Torque Amp

[12V71]

I used to use this scale and a " calibrated" bar to get 4200 lb ft on an 1.5" square drive socket. Bar was 1x4" flat with a 1.5 square drive adapter welded in one end and a hole in the other end at 4.2 ft. I pulled it with the auto crane to 1,000 lbs.

Recently checked the scale with five 100LB tractor weights and it's still working, I do use it to make sure I don't overload my 1,000 lb jib crane with unknown parts.

[Insaneride]

Thanks for sharing your calibrator.

[William McCormick]

Good observation William MCcormick. I measured the amplifier yesterday and center to center is 48". Or to be exact 47-7/8". The torque wrench is 15" from center of socket drive to the line on handle or fulcrum.

How does that work for your calcs?

Samm did say it was wobbly but in the ball park. I do remember putting in extra torque because my wrench only goes to 150 ft/lbs. I didn't set the wrench to max because the spring gets really tight and I my broke my last torque wrench using at max.

At four feet to obtain 556 foot-pounds you need, 556 divided 4 = 139 pounds of force. So the torque wrench would need to apply 139 pounds of force to the four-foot homemade bar. My original thinking was correct although not popular or even understood by me. I was trying not to complicate things. But looking back I believe that is the only way to do it. If you multiply 4 by 1.25 you get 5 as the multiplication factor of torque for the whole device. So if you then divide 556 by 5 you get 111.2 as the modified force your hand has to create on the torque wrench. if you multiply that by 1.25 you get 139 and everything balances out. That equation balances out the position of the fulcrum within the whole bar and everything works out correctly. The answer to the torque setting on the torque wrench is not 132 rather 139. I thought I must be wrong if everyone else was getting other answers but now I understand what and why I came to those conclusions.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[William McCormick]

If you had a homemade bar 2.5 feet long and a torque wrench 2.5 feet long you would have 6.25 times amplification from both. At the 2.5 homemade bar you would need 222.4 pounds to create 556 foot pounds so the 2.5-foot torque wrench would have to create 222.4 pounds on the homemade bar. Check this out though you only need to put 88.96 pounds of force on the torque wrench with your hand to create the overall 556 foot-pounds of force. Because 88.96 times 2.5 equals 222.4 pounds what you need to apply to the homemade bar for it to create 556 pounds. That blows my mind that two setups both the same length but with different break points causes a difference in the force you have to apply with your hand by over 20 pounds.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[William McCormick]

This formula in the picture is wrong it does not self-check. At the crow's foot it requires 90 pounds of force to create 135 inch-pounds of force, 135 divided by 1.5 equals 90. The 10-inch wrench amplifies the force needed to create 90 pounds by ten times so 90 divided by 10 gives you nine pounds of force at the handle needed to create 135 inch-pounds on whatever you are tightening. 1.5 times 10 equals 15 times amplification, 135 divided by 15 equals 9.

Or maybe I need a nice stay at a mental institution to get away from the crazies who would vote in socialism.





Sincerely,

William McCormick

[William McCormick]

That formula in the picture is just taking the overall length of 11.5 and dividing it into 135 to come up with 11.739 pounds needed on the handle, then taking the length of the handle 10 and multiplying it by 11.739 pounds on the handle to get 117.39-inch pounds of torque, which if you consider the whole length one piece that would work. But they are no longer one uniform piece. But it does make sense it does work out to 90 pounds at 1.5 inches as well. But the formula is rather twisted and that sent me looking for a way to calculate it to check it.

But all that formula is doing is taking the force of your hand on the wrench and then multiplying it by the length of the torque wrench to come up with the torque. So it is probably correct if there is no difference created by two separate objects one a lever on a lever.


Sincerely,

William McCormick

[MinnesotaDave]

Yep, formula is just creating a unitless multiplier.


As a result, "self-check" works.


Short proof of how to derive (create) the formula.

[William McCormick]

Yep, formula is just creating a unitless multiplier.


As a result, "self-check" works.


Short proof of how to derive (create) the formula.

