Re: OOPS, my mistake! Torque--the end, in a moment

[KSMITH1@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com]

James Marriott said, in part:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First off, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote the "handle-length
irrelevant" post, but it's wrong. Paul Heneghan (advantage:  UK time zone)
was the first to catch it.
<snip>

Apologies to Kirby for sucking you in on this one . . .

The Audi method is indeed flawed by not specifying the TW length when used
with #2079.

That's all from me,
James Marriott, red-faced ME
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I concede.  My intuition failed along with my memory.  If one considers that:
 a)  the bending moment is a maximum at the bolt and zero at the point of force 
(one's hand); b)  the value of the torque wrench setting is the value of the 
bending moment at the torque wrench/extender interface when the torque wrench 
"clicks;"  and c)  the bending moment is a linearly increasing function from 
hand to bolt, then, as the point of force moves closer to the bolt, the bending 
moment function "pivots" about the torque wrench end and thereby rises at the 
bolt.  (This would be easier with a drawing.)  Thus, unlike a torque wrench used
by itself, where there is no effect of moving the point of force on the torque 
achieved at the torque setting, the extender makes the bolt torque sensitive to 
both the extender length and hand position.  Yes Phil (?), the 2% torque wrench 
accuracy is degraded by an extender because the uncertainty in location of the 
point of force enters the equation.

Quod erat demonstrandum stultum est

***                 ...Kirby    (Kirby A. Smith)                 ***
***              ksmith1@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com             ***
***              [=]   kirby.a.smith@lmco.com                    ***
***  Opinions expressed herein are entirely those of the author. ***