yeah, that'd be about it.

> <pretentious waffle snipped>

Nice :)



--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Xeno]

On 2/02/2015 2:31 PM, jonz wrote:
> On Monday, 2 February 2015 13:11:53 UTC+11, Noddy wrote:
>> On 02/02/15 12:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> Did I mention proclamations of lack of interest? Oh yes, I did.
>>
>> Oh yes, you did, and I'm quite certain that there was a fair degree of
>> sarcasm involved in you doing so because you're of the opinion that
>> people cannot possibly be uninterested in anything you have to say.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Once again, Numby attempts to turn a thread into a personal attack

SOP for Noddy when he's outclassed.. ;-)
You know he's outclassed because he sees Sylvia's postulate as a "trap".
It can only be thought of as a trap by those who don't understand its
intent.

> session, I reckon Sylvia has a chuckle at yer puerile scribblings...

More to be pitied than laughed at...

> She definitely has U by the short and curlies HAHAHA

In this case, Noddy has himself by the short and curlies. He just
doesn't realise it!

--

Xeno.

[Clocky]

What you are saying is just the same old vitriolic and ridiculing
garbage you always spout. More to the point she can make out the kind of
toxic person you are... and she has.

[Noddy]

"Clocky" <not...@happen.com> wrote in message
news:54d00f08$0$11094$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...

> What you are saying is just the same old vitriolic and ridiculing garbage
> you always spout. More to the point she can make out the kind of toxic
> person you are... and she has.

I couldn't give a toss what she thinks of me Tic-Toc, but it's clear that
she's not half as smart as she thinks she is, and in that sense she has an
*awful* lot in common with you.

Tell me again how, by your own admission, you haven't worked in a Holden
Dealership for what, 13 years? But yet you can look at a basic photo of a
service bay of a dealership over 3000km's from you and tell in an *instant*
that it's a "country agent" and that poor service should be expected from
it.

I find this level of insightfulness to be absolutely fascinating :)

[Sylvia Else]

On 1/02/2015 1:41 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Since so many people are sure they're experts, I thought I'd restart the
> differential thread.
>
> Here goes:
>
> The torque on the two wheels attached to a differential is the same,
> regardless of whether neither wheel, one wheel, or both wheels, are
> turning.
>
> Have at it.
>

> Sylvia.

Hmm... this seems to have done little other than provide yet another
thread in which the usual suspect can hurl abuse.

Perhaps if I start a thread off with abuse, we'll get some talk on the
technicalities...

Sylvia.

[Xeno]

On 3/02/2015 12:42 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 1/02/2015 1:41 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Since so many people are sure they're experts, I thought I'd restart the
>> differential thread.
>>
>> Here goes:
>>
>> The torque on the two wheels attached to a differential is the same,
>> regardless of whether neither wheel, one wheel, or both wheels, are
>> turning.
>>
>> Have at it.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Hmm... this seems to have done little other than provide yet another
> thread in which the usual suspect can hurl abuse.

I suspect your postulate was a "whoosh moment" for most here. Daryl
thinks it's a question??? Noddy thinks it's a trap so he's not going
near it! LOL You have to look at the funny side of that if nothing els!

>
> Perhaps if I start a thread off with abuse, we'll get some talk on the
> technicalities...
>
> Sylvia.

You're an optimist... I'll give you that much!

--

Xeno.

[Xeno]

On 3/02/2015 12:42 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

Speaking of threads, I notice the previous threads about differentials
had a lot of posters whose names I don't see since I've been here -
about 18 months by my reckoning. Are they posters who Noddy pissed of
with his incessant vitriol and bile? There seems to be an awfully small
subset of posters here now.

--

Xeno.

[Sylvia Else]

On a different group, I once caused considerable angst just by
retrieving headers, and providing a summary in terms of postings under
different names, but from the same IP addresses. Anyone would think I'd
violated people's privacy by using publicly available information to
expose sock-puppets and nym-shifters. Not so easy now that so many
people (including me, as it happens) post through servers that don't
reveal IP addresses.

Sylvia.

[D Walford]

Don't you think that its rather ironic that your reply was to the most
well known nym shifter in usenet history.


