keep digging, Bone-Head
From : transurgeon
Q: ill call this a cautionary tale. snip thankfully i was on my driveway when it broke not on the side of the road. it rolled very slowly forward - i was behind it. and the other wheels were chalked with what when in own driveway id go as far as jack stands... ron .
Replies:
From : tbone
why dont you look at the purpose of the stator and then you will see where it gets it name. what it does and how it does it can be two very different things. hey heres a good chance for oyu to redeem yourself i have no need to redeem myself. you on the other hand... explain the function of the stator where it is physically situated how it is held in position............the whole works show your stuff bonehead....................you keep implying that you know all this stuff impress us ! 500 points if you get it correct -250 if you pull your usual chicken-shit change-the-subject crap again lol talk about trying to change the subject. what does me explaining the internal workings of a tc have to do with you errors oh yea nothing. just another lame attempt of yours at trying to change the subject again and then try to accuse me of it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tom lawrence
transurgeon wrote in your example above the ratios between the steel and copper can be expressed as there is 300% as mush copper as steel or 75% / 25% = 300% no stupid ..... you in your example started with one whole number...metal. you then broke it down to two different metals copper and steel and now you have two whole numbers which you are now comparing against each other. each of those whole numbers have a value of 100%. you cant divide percentage into percentage of the same value and get added value. youve been blabbering this garbage for years now and still havent learned. want to try again bright boy......... must not be able to find any little old ladies to rip off lately....... any time you have any proof of that be my guest post it boy dont need to....... everyone already know what a shade tree fake you are. jerry .
From : tbone
really how about where you said youll notice they specifically say applies to new cars and mention nothing about used vehicles. you were the one that specifically mentioned used cars not me. i thought that you were trying to make a particular point on something that i may have missed but now i see that you are just being an asshole. no tom - im not being an asshole at least im not trying to be. i will 100% guarantee that you were first to bring up the new vs. used point. its all here in this thread but im going to consolidate and heavily paraphrase for the sake of brevity - all the previous posts are right here in this thread if you care to fact-check it down to the relevant portions. tb thats you claimed or asserted or asked - whatever that a lemon law claim could help the owner of a 2000 ram with an apparent habitual problem. gg thats gary points out in his own unique way that youre incorrect tl thats me says that lemon laws are restricted to the first 2-3 years depending on the state. gives an example of njs laws. claims that no state extends ll coverage to 5 years tb re-claims that the warranty is in effect for 7 years so ll coverage should apply tl agrees with the concept of it should be covered under warranty but says it doesnt qualify for a ll claim. tb asks me please point to the definition that claims only a new car can be or become a lemon. note first time the concept of new car is brought up. tl posts a link to a site that says applies to new cars - as a direct response to your challenge of only a new car can become a lemon. tb argues that the op is the original owner so its not a used vehicle although no one ever claimed it was. tl claims tb is twisting things around... tb claims that i was the one who specifically mentioned used cars then calls me an asshole for it okay... now after looking through that i can see where the confusion came. when you said please point to the definition that claims only a new car can be or become a lemon i interpreted that as any car new or used can be a lemon. thats why when i posted the link i pointed out that it specifically said new and mentioned nothing about used. so if thats where the confusion originated and you didnt mean to imply that a used vehicle as opposed to new could be classified as a lemon then i apologize for making that inference although it seemed a pretty logical inference to make given the wording... oh - and i see youve resorted to name-calling... hmm... what was that you said about someone who does that .
From : tbone
writes i get the following trouble code when driving it returns when i clear it out p0132 - o2 sensor circuit high voltage cylinder bank no. 1 sensor no. 1 i also get the error code 21 now i would assume that this means i have a bad o2 sensor but if that is the case would it be the pre-cat sensor or the post-cat sensor when searching online someone said that code could mean a bad catalytic converter. is that also a possibility thanks in advance code 21 is the generic keyswitch flash code while p0132 is the corresponding specific code. 21 is telling you have an o2 sensor problem the p0132 tells you which one pre-cat. if youre the original owner of that 97 ram and have never had the cat replaced under the original federally mandated 8-yr/80000 mile federal emissions warranty then most likely it needs to be replaced in addition to replacing the pre-cat o2 sensor. i honestly believe every catalytic convertor on every single 96 and 97 ram 1500 failed rotted/rusted out usually long before 80k miles but sadly not many owners were aware of the federal 8/80 emissions warranty so most either ate the cost or never replaced them until they had to when the truck failed an emissions test somewhere. mine went at 58k miles and the dealership replaced the cat along with the y-pipe under the emissions warranty. they didnt do the work at the dealership but rather sublet it to an independent muffler shop. .
From : denny
my reply was not a silly semantics attack. nor was i coming after you. i was merely pointing out your flawed statement which i quote while it cant put out more than it gets in it can use one thing to produce something else and in this case it consumes rpm to produce more torque. now there are two possibilities here; either you believe your above statement to be true in which case your fundamental understanding of fluid dynamics and conservation of energy is flawed.... or.... if you acknowledge that your previous statement is incorrect which it is! then you must certainly recognize that your ability to communicate your thoughts and understanding of the processes involved leave something to be desired. the fact is that although the wording does have something to be desired the idea is still valid. the tc and the transmission both have the ability to use the incomming angular velocity rpm to produce more output torque and if you dont understand that then it is you who is lacking in your fundamental understanding of fluid dynamics and conservation of energy. ill leave you to decide which is which whilst i attend to more important things like rearranging my sock drawer. gee and i guess that this is not an insult toward me either silly me. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tom lawrence
if it is the downstream sensor then it could be indicating a bad converter. but bank 1 sensor 1 indicates that it is an upstream o2 sensor and would not be able to indicate the converters condition. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving i get the following trouble code when driving it returns when i clear it out p0132 - o2 sensor circuit high voltage cylinder bank no. 1 sensor no. 1 i also get the error code 21 now i would assume that this means i have a bad o2 sensor but if that is the case would it be the pre-cat sensor or the post-cat sensor when searching online someone said that code could mean a bad catalytic converter. is that also a possibility thanks in advance .
From : tom lawrence
fair enough but that still doesnt change the fact this particular would fit within the lemon law conditions with the exception to age of the vehicle. yeah... and if my aunt had balls... bottom line - vehicle is too old - doesnt qualify under lemon law unless you can find me a state statute that extends lemon law protection to say 7 years and/or 70000 miles. theres no almost qualifies or gee its so close... its black or white. it either does or it doesnt. in this particular case despite to your inference to the contrary it doesnt. the part is still under warrantee and multiple attempts to repair the same problem have been unsuccessful. we all agree that thats not right and can be addressed through other means. lemon law filings arent one of them. .
From : jerry
transurgeon wrote what part of 3% / 2% = 150% is wrong are you still trying to pass of your stupidity as math........ a percentage is a certain proportion of a particular value. it always relies on 100% as the complete value and 0% as the non-existent value. therefore 200% is twice the complete value. to explain this an alloy may be 25% steel and 75% copper. therefore there is 3 times as much copper as there is steel. if an employee had a 200% increase in salary his salary would be 3 times as big. this is because he would have twice the complete value on top of his original salary. yes braniac and the ratio between any two numbers percentages included can itself be expressed as a percentage in your example above the ratios between the steel and copper can be expressed as there is 300% as mush copper as steel or 75% / 25% = 300% must not be able to find any little old ladies to rip off lately....... any time you have any proof of that be my guest post it boy .
From : tbone
show us the word shaft in that definition. the rigid piece could be a shaft but i see that you are probably referring to the shaft as the fulcrum. yup and the fulcum is not the lever its the pivot point. a lever is a lever and a shaft is a shaft and the two arent the other. but a shaft by itself is simply a solid object and can be either part of a lever. i never said a lever did not have a pivot point. in fact the lever does have a pivot point but that pivot point is not the lever it is the pivot point. dont confuse the two. actually max a lever is a simple machine and the pivot point is what makes the rigid object a lever and it simply cannot exist without it. while true the two still cannot be confused as being the other. an apple couldnt be an apple without the tree but an apple is definitely not a tree. boy you are really getting bad at this. both the apple and the apple tree are independant objects and the apple can and is very much an apple without the tree. when i buy apples at the store i dont get a tree with them. what have you been drinking a lever is a simple machine and while the solid object and the pivot can exist as independant objects they are not a lever unless you have them both combined together. there is no valid point about confusing anything and the only thing confused here now is you. hahahahahaha you just dont understand models. notice that they call it a pivot point not a shaft because it could be anything that allows the arm to rotate or pivot. nope. if the lever pivots it exerts linear force if it rotates it exerts rotational force. w r o n g ! ! ! hahahahah you really are funny max. please explain exactly how you pivot in a straight line. a lever can never produce a linear force because it never moves in a straight line and the minute it does it is no longer a lever because it is no longer in contact with its pivot. http//www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspxdefine=pivot the two arent the same no matter how you try to run from the original topic of the thread. there isnt any two of anything. a lever is a combination of a solid object and a pivot point iow a single machine. as for the movement by definition pivoting is moving in a circular motion so you cannot have linear motion around a pivot. now how ma i running from the topic of this thread. sounds like more of your lame spin to me. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : mike simmons
dammit clay i was busy running him around a tree just to see if hed figure it out. actually all you are doing is spinning this ridicules notion and have suckered someone else into believing it. nope! gary tom me a bunch of us have been waiting for you to use the right term for a couple of days now. but you never even thought of touching on the torque/hp/rpm relationship. this despite gary actually typing it in a couple of times. seriously thats exactly right. no it isnt. yeah it is. clay is deadnut on and youll argue that simply because you couldnt figure it out. hp is directly transmitted and the tft lbs and rpm numbers are inversely affected by the gearing with one sacrificed for the other. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha that was a good one. first of all the tc is a fluid coupling device so there is no direct transmission of anything. wow did you backpedal in a hurry......you are now depending on a fluid coupling to disprove the basic theory of a transmission. ok explain how it happens in a manual shift. sacond unless your tc is a special unit there are no gears in there at all so that kills point two. well it must be a really special unit if its used without a transmission. but this is another attempt at backpedalling. remember the more ya back up the closer to being against the wall you become. third if the brakes are applied the tc takes that hp and converts it into or p r o d u c e s heat. look at that it can produce more than just torque. sure it produces heat but itll never produce torque. no the problem is that i do have the knowledge to know that you are wrong. 1 all of us other than you are not wrong. its simple math but we know thats not easy for you either. 2 you dont have the knowledge or youd have seen where this was going. using the term reconfiguresd is nothing more than semantics and is just plain silly. well yeah thats why they use hp something you never mentioned. you insist on produces brings forth and a myriad of other silly terms but not once did you mention hp. even an engine does nothing more than convert liquid fuel into mechanical energy so i guess it is just reconfiguring the fuel right!!! no its reconfiguring energy but you are starting to get the hang of how stupid your semantics game gets when used effectively against you. or even discounting that the piston produces linear energe that is reconfigured by the union of the connecting rod and crankshaft so i guess that the engine cannot produce torque either. damn where does it come from then well unless the crankshaft is not part of the engine it comes from the engine. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. max i beleive this to be incorrect. the horse power has been reconfigured by decreasing the rpm and increasing the torque. clay dammit clay i was busy running him around a tree just to see if hed figure it out. actually all you are doing is spinning this ridicules notion and have suckered someone else into believing it. seriously thats exactly right. no it isnt. unfortunately he never figured it out. that might be because it is well w r o n g... hp is directly transmitted and the tft lbs and rpm numbers are inversely affected by the gearing with one sacrificed for the other. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha that was a good one. first of all the tc is a fluid coupling device so there is no direct transmission of anything. sacond unless your tc is a special unit there are no gears in there at all so that kills point two. third if the brakes are applied the tc takes that hp and converts it into or p r o d u c e s heat. look at that it can produce more than just torque. he could have done exatly what you did and come up with the right answer but he didnt have the knowledge to do it. no the problem is that i do have the knowledge to know that you are wrong. using the term reconfiguresd is nothing more than semantics and is just plain silly. even an engine does nothing more than convert liquid fuel into mechanical energy so i guess it is just reconfiguring the fuel right!!! or even discounting that the piston produces linear energe that is reconfigured by the union of the connecting rod and crankshaft so i guess that the engine cannot produce torque either. damn where does it come from then -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tbone
it does more than that. it doesnt produce power correct and i never said that it did. lol yeah ya did. then ya said it brings forth as in a person who produces a deck of cards jeez.... you lie like a rug. ill wait to see if you tell the truth or at least your version of it before i start answering again. .
From : duh
transurgeon wrote in your example above the ratios between the steel and copper can be expressed as there is 300% as mush copper as steel or 75% / 25% = 300% no stupid ..... you in your example started with one whole number...metal. you then broke it down to two different metals copper and steel and now you have two whole numbers which you are now comparing against each other. each of those whole numbers have a value of 100%. you cant divide percentage into percentage of the same value and get added value. youve been blabbering this garbage for years now and still havent learned. want to try again bright boy......... i dont have to do anything you just proved my point far beyond anything i could post .
From : tbone
it was a simple math error gary get over it and crack those books on the true definition on the conservation of energy. the tc produces torque and consumes hp in the form of rpm to do it. no laws were violated there is no magic here. no idiot it converts hi-rpm / low torque hp to low-rpm / high-torque hp a conversion produces one thing from something else. it produces nothing wrong. in fact it loses about 4-8% as heat yep something else that the tc and trans can produce. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tbone
thats ok. people need to take some responsibility for their own actions including their eating habits. i myself would rather be following a vehicle running on bio-diesel and wondering what im going to have for dinner than being stuck behind one running on conventional diesel and wondering how far up his ass i could shove that stink bomb he is driving -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving given this countrys eating habits... it could be detrimental to the publics health.. since people will be driving along someone in a fry-oil burner will pass them and then they will want to go get fries. great marketing for the fast food chains though. i dont think that it has anything to do with particles. potatoes have oils as well and some of it must leach out into the cooking oil. when i worked at the drive-in as a cook god that was a long time ago we had a few deep fryers and the one used for fries could only be used for fries. if you fried anything else in it it would taste sort of like french fries and the fries afterward would taste like crap until you changed t
From : tom lawrence
btw guys i get 5 points for the little mind comment. who is at the top of the leader board right now i still show gary in the lead with at least 4 assholes 6 idiots at least one little angry boy and several others that i just dont feel like looking up what i find more amusing is that despite the above counts he actually posted back to name calling i see. how did max put it oh yea the first sign of a losing argument. .
From : tbone
if there is a fallacy it is in the original numbers posted that an oem filter removes 98 percent of dirt and that a k$n removes 97 percent all else followed frome those figures if you have better figures verified by real-world testing with url to fact-check please trot em out otherwise your statement of fallacies is so much phlogiston the fallacy in mds statements are the numbers he begin with. k&ns efficiencies are between 97-98% with some as high as 99%. he conveniently chose the low end for his math. paper filters are all over the board. even though you cant see any holes some of them are as bad as 93%. im not sure where the 98% number for paper comes from unless it relates to a specific brand of paper filter that has been tested or one of the best paper filters that has been tested. you cant just buy any paper filter and feel that you are filtering better than a k&n. .
From : tbone
goods.....so lets see.... 3% / 2% = 1.5% gary will get the real math share at..... 3% / 2% = 150% winner tbone.... wait um..... tbone ya wanna calculate that again -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. ignoramus13822 ignoramus13822@nospam.13822.invalid wrote in message on wed 22 jun 2005 174139 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote 3 / 2 = 1.5 thats correct. and when you can disprove that then you win and until then it is just fuzzy math. while 3 may be 150% more than 2 thats incorrect. it can be said that 3 is 150% of 2 or that 3 is 50% greater than 2. lol and i made that same argument more than once my mistake. 3 / 2 is still only 1.5 regardless of the units attached to those numbers. correct. 1.5 is the same as 150%. the rule is actually simple a percent is 1/100. i know that but a percentage of a percentage is just fuzzy math. i never said that the math was incorrect which is something that gary just doesnt seem to get. it is called fuzzy math because it doesnt always accurately represent a given situation. small percentages can sometimes reflect huge numeric differences and microscopic differences can be reflected with huge percentages both of which can deceive the person reading them especially if the percentage is all that they see. no you wrote 3% / 2% = 1.5 % you really need to stop digging its not helping and you really need to stop proving my point. like i said when you think that you are right you fight like hell even to the point of starting all new threads on the subject. where are the threads or even responses on the origional quadcab thread point made conversation over. your surrender is noted as is your defeat in the actual thread subject. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : max dodge
so is your claim that a transmission cannot produce torque. it cant create it but it can produce it. nope. it cannot produce torque anymore than it can create it. it can however transmit it. hence the name transmission. btw i think roget can help you with your problem understanding create and produce as being pretty much the same in the context which you used them. wrong again max. you can produce something without creating it. when someone produces a deck of cards at the weekend poker game he didnt create them he just brought them forth. pretty much the same thing the tc and trans do with torque when needed. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tom lawrence
so is your claim that a transmission cannot produce torque. it cant create it but it can produce it. nope. it cannot produce torque anymore than it can create it. it can however transmit it. hence the name transmission. btw i think roget can help you with your problem understanding create and produce as being pretty much the same in the context which you used them. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% yep 100% correct. - okay... i think this hole is deep enough.... tom - whats .03 divided by .02 hint it aint .015. no shit tom like i said a million times its 1.5. i understand what he is saying and was trying to prove a point one that i believe i clearly did. when he thinks he is right regardless of what i say he fights on and here he is doing exactly that. as harry potter would say mischief managed. but just a few posts ago see below you wrote the following how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% which is wrong so is your claim that a transmission cannot produce torque. it cant create it but it can produce it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : tbone
how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% just like 3 / 2 = 1.5 not 150. you are truly math impaired sorry gary that would be you. since when does 0.03 / 0.02 = 0.015 but you said it did here let me remind you how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% because it does fuzzy math boy. 3 / 2 = 1.5 regardless of the units. 3lb / 2 lb = 1.5lb 3rpm / 2rpm = 1.5rpm 3 ft / 2 ft = 1.5 ft 3 units / 2 units = 1.5 units and 3% / 2% = 1.5% any way you try to spin it. and 3% / 2% = 1.5% any way you try to spin it. you want to re-think that or should i just keep humiliating your sorry ass .
From : tom lawrence
on wed 22 jun 2005 174139 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote 3 / 2 = 1.5 thats correct. and when you can disprove that then you win and until then it is just fuzzy math. while 3 may be 150% more than 2 thats incorrect. it can be said that 3 is 150% of 2 or that 3 is 50% greater than 2. lol and i made that same argument more than once my mistake. 3 / 2 is still only 1.5 regardless of the units attached to those numbers. correct. 1.5 is the same as 150%. the rule is actually simple a percent is 1/100. i know that but a percentage of a percentage is just fuzzy math. i never said that the math was incorrect which is something that gary just doesnt seem to get. it is called fuzzy math because it doesnt always accurately represent a given situation. small percentages can sometimes reflect huge numeric differences and microscopic differences can be reflected with huge percentages both of which can deceive the person reading them especially if the percentage is all that they see. no you wrote 3% / 2% = 1.5 % you really need to stop digging its not helping and you really need to stop proving my point. like i said when you think that you are right you fight like hell even to the point of starting all new threads on the subject. where are the threads or even responses on the origional quadcab thread point made conversation over. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : max dodge
tbone wrote because it does fuzzy math boy. 3 / 2 = 1.5 regardless of the units. 3lb / 2 lb = 1.5lb 3rpm / 2rpm = 1.5rpm 3 ft / 2 ft = 1.5 ft 3 units / 2 units = 1.5 units and 3% / 2% = 1.5% any way you try to spin it. sure it is. now state that 1.5 as a % of one of the two numbers in order to relate the two. take lbs 3lbs is 1.5 times or 150% more than 2 lbs or rpms or any other unit. the units dont matter as you point out. .
From : mike simmons
not trying to and perhaps you should follow your own advice. now what does that converter convert and how does the trans increase torque without producing more gary explained that. maybe you should have read what he said. -- max give a man a match and he is warm for a short while. light him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life. tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote in message how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% yep 100% correct. - okay... i think this hole is deep enough.... tom - whats .03 divided by .02 hint it aint .015. no shit tom like i said a million times its 1.5. i understand what he is saying and was trying to prove a point one that i believe i clearly did. when he thinks he is right regardless of what i say he fights on and here he is doing exactly that. as harry potter would say mischief managed. but just a few posts ago see below you wrote the following how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% which is wrong so is your claim that a transmission cannot produce torque. it cant create it but it can produce it. changing the subject wont get your stupid sorry ass out of this one not trying to and perhaps you should follow your own advice. now what does that converter convert and how does the trans increase torque without producing more -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .