Pages: 1
Name that tune #4
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: No Rice Allowed
Ok Evil and the gang......here's one for ya!
Only way to feel the noise is when it's good and loud,
So good you can't believe it's screaming with the crowd,
Don't sweat it, get it back to you,
On your feet you feel the beat, it goes straight to your spine,
Shake your head you must be dead if it don't make you fly,
Don't sweat it, get it back to you,
Know your body's made to move, feel it in your guts
Rock 'n' roll ain't worth the name if it don't make you strut,
Don't sweat it, get it back to you,
Posted by: JustaV6
stumped 
Posted by: No Rice Allowed
I know this is a band you like Evil, not sure if Justav6 likes this band or not..So here's a hint....The name of the song is also the name of the album in which it came from...back in 1979..
Posted by: JustaV6
AC/DC????
Posted by: No Rice Allowed
Hint: Name of the Song is Overkill......Any guess on the group now?
Posted by: No Rice Allowed
[quote:be9f88344b="EvilLS1"]Nope, still no idea. [/quote:be9f88344b]
Hint: an Engine is sometimes called a....... Which isn't the right term for it but none the less.... :P
Posted by: John
uh, motor, as in Motorhead?
Posted by: No Rice Allowed
[quote:e98e446abf="John"]uh, motor, as in Motorhead?[/quote:e98e446abf]
yep...John got it....I wonder how? :P
Posted by: John
[quote:3581dd0115="No Rice Allowed"][quote:3581dd0115="John"]uh, motor, as in Motorhead?[/quote:3581dd0115]
yep...John got it....I wonder how? :P[/quote:3581dd0115]
i took a guess mainly because i wanted to tell you that you are wrong about the definition of motor.
here it is in case you were wondering:
[quote:3581dd0115]mo·tor Pronunciation Key (mtr)
n.
Something, such as a machine or an engine, that produces or imparts motion.
A device that converts any form of energy into mechanical energy, especially an internal-combustion engine or an arrangement of coils and magnets that converts electric current into mechanical power.
A motor vehicle, especially an automobile: “It was a night of lovers. All along the highway... motors were parked and dim figures were clasped in revery” (Sinclair Lewis).
[/quote:3581dd0115]
Posted by: No Rice Allowed
[quote:7b745458d3="John"][quote:7b745458d3="No Rice Allowed"][quote:7b745458d3="John"]uh, motor, as in Motorhead?[/quote:7b745458d3]
yep...John got it....I wonder how? :P[/quote:7b745458d3]
i took a guess mainly because i wanted to tell you that you are wrong about the definition of motor.
here it is in case you were wondering:
[quote:7b745458d3]mo·tor Pronunciation Key (mtr)
n.
Something, such as a machine or an engine, that produces or imparts motion.
A device that converts any form of energy into mechanical energy, especially an internal-combustion engine or an arrangement of coils and magnets that converts electric current into mechanical power.
A motor vehicle, especially an automobile: “It was a night of lovers. All along the highway... motors were parked and dim figures were clasped in revery” (Sinclair Lewis).
[/quote:7b745458d3][/quote:7b745458d3]
Sorry John but your dead wrong on this one...a motor is electrical driven an engine is combustionable driven...big difference..Ever hear of a window motor called an Engine? I know some dictionaries cross over the term because people have called Engines.. motors for years...including motor oil, motorcycles, motor vehicles but being politically correct the term motor applies to electric driven devices...
take a look....
http://www.quinion.com/words/articles/engine.htm
Posted by: JustaV6
motorhead...eh.
they are alrite 
Posted by: John
ok first off, power is kinetic energy. you cannot create or destroy energy. energy can only change forms. an engine does not create power. it converts energy from potential energy stored in the fuel/air mixture to the potential energy in the heat and exhaust gases and the kinetic energy which is transfered through the reciprocating assembly of the engine. on top of that, power is a measurement describing a form of energy. which also means that power cannot be created if it relies on a pre-existing condition of energy in order for it to even exist.
in addition, the article you are refering to discusses an ongoing debate about the difference between a mechanical and a chemical propulsion unit in a rocket.