--
Daryl

[Sylvia Else]

On 3/02/2015 1:35 PM, D Walford wrote:

> Don't you think that its rather ironic that your reply was to the most
> well known nym shifter in usenet history.
>
>

Any evidence?

Sylvia.

[Xeno]

Well, they have called me by every nym that ever was here - until a lot
of them turned up again... LOL That really stuffed 'em up!


--

Xeno.

[Jason James]

Can you picture the 4 small pinions, or spider-gears found in most diff's hemispheres ? You could get away with just one Hemisphere pinion [call this a HSP], but for strength 2 are better sharing the load.

Assuming you can, the main pinion and crown-gear set simply rotate the 2 small pinions along with the HS that are pinned to the HS. They are both engaged [gear-wise] to the 2 other small pinions which drive each axle. If each axle presents a constant load with both wheels off the ground, they [ the 2 HSPs] will not turn on their pins and will lever the 2 axle-pinions around at the h/sphere rotational speed.

If one wheel is lowered to the ground, its axle-pinion will stop turning. The HSPs will now commence turning, as the stalled axle-pinion now reverses the drive back thru the HSPs. The other axle/pinion now increases speed, as not only is it being driven mentioned above in 1st p/graph, but is being driven as well by the now turning HSPs. Dont know by how much it increases speed.

If the drive to the now stationary axle is indeed being used by the other axle [force reversal] then I can only conclude the torque is now being directed to the free axle only.

This my understanding. I haven't used a web-site. :-)

Jason

[Jason James]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 2:10:20 PM UTC+11, Jason James

> Assuming you can, the main pinion and crown-gear set simply rotate the 2 small pinions along with the HS that are pinned to the HS.

Whoops,..that should read ...."the main pinion and crown-gear set simply rotate the 2 small Hemisphere pinions that are pinned to the hemisphere. ie. the hemisphere and *its* 2 pinions rotate as one unit. The 2 axle pinions can turn *in* the hemisphere when they are driving their axles."

Sorry,...Jason

[Diesel Damo]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 12:43:00 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Hmm... this seems to have done little other than

You started a troll thread using a subject that has been done to
absolute death here. You knew exactly what you were up to.

> Have at it

Baiting, nothing else.

Just like you started a whole new thread about excessive acceleration
when you were being provided too many replies that you didn't like in
the original WRX thread.

What's next? A thread about how speed cameras are possibly just
revenue raisers? BTW here's your cue to pretend you didn't detect my
sarcasm (which you think makes you look super intelligent) and reply
seriously to my speed cameras *rhetorical* question.

Hmmm... what do you do now? I just told you it was rhetorical. If you
pretend you don't know that word, everyone will think you're dumb. Oh
no. Such a dilemma.

[D Walford]

Its overwhelming, not doubt at all that he was Krypsis and at least one
other the name of which I can't remember right now.
Posting style and attitude are all identical, the other similarities
between the 3 are too close to be coincidental so there is no other
logical explanation other than all 3 are one and the same.


--
Daryl

[Xeno]

You are confusing power and work done with torque...
Isolate exactly what torque is....

BTW, you will find a mathematical proof of Sylvia's postulate the best
way of "describing" it.

--

Xeno.

[Xeno]

On 3/02/2015 2:26 PM, Diesel Damo wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 12:43:00 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> Hmm... this seems to have done little other than
>
> You started a troll thread using a subject that has been done to
> absolute death here. You knew exactly what you were up to.

From what I see, done to death but no correct outcome. A couple of
people seem to be on the correct path but no one has provided
incontrovertible proof. Mostly because, I suspect, the loudest voices
drowned out all sense and reason. I might add, the loudest voices seem
to be those with the least awareness and, in a couple of cases, the
least ability to reason.

>
>> Have at it
>
> Baiting, nothing else.

All Sylvia has done is make a postulate. It is up to YOU to prove or
disprove! As she said, "have at it". The ball is in your court.

<more desperation snipped>


--

Xeno.

[Xeno]

You might want to check up on some of your 'coincidences". I have and
they are nowhere near as close as you think. More a case of you
misremembering...

--

Xeno.

[Xeno]

If you want evidence of who I am, drop me an email at the address in
this post. It's live...

It's a bit harder to prove who I'm not however..... ;-)


--

Xeno.

