So, you're saying that the two links I posted are erroneous? Bear in mind that the initial question didn't state whether the extension was on the handle end or an adapter forward of the break-over point on the torque wrench.
Yes,they are wrong,do you aknowledge that? Secondly,there is no way to add an extension to the handle end of a beam type torque wrench and then have the scale have any meaning at all.A non-beam type torque wrench will allow use of a extension on the handle end (a pipe).It will read correctly,no formula needed.
While the job is finished, I thought it might be fun to see who really knows their physics.
I guess he finally found one guy ,eh?
And they are wrong!
After reading your post I'm guilty of not going back to actually check if the formulae I posted ALSO included extensions on the handle end, so excuuuse me. From memory I thought the material covered both.
What formula for handle end extensions?ALL my remarks have referred to Front end extensions.
As for your formula, thanks for providing it and the explanation.
You're welcome
However, it still doesn't answer the question I posed as to the baseline point of mechanical advantage...
Sorry I can't jump on that one, but if tou find an answer I think I could follow the explanation.So I look forward to that.
IOW, reducing the handle length in your formula by half yields 500 ft/lbs.... by 3/4 yields 250 ft/lbs, and so forth until you finally reach the threads.
Reaching the threads is not the final stop.In the above example the threads on that cap are 4" in diameter,yet with a 0.12" handle my 100 lbs exerts 1 ft./lb. of torque to the hydrant cap. I suspect this base circumference you seek is irrelevant on such simple matters as torqueing one bolt into a stationary hole with different length levers.Just a thought,probably wrong.
Nice sparring with you,Frank. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" /> Scotty