Does this mean I cannot go to the mental institution to escape the world who voted in socialism/communism, because there may be a hint of sanity in me?

Good job Dave I would vomit trying to write all that, I did not fully get through your post yet but I will.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[Insaneride]

Does this mean I cannot go to the mental institution to escape the world who voted in socialism/communism, because there may be a hint of sanity in me?

Good job Dave I would vomit trying to write all that, I did not fully get through your post yet but I will.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

There may be hint of sanity in you but I still think your crazy.

Reminds me of the Waylon Jennings song. I've always been crazy, it keeps me from going insane

[William McCormick]

Yep, formula is just creating a unitless multiplier.


As a result, "self-check" works.


Short proof of how to derive (create) the formula.

Yep, formula is just creating a unitless multiplier.


As a result, "self-check" works.


Short proof of how to derive (create) the formula.

Dave, think about reversing the torque wrench 180 degrees so that it goes over the bolt. It still works, of this I am sure, I would think it would require more force to turn but that I am not sure of, I have never put a torque wrench to it. But it would be interesting to do so to see if there would be a difference and how much. Because it would change that formula. When I install mini-split ceiling cassettes I use a crow's foot on an extension to adjust the height of the cassette. Sometimes the ratchet wrench is positioned like in the image with the formula and sometimes it is the opposite. I did not notice a difference but I wasn't looking for one. I will check this out because there should be a difference. And that difference may make that formula in the image invalid.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[William McCormick]

There may be hint of sanity in you but I still think your crazy.

Reminds me of the Waylon Jennings song. I've always been crazy, it keeps me from going insane

True compliments like that are hard to come by. Thank you.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[Insaneride]

True compliments like that are hard to come by. Thank you.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

Your welcome and if I may call you MAC from now on: I tried to understand your math, not understood at first but I think you may have a simpler method using feet instead of that formula. It may work in metric using Newton meters but I'm not going there.

If the torque amplifier is four feet and torque wrench is 1.25 feet (15 inches) then in your math 5.25 feet times 100ft/lbs would be 525ft/lbs. That's not what was calculated in previous posts but getting close. Using 4.2 as multiplier times 100 ft/lbs would give the 420 ft/lbs that MDave calculated earlier.

Using your method times 80% is the same as the formulas. Does that even work for other values tho?

[William McCormick]

Your welcome and if I may call you MAC from now on: I tried to understand your math, not understood at first but I think you may have a simpler method using feet instead of that formula. It may work in metric using Newton meters but I'm not going there.

If the torque amplifier is four feet and torque wrench is 1.25 feet (15 inches) then in your math 5.25 feet times 100ft/lbs would be 525ft/lbs. That's not what was calculated in previous posts but getting close. Using 4.2 as multiplier times 100 ft/lbs would give the 420 ft/lbs that MDave calculated earlier.

Using your method times 80% is the same as the formulas. Does that even work for other values tho?

My thinking is that each device amplifies output. Because if you used the torque wrench on a crows foot with an extension between them in theory you will get whatever footpounds of torque you are applying to the wrench, as turning power to the crows foot. It would work almost like a gear, I am not sure if you would lose the leverage of the crows foot or not?

But then add the pressure of pulling on the wrench and it may take less than what is needed to pull a single straight bar.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[William McCormick]

Your welcome and if I may call you MAC from now on: I tried to understand your math, not understood at first but I think you may have a simpler method using feet instead of that formula. It may work in metric using Newton meters but I'm not going there.

If the torque amplifier is four feet and torque wrench is 1.25 feet (15 inches) then in your math 5.25 feet times 100ft/lbs would be 525ft/lbs. That's not what was calculated in previous posts but getting close. Using 4.2 as multiplier times 100 ft/lbs would give the 420 ft/lbs that MDave calculated earlier.

Using your method times 80% is the same as the formulas. Does that even work for other values tho?

I need to get a hold of another torque wrench to prove my theory but I suspect I am correct as we use crows feet with an extension bar that puts the ratchet wrench at another elevated plane than the crow's foot and everything works. But that removes the added pressure you would get if they were on the same plane with devices connected like train cars and straight or parallel to each other.

You have to brace the ratchet wrench though in the extension bar scenario that puts both devices on different planes, which is another variable. But in the actual, the bar braces the torque wrench so you should get the amplification of both devices plus the extra force of pulling in the same direction. Or I just need a few days in the institution to get away from the crazies and sort this out, haha. You can call me Pshyco, haha, or Mac or whatever my crazy behavior inspires in you.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[William McCormick]

Holy crapoly................the join date on my thingy shows how far back I go. Goes to show ya................ya can ban the best, but ya can't put 'em down

What did they throw you off for? Being too witty? Too rebellious?

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[forhire]

Check out this calculator if your lazy:
https://belknaptools.com/extensions-calculator/

How does your calculation compare?

[William McCormick]

Check out this calculator if your lazy:
https://belknaptools.com/extensions-calculator/

How does your calculation compare?

That thing is just taking the overall length of both devices, and dividing that value into the total torque on the bolt. That gives you what your hand has to put onto the wrench while tightening. Then they multiply the force put on the wrench by your hand by the length of the wrench and that is the answer for the torque-wrench-setting. It is not calculating in any torque from one lever to another. Or the combined amplification of devices.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[whtbaron]

Check out this calculator if your lazy:
https://belknaptools.com/extensions-calculator/

How does your calculation compare?

Oh, now that's handy!

[whtbaron]

That thing is just taking the overall length of both devices, and dividing that value into the total torque on the bolt. That gives you what your hand has to put onto the wrench while tightening. Then they multiply the force put on the wrench by your hand by the length of the wrench and that is the answer for the torque-wrench-setting. It is not calculating in any torque from one lever to another. Or the combined amplification of devices.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

Close enough for the girls I go out with...

[William McCormick]

Close enough for the girls I go out with...

It has been a while but I think you are supposed to put in and out, and not round and round. But with Millennials you never know.


Sincerely,

William McCormick

[ronsii]

It has been a while but I think you are supposed to put in and out, and not round and round. But with Millennials you never know.


Sincerely,

William McCormick

LOL!!!!!!!!! Ohhhh

[whtbaron]

LOL.... at 62 I have never been described as a millennial.

[Insaneride]

Check out this calculator if your lazy:
https://belknaptools.com/extensions-calculator/

How does your calculation compare?

forhire, the link worked but the calculator didn't work on my device. It could be a problem with my device tho.

I wanted to compare that calculator to MAC's (Will McCormick) method. His method takes overall length (torque tool + torque amp) in feet. We found an error in his method that is corrected by multiplying times 80%. MAC's method is simple and seems to correlate to the other formula I used originally. My torque tool is 15" or 1.25 feet and torque amplifier is 4 feet for a total of 5.25 feet. As crazy as he is its a simpler method and it's genius for its simplicity imo.

[leightrepairs]

Here is a couple of pictures of the effect of different hand positions on a torque wrench. No changes were made other then hand position. The torque wrench being used was just calibrated about a month ago by an accredited calibration lab. Hope this helps.

[MinnesotaDave]

Dave, think about reversing the torque wrench 180 degrees so that it goes over the bolt. It still works, of this I am sure, I would think it would require more force to turn but that I am not sure of, I have never put a torque wrench to it. But it would be interesting to do so to see if there would be a difference and how much. Because it would change that formula. When I install mini-split ceiling cassettes I use a crow's foot on an extension to adjust the height of the cassette. Sometimes the ratchet wrench is positioned like in the image with the formula and sometimes it is the opposite. I did not notice a difference but I wasn't looking for one. I will check this out because there should be a difference. And that difference may make that formula in the image invalid.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

The formula is still valid, you are just adding a negative number for the extension.
So yes, there is a torque difference. Instead of a longer lever, you've made a shorter one.
If at 90 degrees, the lever is the same length, no adjustment to torque value is required.