Torque multiplying socket

[5ubtle]

Sheesh. It's a simple F=MA scenario as said multiple times earlier. I realize that a lot of people here think they're a junior engineer and want to get into the semantics of things and throw around esoteric theories, but let's be realistic: it's the additional MASS.

The IR socket adds mass, but in a patentable way. That's it. Mass.

@Steve_P Do you have any thoughts about this recent Torque Test Channel video?

 

[M.Brane]

Here I was imagining sockets screaming four letter words.

 

[Hohn]

@Steve_P Do you have any thoughts about this recent Torque Test Channel video?

 

[WhataTool]

Assuming the "A" is F=MA equation stays the same as mass goes higher and higher is pretty wild.
Not to mention the harmonics involved which is never going to be a simple equation
I hope some of you guys are not in charge of anything safety related

 

[2ndGearRubber]

Isn't the problem with the AVE socket, aside from "lock on" while impacting which can happen to any socket, just an example of a mass too great for the driving tool? That socket might work great on an air motor and hammer designed for 1" drive. I would assume a similar outcome from the old school 1/4 drive "impact guns" which made zero torque using a modern weighted socket. The tool just can't spin it properly to get any advantage, those little 1/4 pneumatic guns made like 30ft/lb, so the 19mm drive end weighted socket would just bog it down.

For a given force, you can swing the bat faster, or add mass to the bat, and that's how the ball will go further. Eventually the equation is too one sided, like swinging a 1lb wiffle bat at twice what the MLB swings a wood bat, of swinging a 10lb bat at a super slow speed. The hammer function should react positively to more mass, until the bat is too heavy to swing.


All of that ignores any harmonics of the air motor/hammer mechanism and how it reacts to changes in how the impact occurs. But one look at the AVE socket made it pretty clear it was going to bog the tool, IMO. If I could swing a bat as fast as a MLB player, but my bat weighed 50lb, I'd demolish the ball. But you need to be able to swing it.

 

[5ubtle]

... the equation is ...

You'd better be careful talking like that. Your gonna make @Steve_P mad, and he'll be in here chastising you for 'engineering without a license".

 

[2ndGearRubber]

You'd better be careful talking light that. Your gonna make @Steve_P mad, and he'll be in here chastising you for 'engineering without a license".

I got the best type of engineering license, been spinning wrenches in the rust belt for a decade.

 

[jayemm]

Isn't the problem with the AVE socket, aside from "lock on" while impacting which can happen to any socket, just an example of a mass too great for the driving tool? That socket might work great on an air motor and hammer designed for 1" drive. I would assume a similar outcome from the old school 1/4 drive "impact guns" which made zero torque using a modern weighted socket. The tool just can't spin it properly to get any advantage, those little 1/4 pneumatic guns made like 30ft/lb, so the 19mm drive end weighted socket would just bog it down.

For a given force, you can swing the bat faster, or add mass to the bat, and that's how the ball will go further. Eventually the equation is too one sided, like swinging a 1lb wiffle bat at twice what the MLB swings a wood bat, of swinging a 10lb bat at a super slow speed. The hammer function should react positively to more mass, until the bat is too heavy to swing.


All of that ignores any harmonics of the air motor/hammer mechanism and how it reacts to changes in how the impact occurs. But one look at the AVE socket made it pretty clear it was going to bog the tool, IMO. If I could swing a bat as fast as a MLB player, but my bat weighed 50lb, I'd demolish the ball. But you need to be able to swing it.

I watched Ave's video making it and the TTC testing it out. Didn't think it was going to work too well. Wholeheartedly agree with you that the socket is too massive for the driving force.