Subject: Compressor Motor: HP v.s. Amps?
From: "Bob Swinney"
Date: 04/10/03 04:47 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id: zprfb.489686$Oz4.337254@rwcrnsc54

Well, Dave, aside from all your pomposity and references to "your" website,

Are you trying to imply that it isn't my website?

I pretty well covered it in my earlier post which was an honest answer to
Chucks question. Strangely, though, you gave no mathematical examples to
lend clarity to your statements, and to gain position otherwise lost by all
the posturing.

I'm not sure why you see it as posturing. You asked for comment on what torque
really was and on the other statements that were not correct. If I took the
liberty of replying on behalf of Richard Kinch then he can challenge my
position or add to it as he sees fit. I could go into the maths ad infinitum
but I see no point in repeating what is already explained in detail on my site.

I incorrectly challenged you on one point and I apologized
to you for that. Kindly disregard that apology now, for the spirit in
which it was given has been sullied by your boorish, pompous and pedantic
attitude. The basic definitions I gave for HP, torque and RPM are all valid.

Although you have quoted the formulae quite correctly you apparently don't
fully understand the underlying implications, or at least not to the point
where you can explain them clearly to others. Torque and work are fundamentally
unrelated.


Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk)
I'm not at all sure why women like men. We're argumentative, childish,
unsociable and extremely unappealing naked. I'm quite grateful they do though.