[Who Am I]

On 3/02/2015 1:48 PM, Xeno wrote:

> You are confusing power and work done with torque...
> Isolate exactly what torque is....
>
> BTW, you will find a mathematical proof of Sylvia's postulate the best
> way of "describing" it.
>

You keep forgetting to add your disclaimer message.

The following information is intentionally deceptive and vague. The
intended meaning will be changed to suit me winning the argument without
question. Any likeness to the actual truth is unintentional, and I
apologise for anyone reading this being misled.

[news13]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 12:39:49 +1100, Noddy wrote:


> Tell me again how, by your own admission, you haven't worked in a
> Holden Dealership for what, 13 years?

You'd both be in the same boat there wouldn't you.

[Xeno]

Yeah but Noddy's boat was unseaworthy and sunk! ;-)

--

Xeno.

[Sylvia Else]

I'm pretty sure you're a person.

Sylvia.

[Xeno]

So.... have at it.. Provide a proof or otherwise.

For what it's worth, I don't intend to provide a proof. You see, I don't
disagree with her viewpoint. You and others here, it would seem, do
disagree. Well, here's your chance... Go prove Sylvia wrong! As I
clearly stated, the ball is in your court... very firmly in your court..!

--

Xeno.

[Noddy]

On 03/02/15 12:42 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Hmm... this seems to have done little other than provide yet another
> thread in which the usual suspect can hurl abuse.
>
> Perhaps if I start a thread off with abuse, we'll get some talk on the
> technicalities...

Why don't you hold your breath and see.


--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Noddy]

On 03/02/15 1:35 PM, D Walford wrote:

> Don't you think that its rather ironic that your reply was to the most
> well known nym shifter in usenet history.

Lol :)

He'll be kissing Sylvia's arse red raw now out of fear that she'll do
the same to him and tell everyone what they already know :)


--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Noddy]

On 03/02/15 2:43 PM, D Walford wrote:

> Its overwhelming, not doubt at all that he was Krypsis and at least one
> other the name of which I can't remember right now.

There was a compulsive liar around here for a while going by the name of
Roger Schmidt who has some uncanny similarities, and I wouldn't mind
having a lazy hundred on them being one and the same :)

> Posting style and attitude are all identical, the other similarities
> between the 3 are too close to be coincidental so there is no other
> logical explanation other than all 3 are one and the same.

What, like they were all inbred Tasmanian mechanics who lived in
Melbourne's Eastern suburbs, taught at Richmond Tech, spent time in Asia
and spewed incessant bullshit every time they opened their traps?

Get out.... :P





--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Noddy]

On 03/02/15 10:58 AM, Clocky wrote:

> What you are saying is just the same old vitriolic and ridiculing
> garbage you always spout. More to the point she can make out the kind of
> toxic person you are... and she has.

I'm genuinely pleased, as it means that at least she's got something
right for a change :)


--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Noddy]

On 03/02/15 5:01 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

> I'm pretty sure you're a person.

Staggeringly profound.


--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[news13]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 17:54:18 +1100, Noddy wrote:

> On 03/02/15 5:01 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty sure you're a person.
>
> Staggeringly profound.

Are trolls "people"

[Sylvia Else]

Since I haven't started such a thread, holding my breath would be a bit
pointless.

Sylvia.

[lindsay]

On 3/02/2015 5:51 PM, Noddy wrote:
> On 03/02/15 2:43 PM, D Walford wrote:
>
>> Its overwhelming, not doubt at all that he was Krypsis and at least one
>> other the name of which I can't remember right now.
>
> There was a compulsive liar around here for a while going by the name of
> Roger Schmidt who has some uncanny similarities, and I wouldn't mind
> having a lazy hundred on them being one and the same :)

He certainly has some of Ozones attributes.. mainly the lies...

>
>> Posting style and attitude are all identical, the other similarities
>> between the 3 are too close to be coincidental so there is no other
>> logical explanation other than all 3 are one and the same.
>
> What, like they were all inbred Tasmanian mechanics who lived in
> Melbourne's Eastern suburbs, taught at Richmond Tech, spent time in Asia
> and spewed incessant bullshit every time they opened their traps?
>
> Get out.... :P

Hahahaha

[jonz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Just in case there is any doubt, i hold the same view.....
>
> --
>
> Xeno.

