99 Ram Front Brakes

From : officer

Q: i am getting a loud hissing from a rear port in the throttle body. any ideas on the cause of this hissing it is causing my 96 dodge 1500 v6 to start very hard. i restricted the air flow to this port upon one of the startups and it idled better. however it only worked on this one startup and i cant keep taking the filter off every time i crank the old girl. -- posted using the http//www.autoforumz.com interface at authors request articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards topic url http//www.autoforumz.com/dodge-throttle-body-ftopict128812.html visit topic url to contact author reg. reqd. report abuse http//www.autoforumz.com/eform.phpp=628077 .

Replies:

From : randy e schaben

wait..... does hydrogen weigh anything it has less density than helium so you figure it out. i know but do you since i just said it i guess that i do. how about neon nope neon is heavier atomic weight than both nitrogen and oxygen which make up around 99% of our atmosphere exactly. and helium has an atomic weight as well. so no matter how ya cut it helium isnt weightless like you claim.. lol is there a reason why consistantly make an ass out of yourself. atomic weight is not the same thing as actual weight you do know that dont you if lead were in a gaseous state would it be weightless.... i doubt it. why dont you try it and find out i know hte answer but you obviously dont considering that you think helium has no weight in its gaseous state. if you knew the answer you would have said it. iow you dont have a clue. helium has no weight in its uncompressed gaseous state on this planet because the density of the air that makes up our atmosphere applies more upward force to the gas than gravity can supply to pull it down. since weight is a net force in a downward direction if the forces going the other way are stronger you simply have no actual weight. wow....... i just cant do this anymore..... what do you mean anymore. like you ever could. youre right i never could convince you of anything thatmade sense youve always stuck to the crap you believe like weightless helium. you cant convince me because 90% of the time you are wrong. helium is weightless on this planet because the forces pushing it away from the surface are greater than gravity trying to pull it back. weight is a measurement of force toward the planet not the objects mass. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : randy e schaben

tbone wrote because miles it is. weight is a relative force and like any force it can be canceled out by other forces and / or used up performing some action. no tom. take a bottle and pull a vacuum on it. place the bottle inside a vacuum chamber on top of a scale and weigh it. now fill the bottle with helium and while still in the vacuum chamber weigh it again. it now weighs more...hmm...helium has weight! lol you just dont understand what weight is do you yes in a complete vacuum where there are no other forces acting on the helium gravity will cause it to apply a downward force weight as minimal as it is. but in reality not only does it not apply a downward force weightless it actually has lift so while it has a atomic weight as everything with a mass does it has no weight on this planet under normal conditions and is so weightless as to not even be able to be held in the atmosphere by this planets gravitational force. so while it has both mass and from that atomic weight if you cant get a reading on a scale under normal conditions then it has no downward force and no weight. you really need to stop confusing weight and mass or weight and atomic weight. weight is not definded as a relation to the weight of air. you are wrong! but very funny that you define it this way!! weight is a downward force under whatever conditions exist. since this planet is not currently in a vacuum lighter than air gasses have no weight on the earths surface. if a scale cannot measure it then it simply has no significant weight. well actually it does but not to any statistical significance and if you think that the shuttle weighs the same 120 miles out that it does sitting on the launch pad nope its slightly less computed as a ratio from the distance to the center of the earth. we are about 4000 miles from the center. the shuttle is about 4120 miles from the center. now tom can you explain to us all why astronauts float around in the shuttle is it because gravity is so weak at 120 miles up nope it is because the shuttle is in orbit and basically in a constant free-fall. the constant change in direction cancels out the force of gravity so the shuttle and its contents have no weight. do they have mass of course they do that doesnt change but since mass is not weight .... -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tom lawrence