but what your article also says is that the word engine was originally meant as "ingenious" or "new" or "to create" and not to describe what we now know as the internal combustion engine. the word motor and its origins described in the article more aptly describe the IC engine. in your article, motor originated as the noun version of the action or idea of "something that causes motion." last i checked, an internal combustion engine utilized a process consitisting of mechnical action fueled by energy released in a chemical combustion reaction to cause mechanical movement that would exert mechanical force through a wheel on a surface to cause the vehicle to move, under its own power which is a measurment of the energy used to produce that movement.
now, where you article could be applicable if teh orginal instances were used is this way. since a motor creates movement, the entire car is totally devoted tothe idea that it will create movement so there for teh entire car, not soley the engine, can be considered a motor. but since an engine creates something new, it is applicable in this sense. the motor converts potential, stored enercgy to heat, motion and more potential energy. that is the basic idea. however, that motion is a linear motion that is converted into a rotating motion. that motion is a new motion compared to the combustion process that releases the energy in the first place. that would mean that the engine is creating a new force by applying the linear motion of the pistons. so the motor is also an engine in that sense.
following that train of thought which, given your article and its definitions, is an accurate assessment, the Internal Combustion Engine is both a motor and an engine because it cause motion and changes motion to create new motion.
so the definition in the dictionary will stand and your original statement of:
[quote:b719b39d8b]Hint: an Engine is sometimes called a....... Which isn't the right term for it but none the less.... [/quote:b719b39d8b]
is inaccurate.
Posted by: No Rice Allowed
[quote:f5a3f02dbf="John"]ok first off, power is kinetic energy. you cannot create or destroy energy. energy can only change forms. an engine does not create power. it converts energy from potential energy stored in the fuel/air mixture to the potential energy in the heat and exhaust gases and the kinetic energy which is transfered through the reciprocating assembly of the engine. on top of that, power is a measurement describing a form of energy. which also means that power cannot be created if it relies on a pre-existing condition of energy in order for it to even exist.
in addition, the article you are refering to discusses an ongoing debate about the difference between a mechanical and a chemical propulsion unit in a rocket.
but what your article also says is that the word engine was originally meant as "ingenious" or "new" or "to create" and not to describe what we now know as the internal combustion engine. the word motor and its origins described in the article more aptly describe the IC engine. in your article, motor originated as the noun version of the action or idea of "something that causes motion." last i checked, an internal combustion engine utilized a process consitisting of mechnical action fueled by energy released in a chemical combustion reaction to cause mechanical movement that would exert mechanical force through a wheel on a surface to cause the vehicle to move, under its own power which is a measurment of the energy used to produce that movement.
now, where you article could be applicable if teh orginal instances were used is this way. since a motor creates movement, the entire car is totally devoted tothe idea that it will create movement so there for teh entire car, not soley the engine, can be considered a motor. but since an engine creates something new, it is applicable in this sense. the motor converts potential, stored enercgy to heat, motion and more potential energy. that is the basic idea. however, that motion is a linear motion that is converted into a rotating motion. that motion is a new motion compared to the combustion process that releases the energy in the first place. that would mean that the engine is creating a new force by applying the linear motion of the pistons. so the motor is also an engine in that sense.
following that train of thought which, given your article and its definitions, is an accurate assessment, the Internal Combustion Engine is both a motor and an engine because it cause motion and changes motion to create new motion.
so the definition in the dictionary will stand and your original statement of:
[quote:f5a3f02dbf]Hint: an Engine is sometimes called a....... Which isn't the right term for it but none the less.... [/quote:f5a3f02dbf]
is inaccurate.[/quote:f5a3f02dbf]
Yes an engine can create movement so can a human being, does that mean a human is a motor under your analysis, driven by energy? Just because both could have the same characteristics of movement doesn't imply both are the same.....Any device you've seen run on electric has been applied as having a motor...not an engine.....So with that said how can one deem an engine truly as just a motor when in detail it goes further than just what propells a motor? It's like the word "bad" meaning no good, but applied to a rad car..it means awesome, good, cool....Again it's politically incorrect......
Engine: "A device that converts heat energy in a fuel into mechanical
energy that can be used to [do] work..." (J. Webster. Small
Engines-Operation and Service. Chicago: American Technical Publishers,1981)
Motor: "Technically it refers to an electric motor and should never be
used when referring to the engine [of an automobile]"
(A.L. Dyke. Dyke's Automobile and Gasoline Engine Encyclopedia. 6th
edition. Toronto: McClelland, Goodchild & Stewart, 1918)
So, it follows that an "engine" is powered by gasoline, kerosene, diesel
fuel, hot air or steam--anything but electricity or a clockwork mechanism.