[dbr]

The power may be directed to the one side but the torque on both axles
is equal The rotating spider gear still puts load on the static side
gear. This load would show up on the static shaft if you used a spring
scale to hold it rather than placing the tire on the ground

Darren

[Noddy]

On 03/02/15 6:21 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Since I haven't started such a thread, holding my breath would be a bit
> pointless.

What a shame.


--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Jason James]

That was my idea yesterday when commenting on the "stalled" wheel/axle. There is torque there as a spring-gauge would indicate,..but how this interplays with force/power wqas lost on me. Tks for the heads-up.

Jason

[Blue Heeler]

The whining the stupid arsehole indulged in when he thought his prime
repository of "personal experience" might be compromised was almost
pitiful. Imagine Krypsis unable to use google for fear of having more
of its lies exposed.

[Blue Heeler]

jonz wrote:

> >
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> Just in case there is any doubt, i hold the same view.....
>

jonz, a moron like you does not have an opinion, like a parrot they say
only what they have been taught.



Jonz want a cracker?

[Noddy]

On 03/02/15 10:07 PM, Blue Heeler wrote:

> The whining the stupid arsehole indulged in when he thought his prime
> repository of "personal experience" might be compromised was almost
> pitiful. Imagine Krypsis unable to use google for fear of having more
> of its lies exposed.

It's a beautiful thought :)



--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Diesel Damo]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 2:57:01 PM UTC+11, Xeno wrote:

> It is up to YOU to prove or disprove! As she said, "have at it".
> The ball is in your court.

It's not up to me to do anything other than read or post whatever the
fuck I want in aus.cars.

Your court, however, is cluttered with so many empty claims requiring
proof, or at least clarification, that even weeds can't grow in there.

> <more desperation snipped>

Get a dictionary. Oh that's right, you don't believe in them.

[Noddy]

On 04/02/15 7:52 AM, Diesel Damo wrote:

> It's not up to me to do anything other than read or post whatever the
> fuck I want in aus.cars.

Isn't it funny how some people think others have an obligation to show
them up to be clever, when more often than not it does the opposite? :)

> Your court, however, is cluttered with so many empty claims requiring
> proof, or at least clarification, that even weeds can't grow in there.
>
>> <more desperation snipped>
>
> Get a dictionary. Oh that's right, you don't believe in them.

It's an idiot of biblical proportions.



--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Clocky]

"Noddy" <m...@home.com> wrote in message news:map8e7$lcb$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Clocky" <not...@happen.com> wrote in message
> news:54d00f08$0$11094$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...

>
>> What you are saying is just the same old vitriolic and ridiculing garbage
>> you always spout. More to the point she can make out the kind of toxic
>> person you are... and she has.
>

> I couldn't give a toss what she thinks of me Tic-Toc, but it's clear that
> she's not half as smart as she thinks she is, and in that sense she has an
> *awful* lot in common with you.
>

The real problem is that her questions are of a level above your calling and
all you have are vitriol and ridicule in some vane attempt to cover it up.
That is your problem.

> Tell me again how, by your own admission, you haven't worked in a Holden
> Dealership for what, 13 years?

No, again for the millionth time - I haven't worked at a Holden dealership
*in the capacity where I had full access to the warranty system* in 13
years.

Why do you deliberately obfuscate the facts all the time?

You can't be that ignorant of the fact that you do it constantly so I can
only come to the conclusion that you do it deliberately.

[Clocky]

"news13" <newsthirte...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:mapnvg$7lt$2...@dont-email.me...

Well no, because I have worked at a Holden dealership in the last 13 years
at different points in time, but not limited to Holden dealerships or
dealerships period.

[Clocky]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjarh4...@mid.individual.net...

> On 3/02/2015 1:35 PM, D Walford wrote:
>
>> Don't you think that its rather ironic that your reply was to the most
>> well known nym shifter in usenet history.
>>
>>

> Any evidence?
>

Nothing that holds up.

[Clocky]

"D Walford" <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:54d04474$0$2919$c3e8da3$7649...@news.astraweb.com...

> On 03/02/2015 1:53 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 3/02/2015 1:35 PM, D Walford wrote:
>>
>>> Don't you think that its rather ironic that your reply was to the most
>>> well known nym shifter in usenet history.
>>>
>>>
>> Any evidence?
>>
>

> Its overwhelming, not doubt at all that he was Krypsis and at least one
> other the name of which I can't remember right now.

