Talk:Torque converter

From formulasearchengine
Revision as of 12:48, 11 October 2013 by en>Yobot (Talk page general fixes using AWB (9528))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:WikiProjectBanners Template:Not a forum

Archives of past discussion

Archive 1


Wdl1961, this edit appears to have been an error on your part. Torque converter lockup — when the lockup clutch is applied, not when it is released — occurs under the stated conditions of steady-speed cruise without substantial torque multiplication. If your edit was intentional, please provide solid support for your assertion, which appears to contradict every reliable text on the subject. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


I have created a section on manufacturers. Are the Buick and Chevrolet torque converters made in-house or bought from outside manufacturers? Biscuittin (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Images / Maps

I have not read through the actual version of the article, but skimmed over the last discussion archive and looked in the commons category.

I would appreciate some color coded / iso-line maps, where the x and y axis are input and output RPM respectively and the color denotes the efficiency. It is important that negative RPMs are included. In further maps input torque, output torque, torque multiplication could be plotted.

I think such a map would allow people who use torque converters to do so efficiently and the world would be a better place. Also the text about torque converters seem to be a problem and images are even more important therfore. -- Arnero (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

obviously wrong; <mat h>r\,N^2D^5</math>, see fluid coupling also

"As with a basic fluid coupling the theoretical torque capacity of a converter is proportional to, where is sity of the fluid, is the impeller speed (rpm), and is the diameter."

obviously wrong ,is correct see fluid coupling also .try basic eng handbooks.Wdl1961 (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Not "obviously wrong" and the WP:RS handbook ref I've just added agreed with ω^2 D^5, as it read before, and as I understand it to be. If you can show that it's "obviously wrong", then please do so. If you have a reliable ref that supports your claim, then please do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just checked (and fixed) Fluid coupling to N^2D^5. That only claimed N^5D^2 (incorrectly) because you changed it last January. Please stop introducing errors into Wikipedia like this. You have a track record for this sort of error, incorrect and unsupported by references. Please stop. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
see Revision as of 06:36, 24 December 2006 (edit) (undo)Bigdumbdinosaur .also p=kv^2.//pump.turbine.flow = kv^2.kv^2.v=kv^5.Wdl1961 (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No matter what the article may or may not have claimed, you can't use it as a WP:RS for itself! Cite a _real_ reference. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Bernoulli's equation: is dynamic pressure,the reverse applies to a turbine .fluid flow gives the final v^5 = kn^5.Wdl1961 (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Similarities to a Continous Transmission

So does a torque converter act like a continuous transmission? It seems so seeing as it changes the RPMs and torque to other RPMs and torque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. A torque converter has its own behaviour that varies mechanical advantage in response to conditions like power, angular velocity and load, while a continuous transmission varies mechanical advantage according to a control setting. If a continuous transmission is part of a larger (sub)system that adjusts that control setting the same way in response to conditions like power and load, then that larger (sub)system acts like a torque converter - but that trick doesn't work the other way around, to choose the mechanical advantage of a torque converter the way you can with a continuous transmission. PMLawrence (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a torque converter is exactly like a CVT. The name "torque converter" is historical: it is generally applied to fluid couplings that can offer torque multiplication, as a contrast to the early fluid couplings that couldn't do this, and were known as fluid flywheels. Both of these can math varying speeds for input & output, but the simple fluid flywheel does this by slipping (obviously wasteful of power), Föttinger's hydraulic 'torque converter' could do this and also (by multiplying torque) also match power at different speeds, thus avoiding this wasteful slippage.
A "coned pulley" CVT does the same. Power is conserved (with a small waste owing to friction) even when the speeds differ, because there is torque multiplication. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Constantinesco torque converter

Shouldn't there be a section on this, or perhaps a distinct article if it's too disparate to belong with the main material? At present Constantinesco torque converter just redirects to the car that used it, without giving any detail on the device itself. PMLawrence (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there should be a separate article, not a section. "Torque converter" means (to all practical purposes) a fluid coupling that offers torque multiplication (i.e. the very commonly known Föttinger type) rather than any general principle applied to a range of devices.
Constantinesco torque converter is a redirect because so far I've lacked the time to write anything more. I've scanned a fair bit on it at Commons, but it's a highly obscure device and few people have even heard of it. I don't understand your edit summary of "not a continuously variable transmission but a true torque converter" for AFAIK it was a CVT (albeit of limited range) and I don't knwo what makes one torque multiplying device a "true" torque converter whilst another is presumably a "false" torque converter. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)