You will never find an "electric engine."
A "motor" is powered by electricity or a clockwork mechanism. It's clean.
It's cool. (Never mind how the electricity is generated. ) You won't come
across a "steam motor, " and you shouldn't see a "gasoline motor" either,(but you will, because of sloppy writing and editing).
Modern diesel-electric locomotives are an interesting case in point. The
diesel engine drives an on-board generator that provides electricity to the
electric (traction) motors. Perfectly clear. Sort of...
The confusion arises with the use of "motor" as a prefix or adjective, as
in, "motorboat, motorcycle, motorscooter, motor car, "etc. All of these
have "engines." Technical books refer to "motor cycle engines," "motor
boat engines," and "motor car engines." It doesn't help that we have
"motorsports, motorists, and motor oil," but what can you do? "Motor" is
easier to say. It rolls off the tongue, unlike "engine, " that jerks
along. The influence of German immigrants, maybe. Say, "engine cycle," or
"enginesports." Ach! To make things worse, we have General Motors, Ford
Motor Company , American Motors, Mopar, Motown and all the rest. In this
case, you could argue that "motor(s)" signifies "automobile(s). "
External vs. internal power is not a factor in deciding between engine and
motor. Steam engines are external combustion engines (for example, the
source of power--the boiler--can be in another room for a large stationary
engine).
Size and horsepower aren't factors, either. Current technical books use the
term "small gas engine," or just "small-engine" in reference to "lawn
equipment, chain saws, outboards or motorcycles." Horse-power can range
from 1/2 to 20.
Anyway, "outboard engine" seems to predate "outboard motor." I've found
the former in a 1948 book. Of course, on the same page we find the makers
of these "engines" --Johnson Motors and Evinrude Motors. It's not
surprising that "outboard motor" found its way into the language. It's
easier to say.
Recommendation: refer to the artifact as an "outboard engine" or "outboard
marine engine" or "motorboat outboard engine." Anything but an "outboard
motor." "Outboard engine" was technically correct 50 years ago and it's
technically correct today.
Try again John.... :P
Posted by: DODGE_MAIN
Yr both fuckin stupid! Shut up! 
Posted by: No Rice Allowed
[quote:c73b7f55d6="DODGE_MAIN"]Yr both fuckin stupid! Shut up! [/quote:c73b7f55d6]
Don't you have some crack to find? :P
Posted by: Markus
Motorhead Fuckin rules. that is all
Posted by: John
now NRA, you are changing the subject. i gave you evidence that your statement was inaccurate. you gave me evidence to support your claim. analyzing your evidence, i gave you a logical conclusion that an Internal Combustion Engine could be considered both an engine and a motor given the postulation that you have posed in the contect of the article that you posted.
as rebuttal, you have introduced futher documentation that does not support nor deny either position.
however, i find this statement to be supportive of my argument:
Engine: "A device that converts heat energy in a fuel into mechanical
energy that can be used to [do] work..." (J. Webster. Small
Engines-Operation and Service. Chicago: American Technical Publishers,1981)
the heat energy is not solely in fuel. it needs O2 to be realesed therefore that statement is not accurate in stating that the heat energy is converted. the heat energy in the fuel is store potential energy just like molecular bons in O2 store the potential energy in the oxygen. the electrical spark introcuces the heat whic is the catalyst for the combustion process. but the again, all of this depends on the definition of fuel that is implied in the original definition.
Motor: "Technically it refers to an electric motor and should never be
used when referring to the engine [of an automobile]"
(A.L. Dyke. Dyke's Automobile and Gasoline Engine Encyclopedia. 6th
edition. Toronto: McClelland, Goodchild & Stewart, 1918)
your original argument, based on teh previous article also states this to which i have already formed an argument that i do not wish to reapeat. please see the previous post to find said argument.
So, it follows that an "engine" is powered by gasoline, kerosene, diesel
fuel, hot air or steam--anything but electricity or a clockwork mechanism.