> Posting style and attitude are all identical, the other similarities
> between the 3 are too close to be coincidental so there is no other
> logical explanation other than all 3 are one and the same.
>

So no evidence then?

[XR8 Sprintless]

On 3/02/2015 3:17 PM, Who Am I wrote:
> On 3/02/2015 1:48 PM, Xeno wrote:
>
>> You are confusing power and work done with torque...
>> Isolate exactly what torque is....
>>
>> BTW, you will find a mathematical proof of Sylvia's postulate the best
>> way of "describing" it.
>>
> You keep forgetting to add your disclaimer message.
>
> The following information is intentionally deceptive and vague. The
> intended meaning will be changed to suit me winning the argument without
> question. Any likeness to the actual truth is unintentional, and I
> apologise for anyone reading this being misled.

It's okay WAI most here already know it's a weaseling imbecile. Of
course then there's the dag Jonz that lives around it's butt. It posts
with such incredible insight that not even Babel couldn't translate it
into something intelligent.

[Clocky]

"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
news:maqd99$vt2$1...@dont-email.me...

Now *that* is irony...

[XR8 Sprintless]

Oh for heaven's sake Clocky, even you would have to know he was
definitely Krypsis. You couldn't be that stupid. As for him being Roger
I would say that that is highly improbable. Roger lived in Maryborough
and was involved in the Tv industry. Though he disliked Noddy with a
passion, he wasn't at the level of this imbecile.

[D Walford]

Could you be more ridiculous, you know that what I said is true but you
just want oppose what others say for reasons only known to yourself.
I killfiled Xeno and his other nyms a long time ago and usually don't
comment on anything it says but the irony of Sylvia's post was too much
to resist.

--
Daryl

[Clocky]

"XR8 Sprintless" <xr8_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:marf0o$fgu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 4/02/2015 10:38 AM, Clocky wrote:
>> "D Walford" <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>> news:54d04474$0$2919$c3e8da3$7649...@news.astraweb.com...
>>> On 03/02/2015 1:53 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 3/02/2015 1:35 PM, D Walford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't you think that its rather ironic that your reply was to the most
>>>>> well known nym shifter in usenet history.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Any evidence?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its overwhelming, not doubt at all that he was Krypsis and at least one
>>> other the name of which I can't remember right now.
>>> Posting style and attitude are all identical, the other similarities
>>> between the 3 are too close to be coincidental so there is no other
>>> logical explanation other than all 3 are one and the same.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So no evidence then?
>>
>>
> Oh for heaven's sake Clocky, even you would have to know he was definitely
> Krypsis.

Sure, I do suspect it and I have stated such plenty of times. But we are
talking about evidence, not suspicion.

You couldn't be that stupid. As for him being Roger
> I would say that that is highly improbable. Roger lived in Maryborough and
> was involved in the Tv industry. Though he disliked Noddy with a passion,
> he wasn't at the level of this imbecile.
>
>

He's not Roger, he's not Ozone yet he was suspected as being both at one
point.

So, where is the *evidence* that he is Krypsis proving it beyond suspicion?

[Clocky]

"D Walford" <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote in message

news:54d14113$0$12925$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...

> On 04/02/2015 11:38 AM, Clocky wrote:
>> "D Walford" <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>> news:54d04474$0$2919$c3e8da3$7649...@news.astraweb.com...
>>> On 03/02/2015 1:53 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 3/02/2015 1:35 PM, D Walford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't you think that its rather ironic that your reply was to the most
>>>>> well known nym shifter in usenet history.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Any evidence?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its overwhelming, not doubt at all that he was Krypsis and at least one
>>> other the name of which I can't remember right now.
>>> Posting style and attitude are all identical, the other similarities
>>> between the 3 are too close to be coincidental so there is no other
>>> logical explanation other than all 3 are one and the same.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So no evidence then?
>>
>>
> Could you be more ridiculous, you know that what I said is true but you
> just want oppose what others say for reasons only known to yourself.

The question is about evidence, not suspicion. My suspicion is the same as
yours, but I'm yet to see evidence confirming my suspicions.

If you have the evidence, post it.