true for a liquid and a solid... gas is different. lol no it isnt. if they all have a mass then the same rules apply. gas is compressable.... liquids and solids are not. going the other way a set amount of gas may expand to the size of a larger container but the container is not necessarily full by definition. alright - then explain to me what constitutes a full container of any gas is a co2 tank full at 20psi 200psi 2000psi or is it not full until just before it bursts no it may always change its size to the volume of the container the amount or volume of gas remains the same. youre interchanging amount and volume and thats not correct. i can have the same amount of gas in a 20cu.in. container or a 2 cu.in. container. it will just be at a higher pressure in the smaller container. if you take 1 cu ft of gas and compress it into a 1 cu in container you still have 1 cu ft of gas simply compressed into a smaller space. youre still not getting it.... unless youre talking about a measurement at stp the term 1 cu.ft. of gas is completely meaningless in terms of the amount of that gas. incorrect. the standard unit of measure says this in simply not true. a standard cubic foot of any gas has a specific mass and changing the size of the container does not change the mass of the gas within it. yes - at a specific temperature and pressure in this case 60f and 14.7psi - different than stp. see thats the whole problem here. youre always assuming that a volume of any gas regardless of its pressure is measured as if that gas were at stp or 60/14.7. what the rest of us going way back to talking about the volume of air in an engines cylinder is that regardless of the pressure the gas will have a volume equal to the size of the cylinder - just a simple measure of volume. because of this a standard cubic foot of any gas is nothing more than a measurement of the mass of the molecules contained in 1 cubic foot at specific conditions. no - the standard cubic foot is a measure of the volume of a gas at stp. a mole is a measurement of the amount of gas counting the actual number of molocules. the two are completely separate and distinct measurements. because of this the space between them no longer has any meaning sure it does - it defines the volume. the gas of reduce the space compress the gas the volume of gas as a quantity measure does not change. sigh no... the amount of gas does not change - its volume is certainly changing inversely proportional to its pressure. textbook boyles law... exactly my point. now unless the measurement of the inside of that tank has an actual volume of 80 cu ft and that would be one huge tank your example proves my point. if the tank has an actual internal volume of 2 or 3 cu ft and it is said to contain 80cu ft of the gas then the volume of the container does not always equal the volume of gas contained within it... sigh i give up.... youre now claiming that a gas contained in a ..5cu.ft. container actually has a volume of 80cu.ft. forget about pressures forget about temperatures forget about other definitions. that gas is physically occupying .5cu.ft. that is its volume in that tank. yes if allowed to expand to a pressure of 14.7psi and 60f it would then have a volume of 80cu.ft. so what if allowed to expand to a pressure of 13.2psi and 40f it would then have a larger volume. bottom line a measure of volume is just that - a measure of the physical space that matter occupies at the time of measure. a measure of a standard cubic foot is a short-hand measurement of mass because were defining additional parameters ie. temperature and pressure along with volume. rest my case. btw i do believe that a standard cubic foot is measured at 60f not 32f but i could be wrong. yes youre correct there. stp which is used in scientific circles is indeed 32f/14.7psi. i wasnt sure which standard was used on something like a welding tank but youre probably right - they use the scf standard. this is correct and a volume of any material is a measurement of the mass of the material no!!! dammit tom... a measurement of a volume of a gas has absolutely nothing to do with the measurement of its mass. you need the volume pressure and temperature to measure its mass. the same applies to any matter - a cubic inch of aluminum does not have the same mass as a cubic foot of lead. why different densities. ft you have just demonstrated that the physical volume of a container has little to do with the volume of the gas that can be contained inside. no - it has everything to do with the volume of the gas inside it. it has nothing to do with the volume of gas at a certain temperature and pressure.... a qualifier that you seem to be hung up on at all times. and since you seem to think of volume of a measurement of mass as seen above i understand where the confus

From : big al

on wed 13 jul 2005 181956 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote so tom you have made yet another friend the only thing you left out this time is one of your patented lol which i think is the written form of a stutter for you. on tue 12 jul 2005 174911 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on tue 12 jul 2005 053409 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote sorry tom but you are incorrect here and your vacuum description proves that. the volume of a cylinder is a dimensional measurement of space within the cylinder while the volume of a material whether liquid gas or solid is the amount of that material. within the space wrong. material is measured in weight or fluid increments. volume will always be the amount of space the material can fill not the amount of material. lol material is not always measured in weight and fluid increments are a volume measurment and you can get 100 oz of liquid in a 200 oz container and it is still sold or measured as 100 oz. the same goes for gas although gas is usually sold in a compressed or liquid form iow more cu in of gas than the cu in volume of the container. any volume measurement of a gas is meaningless if the density is not taking into consideration. and that is my point pinhead. because the density can change the volume of gas within the cylinder can change as well even if the volume of the cylinder is fixed. i thought i was trying to be nice a bit sarcastic maybe but nice nonetheless. nice my ass shithead. since i dont know you where do you get off starting with the name calling especially since it appears that you dont like getting it back. with a handle like tbone youve got to expect some variations on it being thrown back at you dont be so freakin sensitive dipshit... really why because you are too immature not to use them. i suspect you have somewhat of a grasp of the issue you just havent a clue as to how to express it in a coherent manner much like your math in the great k&n debate. pretty lame response there buddy. i apparently have a much greater on than you since i actually know how large of an area 80cf is. poke a hole in that container the pressure inside far exceeds atmospheric pressure here on the surface of the earth therefore the co2 escapes until the pressure in the container equals ambient atmospheric pressure. if you capture this gas as it leaves the container say in a ballon and discounting any amount lost due to leakeage the weight of the gas in the ballon will equal the original weight of the gas in the cylinder but the volume will increase dramatically. lol wrong. it will have the same mass but a very different weight. you do know the difference between the two dont you. cant wait for this one please explain in detail how and in what manner the weight will change and how this will not affect mass. because weight is measurement of a force acting on that mass gravity and is influenced by both the density of that mass and the mass of things around it. while you may not have affected the mass you did affect the density which will affect the weight. youve got x weight of co2 in the original container compressed in a cylinder high density more weight. you simply transfer it to a larger container which reduces the density and the weight. if this co2 were instead he it would still have a weight in compressed or liquid form but when allowed to expand back into a gas it would have no weight at all and actually carry your balloon away and yet still have the same mass it always did. you have seen a blimp right uncompressed in a balloon. where do you gain/lose weight if the weight changes how does the mass not change because weight is a measurment of a force not a volume or mass. lesson 101 completed. snip hey boner you are about to go to a wrecking yard to dismantle an old truck with your o/a cutting torch. you have two 80 cf o2 containers. one is pretty light in weight the other relatively heavy. the job is expected to take several hours and is an hours drive from your home/work. you only have room for one of your o2 cyllinders. which one do you take and why they both contain 80 cf of o2 correct if that is true it shouldnt matter which cylinder you take choose the lighter one it will be easier to move around... that is not true and i never said that shit for brains. i in fact said quite the opposit. while the container may have an internal volume of 80 cf which is quite large moron to start with dipshit you apparently have never dealt with common gas cylinders 80cf is a standard size. whos playing the moron now once again that would be you. you do know big 80cf is dont you unless your tank is 3 x 3 x 9 or some like dimensions to equal 80cf the rating is not the physical size of the tank it is the maximum amount of compressed gas the tank is designed to hold. the physic