You will never find an "electric engine."
again, the definition previously applied to engine in your previous article states that an engine creates power. but power, again, is a measurment of energy which cannot be created or destroyed. if you cannot create or destroy energy then you cannot create power. furthermore, since power is a measurement it rewquires a pre-existing condition to measure. you cannot create a measurment of anything that does not exist before teh measurment is taken. ask Enron about that. furthermore, what gave this author of this statement the power to declare that a simple basic fundamental of physics applies in some case but not in others? a spring or opposing polarities of diodes in an electric motor with both imposed a force just as the combustion of a fuel and a catalyst. that statement denies one of the most basic ideas of physics.
A "motor" is powered by electricity or a clockwork mechanism. It's clean.
It's cool. (Never mind how the electricity is generated. ) You won't come
across a "steam motor, " and you shouldn't see a "gasoline motor" either,(but you will, because of sloppy writing and editing).
AH! here is where the argument's hole lies! clearly it is not based in physics but rather environmental conditions. the problem here is that the motors of a clockwork and an electrical motor are NOT clean. a clockwork still produces heat and the clockwork gears wear and produce debris from its power conversion process. in addition, it is shown that metals, when repeatedly flexed over time, will release compenents of thier molecular structure over time which the weakens the metals and contaminates teh environment around that metal. and electrical motor have by products also. not to mention the dirty process which convert fuel/catalyst energy into electrical energy but it also causes heat and metal wear and fatigue like a clockwork does. in addition, the electromagnetic radiation produced by the motor converts simple O2 into O3, otherwise know as OZONE which is a toxin to all life forms on earth. that would also make it unclean.
Modern diesel-electric locomotives are an interesting case in point. The
diesel engine drives an on-board generator that provides electricity to the
electric (traction) motors. Perfectly clear. Sort of...
so how is it a diesel locomotive has a generator but a diesel in any other respect is not a generator yet there is no difference between a diesel engine in a diesel/electric locomotive and a diesel engine in a Kenworth? you are not following your own argument.
The confusion arises with the use of "motor" as a prefix or adjective, as
in, "motorboat, motorcycle, motorscooter, motor car, "etc. All of these
have "engines." Technical books refer to "motor cycle engines," "motor
boat engines," and "motor car engines." It doesn't help that we have
"motorsports, motorists, and motor oil," but what can you do? "Motor" is
easier to say. It rolls off the tongue, unlike "engine, " that jerks
along. The influence of German immigrants, maybe. Say, "engine cycle," or
"enginesports." Ach! To make things worse, we have General Motors, Ford
Motor Company , American Motors, Mopar, Motown and all the rest. In this
case, you could argue that "motor(s)" signifies "automobile(s). "
while liguistics is a valid reason for the popularity of a word, i do not believe that the proper name of a sport or activity would have any bearing on the confusion between an engine and a motor. this reeks of nothing but an excuse to rationalize issues related to but not hinging upon the subject matter at hand.
External vs. internal power is not a factor in deciding between engine and
motor. Steam engines are external combustion engines (for example, the
source of power--the boiler--can be in another room for a large stationary
engine).
if it is not a factor then why have you admitted it into this argument? it is a factor in the article you have previously posted concerning rocket propulaion because there are internal and external propulsion systems in different forms of rocket propulsion.
Size and horsepower aren't factors, either. Current technical books use the
term "small gas engine," or just "small-engine" in reference to "lawn
equipment, chain saws, outboards or motorcycles." Horse-power can range
from 1/2 to 20.
again, i have to ask, what is the relevance than? why have you made these statements? what is your purpose? if they are not relevant to you point then they are ancilliary and useless to your argument. stop wasting time.
Anyway, "outboard engine" seems to predate "outboard motor." I've found
the former in a 1948 book. Of course, on the same page we find the makers
of these "engines" --Johnson Motors and Evinrude Motors. It's not
surprising that "outboard motor" found its way into the language. It's
easier to say.
again, youi are using liguistics as a crutch. the proper name of a company that is in the business of build propulsion units for particular modes of transportation does not have much impact on the debate between an engine and a motor. where is does have impact is when someones say "Evirude builds motors." which may or may not be true depending on the outcome of the engine vs. motor debate.
Recommendation: refer to the artifact as an "outboard engine" or "outboard
marine engine" or "motorboat outboard engine." Anything but an "outboard
motor." "Outboard engine" was technically correct 50 years ago and it's
technically correct today.
again, i will reference my previous argument which you have only posted articles that mere restate your initial argument while doing nothing to disprove my statement. do you wish to debate or do you wish to post someone else's intellectual property until you are blue in the face? stop giving me teh same argument over and over in a different form and tell me why you think my argument is invalid.
until you accomplish that task the following remains true:
[quote:b8e8d782e4]Hint: an Engine is sometimes called a....... Which isn't the right term for it but none the less....
[/quote:b8e8d782e4]
is inaccurate.
Posted by: KenA
On a sidenote, your engine only has one Pulley on it...All the others are sheaves....
It sucks working with engineers...
Posted by: KingofSlackers
[quote:0208a625ad="EvilLS1"]Um... Who gives a shit anyway? [/quote:0208a625ad]
:pointlol:
Posted by: No Rice Allowed
[quote:8e5d2fe6c7="John"]now NRA, you are changing the subject. i gave you evidence that your statement was inaccurate. you gave me evidence to support your claim. analyzing your evidence, i gave you a logical conclusion that an Internal Combustion Engine could be considered both an engine and a motor given the postulation that you have posed in the contect of the article that you posted.
as rebuttal, you have introduced futher documentation that does not support nor deny either position.
however, i find this statement to be supportive of my argument:
Engine: "A device that converts heat energy in a fuel into mechanical
energy that can be used to [do] work..." (J. Webster. Small
Engines-Operation and Service. Chicago: American Technical Publishers,1981)
the heat energy is not solely in fuel. it needs O2 to be realesed therefore that statement is not accurate in stating that the heat energy is converted. the heat energy in the fuel is store potential energy just like molecular bons in O2 store the potential energy in the oxygen. the electrical spark introcuces the heat whic is the catalyst for the combustion process. but the again, all of this depends on the definition of fuel that is implied in the original definition.
Motor: "Technically it refers to an electric motor and should never be
used when referring to the engine [of an automobile]"
(A.L. Dyke. Dyke's Automobile and Gasoline Engine Encyclopedia. 6th
edition. Toronto: McClelland, Goodchild & Stewart, 1918)
your original argument, based on teh previous article also states this to which i have already formed an argument that i do not wish to reapeat. please see the previous post to find said argument.
So, it follows that an "engine" is powered by gasoline, kerosene, diesel
fuel, hot air or steam--anything but electricity or a clockwork mechanism.
You will never find an "electric engine."
again, the definition previously applied to engine in your previous article states that an engine creates power. but power, again, is a measurment of energy which cannot be created or destroyed. if you cannot create or destroy energy then you cannot create power. furthermore, since power is a measurement it rewquires a pre-existing condition to measure. you cannot create a measurment of anything that does not exist before teh measurment is taken. ask Enron about that. furthermore, what gave this author of this statement the power to declare that a simple basic fundamental of physics applies in some case but not in others? a spring or opposing polarities of diodes in an electric motor with both imposed a force just as the combustion of a fuel and a catalyst. that statement denies one of the most basic ideas of physics.
A "motor" is powered by electricity or a clockwork mechanism. It's clean.
It's cool. (Never mind how the electricity is generated. ) You won't come
across a "steam motor, " and you shouldn't see a "gasoline motor" either,(but you will, because of sloppy writing and editing).
AH! here is where the argument's hole lies! clearly it is not based in physics but rather environmental conditions. the problem here is that the motors of a clockwork and an electrical motor are NOT clean. a clockwork still produces heat and the clockwork gears wear and produce debris from its power conversion process. in addition, it is shown that metals, when repeatedly flexed over time, will release compenents of thier molecular structure over time which the weakens the metals and contaminates teh environment around that metal. and electrical motor have by products also. not to mention the dirty process which convert fuel/catalyst energy into electrical energy but it also causes heat and metal wear and fatigue like a clockwork does. in addition, the electromagnetic radiation produced by the motor converts simple O2 into O3, otherwise know as OZONE which is a toxin to all life forms on earth. that would also make it unclean.
Modern diesel-electric locomotives are an interesting case in point. The
diesel engine drives an on-board generator that provides electricity to the
electric (traction) motors. Perfectly clear. Sort of...
so how is it a diesel locomotive has a generator but a diesel in any other respect is not a generator yet there is no difference between a diesel engine in a diesel/electric locomotive and a diesel engine in a Kenworth? you are not following your own argument.
The confusion arises with the use of "motor" as a prefix or adjective, as
in, "motorboat, motorcycle, motorscooter, motor car, "etc. All of these
have "engines." Technical books refer to "motor cycle engines," "motor
boat engines," and "motor car engines." It doesn't help that we have
"motorsports, motorists, and motor oil," but what can you do? "Motor" is
easier to say. It rolls off the tongue, unlike "engine, " that jerks
along. The influence of German immigrants, maybe. Say, "engine cycle," or
"enginesports." Ach! To make things worse, we have General Motors, Ford
Motor Company , American Motors, Mopar, Motown and all the rest. In this
case, you could argue that "motor(s)" signifies "automobile(s). "
while liguistics is a valid reason for the popularity of a word, i do not believe that the proper name of a sport or activity would have any bearing on the confusion between an engine and a motor. this reeks of nothing but an excuse to rationalize issues related to but not hinging upon the subject matter at hand.
External vs. internal power is not a factor in deciding between engine and
motor. Steam engines are external combustion engines (for example, the
source of power--the boiler--can be in another room for a large stationary
engine).
if it is not a factor then why have you admitted it into this argument? it is a factor in the article you have previously posted concerning rocket propulaion because there are internal and external propulsion systems in different forms of rocket propulsion.
Size and horsepower aren't factors, either. Current technical books use the
term "small gas engine," or just "small-engine" in reference to "lawn
equipment, chain saws, outboards or motorcycles." Horse-power can range
from 1/2 to 20.
again, i have to ask, what is the relevance than? why have you made these statements? what is your purpose? if they are not relevant to you point then they are ancilliary and useless to your argument. stop wasting time.
Anyway, "outboard engine" seems to predate "outboard motor." I've found
the former in a 1948 book. Of course, on the same page we find the makers
of these "engines" --Johnson Motors and Evinrude Motors. It's not
surprising that "outboard motor" found its way into the language. It's
easier to say.
again, youi are using liguistics as a crutch. the proper name of a company that is in the business of build propulsion units for particular modes of transportation does not have much impact on the debate between an engine and a motor. where is does have impact is when someones say "Evirude builds motors." which may or may not be true depending on the outcome of the engine vs. motor debate.
Recommendation: refer to the artifact as an "outboard engine" or "outboard
marine engine" or "motorboat outboard engine." Anything but an "outboard
motor." "Outboard engine" was technically correct 50 years ago and it's
technically correct today.
again, i will reference my previous argument which you have only posted articles that mere restate your initial argument while doing nothing to disprove my statement. do you wish to debate or do you wish to post someone else's intellectual property until you are blue in the face? stop giving me teh same argument over and over in a different form and tell me why you think my argument is invalid.
until you accomplish that task the following remains true:
[quote:8e5d2fe6c7]Hint: an Engine is sometimes called a....... Which isn't the right term for it but none the less....
[/quote:8e5d2fe6c7]
is inaccurate.[/quote:8e5d2fe6c7]
What I have given you is proof the term is misused...You can't have an engine called a motor if a typical electrical motor can't be called an engine..If both terms are to be used in the same aspect, then both should apply equally....the reference to most you deem unfit has a meaning behind it..How is the term Engine used and why.... Grab a hanes manual or what have you and check how they present the terms Engine and Motor throughout the manual.....Again a human can't be called a motor so why call an engine one, when both can produce energy and perform movement? What you did to most I've posted is nick pick through it, without really grasping the whole concept on the debate...Your trying to deem an engine a motor by simply saying it has energy and it moves....Again from an Automotive dictionary.....
http://100megsfree4.com/dictionary/car-dicm.htm
Here's why your statement is wrong: What's the difference between your home and a store/business down the street from you that may look the same? Both could be made of the same structure, yet your not going to call that store home.....The same applies to this engine debate....the engine has unique characteristics that differ from a typical electric motor......Just like your home has different characteristics from the store down your street....It's really simple....
Again my comment that started this is very much accurate....I've gave enough evidence from other sources to back it up....
Back to the Forums
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2012,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2012
- Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser