Correct Torque value for Presta Valve?

"Paul Hobson" wrote: (clip) Since the torque is directly proportional, it'd
be ton·furlong. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for noticing the smiley--it was meant to be funny, but it was also
meant to be technically correct, so now I will defend it.

We have a lever, lifting a load. If we consider every parameter in the
lever equation fixed, except the distand from the fulcrum to the applied
force, then the force applied to the load will be given by
F = k L, where F is the lifting force on the load, in tons, K is a constant
of proportionality and L is the distance from the fulcrum to the applied
force, in furlongs. For each furlong from fulcrum to applied force, some
number of tons will be developed. So the units of k will be "tons/furlong."
:-) :-)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 02:18:27 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote:


"Paul Hobson" wrote: (clip) Since the torque is directly proportional, it'd
be ton·furlong. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for noticing the smiley--it was meant to be funny, but it was also
meant to be technically correct, so now I will defend it.

We have a lever, lifting a load. If we consider every parameter in the
lever equation fixed, except the distand from the fulcrum to the applied
force, then the force applied to the load will be given by
F = k L, where F is the lifting force on the load, in tons, K is a constant
of proportionality and L is the distance from the fulcrum to the applied
force, in furlongs. For each furlong from fulcrum to applied force, some
number of tons will be developed. So the units of k will be "tons/furlong."
:-) :-)

Some physicists pedandically insist on the dot notation for torque,
though, despite the fact that the other makes perfect sense. I prefer
amu/megaparsecs myself.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack Wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 02:18:27 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote:


"Paul Hobson" wrote: (clip) Since the torque is directl
proportional, it'd
be ton·furlong. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for noticing the smiley--it was meant to be funny, but it wa
also
meant to be technically correct, so now I will defend it.

We have a lever, lifting a load. If we consider every parameter i
the
lever equation fixed, except the distand from the fulcrum to th
applied
force, then the force applied to the load will be given by
F = k L, where F is the lifting force on the load, in tons, K is
constant
of proportionality and L is the distance from the fulcrum to th
applied
force, in furlongs. For each furlong from fulcrum to applied force
some
number of tons will be developed. So the units of k will b
"tons/furlong."
:-) :-)

Some physicists pedandically insist on the dot notation for torque,
though, despite the fact that the other makes perfect sense. I prefer
amu/megaparsecs myself.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Clarification: amu/megaparsecs would be units for Leos "k" rather tha
the Capt'n's Presto torque

--
meb

wrote:

Thanks for making me finally add furlongs/fortnight and
furlong/tons to my conversion spreadsheet.


Carl Fogel
Times-Picayune Help Desk

Do you have stone-Angstroms in there?

AMU-Megaparsecs was a clever unit of torque, but AMU is mass, not force
and therefore you'd have to multiply by "g"... which is problematical
since g is not constant across any reasonable portion of a megaparsec.


--
My bike blog:
http://diabloscott.blogspot.com/

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:32:06 -0700, Diablo Scott
wrote:

wrote:

Thanks for making me finally add furlongs/fortnight and
furlong/tons to my conversion spreadsheet.


Carl Fogel
Times-Picayune Help Desk

Do you have stone-Angstroms in there?

AMU-Megaparsecs was a clever unit of torque, but AMU is mass, not force
and therefore you'd have to multiply by "g"... which is problematical
since g is not constant across any reasonable portion of a megaparsec.

Dear Diablo,

Naturally, the Times-Picayune help desk has only a small
selection of units, but luckily we have that one handy,
since it's useful for tightening up connections on pesky
long-polymer molecules.

Sheldon is considering tightening his Presta valve cap to
about 0.000000045931759 stone/angstroms. He may need his
reading glasses to see the dial--for some reason, it tends
to be fuzzy.

Carl Fogel
Times-Picayune Help Desk

In message , Sheldon Brown
writes
I've seen the light and now use a torque wrench for all threaded
fasteners and bottlecaps.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the recommended torque spec
for the little knurled nuts on my Presta valves.

Anybody got a definitive answer?

I've been using 0.0000013 ton/furlongs, but I'm not sure that's quite
correct...

Can't help with the Presta valves as the finger and thumb adapter is
missing from my socket set but this should help with those bottlecaps:

http://www.vibrac.com/products/captorque.asp
--

Martyn Aldis, e-mail
================================================== ============================

Leo Lichtman wrote:
"Paul Hobson" wrote: (clip) Since the torque is directly proportional, it'd
be ton·furlong. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for noticing the smiley--it was meant to be funny, but it was also
meant to be technically correct, so now I will defend it.

We have a lever, lifting a load. If we consider every parameter in the
lever equation fixed, except the distand from the fulcrum to the applied
force, then the force applied to the load will be given by
F = k L, where F is the lifting force on the load, in tons, K is a constant
of proportionality and L is the distance from the fulcrum to the applied
force, in furlongs. For each furlong from fulcrum to applied force, some
number of tons will be developed. So the units of k will be "tons/furlong."
:-) :-)


OMG you're about to give me a heart atta

--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
http://www.underthecouch.org
..:you may want to fix my email
address before you send anything:.

"Paul Hobson" wrote: OMG you're about to give me a heart atta
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Has anyone heard from Paul Hobson since 3:54?

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:40:05 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote:


"Paul Hobson" wrote: OMG you're about to give me a heart atta
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Has anyone heard from Paul Hobson since 3:54?

When is that in sideral time?
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Leo Lichtman wrote:
"Paul Hobson" wrote: OMG you're about to give me a heart atta
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Has anyone heard from Paul Hobson since 3:54?

Hope he was wearing his helmet when he keeled over!

;o)