Talk:Torque converter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Text in "Principles" heading should be converted to proper SI units.

Obsolete imperial measurements such as foot-pounds and whatnot mean little to nothing to the majority of this world. Wikipedia should only deal in SI units in order to be universally understood.

I also detect some minor impartiality issues in this section, where favoritism in favor of these devices might impact the article's overall objectivity. LennyValentin 18:26, 21 November 2006 (CET)

I disagree on the assertion of using only SI units. The world's largest market for torque converters (automotive ones, at least) is North America, where terms such as pound-foot (unit of torque, not foot-pound, neither of which is an "imperial" measurement) and horsepower predominate. Parenthetical references to SI equivalents are fine, but I don't think de riguer.

Also, I'm trying very hard to find the "minor impartiality issues" referred to above. Can you be a little more specific?

Bigdumbdinosaur 2007/02/16 I also disagree on converting

There is no reason to remove non-SI units for the sake of the world. Many countries outside the USA still like to use the horse power unit in automotive applications. Thaddeusw (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Torque converter and fluid coupling should be split

Much of the definition here should be separated out into a separate "fluid coupling" entry, and "torque converter" should refer to that entry's text. A torque converter is a fluid coupling with one or more stators, providing torque multiplication, whereas a 'straight' fluid coupling does not (although slippage within the fluid means that the output turbine will always lag a bit behind the impeller unless the two are locked together).

Many semi-automatic and automatic transmissions had fluid couplings in place of a conventional clutch: the best-known is GM's Hydramatic, the first automatic transmission offered in a production passenger car. ArgentLA 01:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Torque Converters and Fluid Couplings have non-automotive applications

This article has too much of an automotive bent.

Although the fluid coupling and torque converter is commonly known to be used in automotive automatic transmissions, they are used extensively in heavy industry and marine applications. Conveyors is one industrial application. Their use, however is declining, as a result of the use of VVVF inverters for electric induction motor speed control. None-the-less, they are still have widespread industrial application. Jonathan Rabbitt 03:27:47 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The article almost reads like an automatic automotive transmission article. I believe this article should in fact be edited to remove vehicle specific wording. Replacing vehicle with load could be a first step.

Also under the usage section there is no mention of any industrial uses. The automotive uses make it look as they are limited to light automotive uses when in fact they are used in the worlds largest automatic transmission for the Caterpillar 797. Also they are used in on/off highway truck transmissions like those from Clark, Allison and Rockwell (Meritor now?). I am going to add a few more uses under the usage section to ensure people understand they are used for other applications besides car transmissions. Thaddeusw (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree

I reworded it a bit to make it more general in definition, although I'm not qualified to describe industrial applications in any detail -- my hope is that someone more knowledgeable can add on.

ArgentLA 07:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Image?

This page could really use a diagram! Pretty please?

Smoother, more even than what?

From the page:

Despite the efficiency loss, moderate slippage of the coupling provides a smoother, more even flow of power by absorbing engine and powertrain vibration rather than allow it to be transmitted to the output shaft or surrounding equipment.

Rigid couplings can (and do) also incorporate flexibilities. Specifically, clutch disks on consumer vehicles have spring-loaded hubs, allowing the disk to twist slightly relative to the transmission shaft. These disks also contain marcel springs which give the disk axial flexibility (i.e. allowing it to be slightly compressed).

KazKylheku 00:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, do you understand what you wrote???

When, you changed my wording you completely changed the meaning of what was wrote. Many things are not completely correct now.

The revision .....god im stopping now.

Working is the most unprofessional subheading I have ever heard in my life.

DO NOT RE-ADD MY IMAGES.

User:Zaces 05:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Smoother, more even than what?

From the page:

Despite the efficiency loss, moderate slippage of the coupling provides a smoother, more even flow of power by absorbing engine and powertrain vibration rather than allow it to be transmitted to the output shaft or surrounding equipment.

Rigid couplings can (and do) also incorporate flexibilities. Specifically, clutch disks on consumer vehicles have spring-loaded hubs, allowing the disk to twist slightly relative to the transmission shaft. These disks also contain marcel springs which give the disk axial flexibility (i.e. allowing it to be slightly compressed).

KazKylheku 00:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)"

The above statement is stupid. The mechanical clutch system you are referring is a damper system. That is not the point of the damper. It is only for the very intial shock when the clutch is applied. It lesses the load, sure. In fact, the torque converter clutch itself has the exact same thing.

What is meant by the moderate slippage is that the vehicle can start moving from a stop with no jerk or wear on operational componets. You can do the same with a manual transmission. However, this requires intentionally slipping the clutch causing wear for many seconds. Also, it is common practice to not ride the clutch for any extended period of time. Therefore, the automatic transmission will easily allow you to slowly accelerate off the line without any system abuse.

Keep in mind that the long it takes you to get up to speed the less the shock will occur. The spring damper you referred to has minute max displacement AND it is usually nested. How do you propose that that setup is comparable to the damping effect of the torque converter when it takes well over 5000pi radians for the turbine side to catch up with the pump. Much smoother in my opinion. And what? The sping damper might displace a couple of degrees???????

Get off your power trip!

I don't understand why people, mainly Wiki-Denizens, are reverting to older and more inaccurate versions of these article. I guess they will only allow articles they wrote themselves to be viewed by the public. It is like they want attention or credit for it. Very humanistic.

Get off your power trip. No one is the best at everything. Why not let someone else work on an article. You don't have to try to own this site. You are preventing the truth from being represented on this site just because you have a small reproductive organ.

Maybe there is just one person out there. Just one who might understand one small area of life better than you.

Get over it.

Further, whoever keeps putting the Turbo Glide in there is ignorant. It is called a powerglide and it does have a mechanical gearset. I bet you didn't know the PG is one of the only transmissions with a heatshield on the torque converter. But I guess you don't give a shit because you already know that.

http://www.powerglide.com/parts/hp-images/28755-01K.jpg

pseudo quality in these articles due to ego trips

as a layman i honestly cannot understand this article. some wikipedia articles have incredibly tight, almost poetic first paragraphs which usually are all you need to read to understand what something is.

this is not one of those articles.

it's wordy, unnecessarily esoteric, it reeks of ego trips and embarrasing design by committee. make it clear, make it simple. this is a wikipedia 'unarticle'. ~~bigbadboston

There is a guideline on this - Wikipedia:Readability Dan100 (Talk) 17:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hidden note

The following was hidden in the article (I've left it in, but am also reproducing it here, where it should be). Amusing how double brackets were used... Dan100 (Talk) 17:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Couple of points to other editors of this article:

1) Please watch your spelling and grammar.

2) The article is about torque converters in general, not drag racing applications.

3) Many non-automotive converters use roller clutches instead of sprag clutch, as the latter exhibit a much shorter life when subjected to constant cyclic loading.

Illustration notes

Could someone add caption text to illustrate the three primary parts of the converter inside the cutaway version? I can see different parts, but can't really say which is which. Maury 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Efficiency

How does efficiency stack up against manuals, in real terms, i.e. percentages, on average? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.68.234 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Manual you change speed gears —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.220.251 (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1