BusaDave9

My question pertained to torque and differentials. Yes, a tank's track gets such good traction it doesn't need a differential but that's not what I asked. It's like someone asking about how an airplane flies and you say "don't ask about airplanes, helicopters are much better because they can land in more locations." We're on a different topic now. I don't know what more to say. Yes, a tank gets good grip. I try to get good grip with my jeep by putting on larger tiers with an aggressive tread but I can't put a track on my jeep and even if I could it's not allowed because they tear up the trails and roads.

Grip alone is not always the answer. A 2 wheel drive car may have a problem with grip, especially off road. A locking differential will help and four wheel drive helps. You are saying a tank has great traction. That's true, tracks help tremendously. A tank has such good traction (grip) that it almost never gets stuck. In a tank grip alone is good enough. I say grip alone is not always the answer because many vehicles don't get excellent grip. When a tire starts to spin that's when the type of differential is important. Off-roaders like to have locking differentials to apply torque to the wheel with the best traction.

I'd rather not confuse this thread with talk about how a tank works but since you brought it up. The engine of a tanks turns the drive sprockets at the rear of the track (marked in red here). This is where the engine applies torque to the track to propel the tank. All the rest of the wheels are idle wheels. The yellow are road wheels with suspension. The blue is tension wheels for the mechanic to adjust how tight the track is. and that's all I have to say about that.

Yes, if a tire can't grip it can't apply torque and propel the vehicle. But when one tire has grip and the other doesn't that's when the design of the differential makes a difference. When one tire on an open or regular differential has no grip then neither tire can propel the vehicle. (Torque is limited by the tire with the worst traction) When one tire on a locking differential has no grip then the one tire with grip can propel the vehicle. (Torque is delivered to the tire that has traction)

Yes, I agree. When the vehicle is stuck no work is being done. When it starts to move lets not try to talk about which tire is doing the work. Then I'd like to talk about torque applied to the wheels.

With an open differential, when one tire is spinning and the other is not. BOTH tires are helping push the car. You can say push. You can say torque. You can say load or work. You can say whatever you want but both tires help the car get moving. People see the one tire spinning and they think this one tire is the only one doing any effort to move the car. This is not true. Both tires are helping out EXACTLY the same amount. Thought experiment: Lets say someone is trying to turn the tire on dry pavement. He has a long torque wrench on the hub of the wheel. He may be pushing with all his might and the tire is not turning. He is still applying torque. If he had just a little more help he might be able to move the car. This is not how the engine applies torque. It applies it through the differential . With an open differential it applies torque equally to both wheels no matter what.

Yes, people misunderstand torque, power and energy .... and I would like to add speed. Sure it takes energy to spin a tire but that doesn't mean it's applying that energy (or torque) to the ground. For that reason I say for this discussion it is best to imagine the weight of the wheel can be disregarded. Imagine it doesn't weigh anything. I disagree with your sentence I underlined. Lets say we've got an open differential and one tire is on glaze ice. You can't apply much torque to this tire before it starts to spin. Lets say only five foot pounds of torque can be applied before it spins on the ice. The other tire that is on dry pavement is also getting exactly the same amount of torque (5 foot pounds) but this is still not enough to move the jeep. This is why I say an open differential ALWAYS applies the same amount of torque to both wheels. On the other hand a locking differential will, at times, apply all the torque to the one tire with the best traction. For example lets say a tire on a jeep comes off the ground due to very rough terrain. (Imagine he's in 2 wheel drive, I don't want to think about what the other axle is doing). In this case the tire on the ground is getting all the torque and can still propel the jeep. I say no torque can EVER be applied to ANY tire that is off the ground. This is true if you have an open differential or a locker. All my off-road buddies disagree with that last statement. If the jeep has an open differential the tire off the ground would be spinning fast. My friends would say the spinning tire would have lots of torque. "Go grab that tire, Dave. You'd go flying up into the tree tops." 1. A spinning tire of any weight will be hard to stop. This is why I prefer to say it has neglectable weight for the sake of discussion. 2. If the spinning tire isn't pressing against the ground it CAN'T be applying any torque. To disagree would be to disagree with Newton's 3rd law, to every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. To explain my last point it would be like me going into a gym and bench pressing an empty bar bell. If I were to yell out "I am pressing up with 300 pounds of force." Everyone would yell "BS!" It's not possible. Then lets say a couple of guys were to put 300 pounds of weight on the ends of my bar bell while I am holding it above me. Now I sure as hell better be able to hold up 300 pounds or that bar bell will come crashing down on my chest. On the other hand lets say I can bench press 300 pounds (a lie) and when that much weight is put on my bar bell I continue to do repetitions. Now everyone would say "WOW he can press up that hard. I guess he was always pressing up with 300 pounds of force like he said." NO NO NO just because I CAN bench press 300 pounds doesn't mean I was when there were no weights on my bar bell. This is all hypothetical, I'm a wimp and can't bench press 300 pounds.

I enjoy taking my Jeep up into the mountains on rough trails. I have gotten into an argument with some of the others that also enjoy this pastime. I was hoping you guys could settle a dispute about locking differentials. Background I think this is mainly a science question. You don't have to know much about cars but you do need to know the following: Open Differential This is the most common differential found in almost all cars and trucks. Lets say a car with an open differential has the left tires on dry pavement. The right tires are in snow covered ice. If you have an open differential and you hit the gas your right tire would just spin in the ice and snow. Your left tire on the dry pavement will not turn. You're stuck. Locking differential These are not common. Sometimes they are found in off-road vehicles or in race cars. With a locking differential both tires on the axle turn in unison. In the same scenario, your right tires are in snow covered ice and your left tires are on dry pavement, you hit the gas. Now you can accelerate briskly. Because you have tires on the dry pavement you don't get stuck. The Debate Most people say an open differential will, at times, send all the torque to the one tire with the worst traction. And a locking differential will send torque to both tires equally. I say this is almost exactly opposite of the truth. I say an open differential will always apply torque equally to both tires on the axle. And I say a locking differential will, at times, send all the torque to the one tire with the best traction. So what do you guys say? Am I right or is everyone else wrong? I don't want to explain my reasoning until I hear from others.

That reminds me of a cartoon I saw years ago. It was 2 astronauts standing on another planet looking at their own shadow. But the shadow was only their skeleton. One of the astronauts says "I don't like the looks of that." I wish I could find that on the internet. It would be much better than me describing it.

Yes, we can close the thread. you and others have made some good points but then comes a rebuttable that has nothing to do with my position. That was happening a lot. Then I'm thinking if you don't know my position who are you arguing against? A straw man you've propped up?

To point out that race is real as it pertains to humans and can be used determine where the decedents of some humans have come from. Why would I ever want to talk about race in that way? The same reason science likes to find out the origin of anything. I can say that Junco came from Oregon. Or a geologist can say that rock was formed in a shallow sea. Or an astronomer might say our solar system was formed after a very large star exploded. Science is all about asking and answering these types of questions but when we start talking about humans everyone asks "why would you want to ask such questions. Why would you want to know where his ancestors came from?" Some human races are easily distinguished and some not so much.

That was stated in my very first post. Almost every post I make I repeat that the differences in human races are superficial and then people still say: Then strange says: I said no and explained my reasoning but I'm not going to repeat myself again. Then Strange asks the same question again except for red hair: Twice I explained that: but I'm going to scream if one more person says I've addressed genetic diversity and superficial differences many times. Since the differences in human races are superficial there isn't much genetic diversity. But we can still use race to determine where humans ancestors came from. Once again I'm sure people will reply with ethnic groups that are hard to distinguish from other races or ethnic groups. And then once again I will have to talk again about splitting hairs and how many races are hard to tell apart and may not even be considered separate races.

I refuse to respond to any of your posts until you reread this thread. Be careful to understand my posts before you reply. Please start with my very first post. I am tired of repeatedly posting the same thing over and and over again just to have people accuse me of saying things I have never said. You see the title says someone is asking if there "are different human races". From that you have a preconceived notion of what I have to say. Anyone that thinks human races are different is a racist. Racists think they know the races. Racists will overgeneralize with few statistics. They will find stats that support their view instead of developing their view to support to support facts they are collected without bias. A racist may first decide that a certain race is more prone to break laws. Then he'll go out and find specific examples of people of that race getting arrested and say that substantiates his claim that the race is prone to crime. This is what you are doing to me. You have preconceived notions of what my intentions are and you don't listen to the ideas of me as an individual. Almost none of your rebuttals pertain to my beliefs that I have made clear. You search our stats that fit your preconceived notion of what you think I believe. Strange, you are only a little better. But once again, all of science does not say race is a meaningless concept. Broader sciences such as biology don't like the word "race" because it can't be outlined definitively with genetics. More specific sciences such as ornithology very much like the term race because it can tell where a specific bird originally came from. The same can be said of humans. Once again I find myself repeating myself again and again and again and again and again, just to have someone put words into my mouth that have nothing to do with my stand on the topic. For Christs sake! Don't make me repeat myself every hour! Instead please reread my posts every hour. That would be less work on my part. This is getting ridiculous. It's like you guys know my opinion better than I do. As I was saying before it's like you have preconceived ideas of anyone that talks about race. You have your canned replies that don't pertain to my remarks.

Me? Me specifically? Examples please. I think you are generally referring to people that say there are human races. Now you are being ridiculous. Many of these comments are said in relation to human races. Don't post anything that you would not also say about bird races or races of any other animal. I think the term race should be used for humans the same as any other animal. Looking through almost any bird guide book there are pictures and explanations of different races. Races are very important to ornithology. But that does not mean races are clear cut and definitive. That's true of birds and of humans. Any biologist that wants to designate a new species has better have DNA evidence to back him up. Classifications below species are much harder to define but that doesn't mean they are frivolous and should be disregarded. Below species there is race, morphs and breeds. Many of you have tried to obfuscate the issue by bringing up other differences between humans such as height. In ornithology there are morphs and there are races. Some birds have a dark morph and some have a dark race. The difference is a dark race originated in a different geographical location. A dark morph lives and breads among the light morph. Human races have originated in different geographical areas. In modern times we humans easily travel over the whole world. We interbreed and that also obfuscates the race issue. This is a good post and it applies to humans and to any other species except for the last point - C. In regards to CharonY's point C: there is a strong moment to stop using race for humans because there isn't much genetic data to backup the term race. Talking about human races can lead to racism if people assume races imply more than superficial traits. Ornithologist are not about to give up the term race. Race can be used to identify where birds have originally come from. But many biologists don't like the term race because it doesn't utilize genetic data. It is very hard to be definitive about races for this reason.

Yes, the races are superficial differences in appearance. That's what I've been saying all along. This is why geneticist can't use genetic diversity to show the different races. To shorten what has been quoted at least twice in this thread: So genetics can't define the races easily. Why? Because the differences in the races are superficial differences in appearance.

There is far more genetic variation between species than between races. I could not find anything on the Wikipedia page to contradict that. Actually you (Strange) an I have both posted links showing that there is very little genetic variation within races. DNA testing has shown that my ancestors have come from Ireland, France and Scandinavia. Looking at the link you posted Ten Oz, they say: Although the test did mention countries those countries did not exist back then. I guess that's what they meant by "homelands rather than their country or origin itself". I am an African American with very dark skin. As stated earlier many people from around the world intermarry. This makes identifying races very difficult in most instances. But there are times that race can be easily distinguished. For example, if you placed 100 people from Southern Africa in a room with 100 native Japanese with 100 native Swedes with 100 native Australians you could sort out the members of each of these populations with 100% accuracy. However if you placed 100 Egyptians in another room with 100 Sudanese, with 100 Turkish people, with 100 Jordanians, it would be extremely difficult to sort out these people. Some people are very different. Some are very similar.

I think the best proof of a round Earth to a layman is the fact that the angular height of the north star is your geographical latitude. Do a little traveling and look at the night sky and you can prove to yourself that the Earth is round. The angle of the north star in relation to the "flat" ground is different for people that are further north. I can't imagine how a flat earther would try to explain gravity. I'd like to hear his ideas out of curiosity but I wonder if he'll be back.

No I do not have the data. The ornithologists collect the data for us. What my point was is that IF there was more genetic variation they would call the bird the Oregon Junco species not a race. Species need to be different genetically. Races are so similar that you can't point to their genes and say "here's the difference that says they are different races". (races are similar. Species are different) Now this brings us back to the discussion of "rigorous definitions". There is no rigorous definition of race that biologist can point to. This is what was discussed in the web pages you had links to. Some biologists don't like the term race. If two birds have enough genetic differences they are considered to be two different species but if they don't have enough differences some ornithologists would say they are different races. As you pointed out many biologists don't like terms that don't have rigorous definitions. But when someone goes to have thier DNA analyzed. They may be told that their ancestors were from the far east but god forbid if they say you belong to an Asian race. Genetics can be used to specify race but we are ... I'd like to say too politically correct to say that. When talking about birds race isn't vulgar. Race identification can be helpful. For example I can look out my window and say "That bird comes from Oregon." I can look at a picture of a Stellers Jay and say "That bird lives on the Pacific coast."

This is not true. I have old and new bird guide books. These are full of species and races. Ornithologist are constantly redefining bird races and species. With new DNA evidence they are constantly saying things like "we used to think these were separate species. Now we know they are only difference races within the species." They freely use the term "race" for birds and other animals but not for humans any more. Can anyone provide an example similar to this: A race has been identified in the animal world. Based on color or other superficial traits biologist can say this race comes from a certain geographical location. Later biologist said there was not enough genetic variation to call it a separate race. They still say individuals with certain color or darkness can be identified as coming from a certain geographical area but we won't call it a race anymore. My point is biologists never say races need at least a certain amount of genetic variation (unless we are talking about humans). Genetic variation may dictate a separate species but not a race. Race is often used in birds and other animals. Now it is not politically correct to use the term race when talking about humans. I say political correctness has affected science.

Strange, You have some good points. I'd like to expand on "rigorous definitions". If an ornithologist were to say they found a new bird species. It would have to pass the rigorous definitions of a species. With modern science this would be easy to compare this bird with other birds genetically. This "new" species must be genetically different. How different? (species can interbreed between different species. As noted Neandertals have bred with Homo Sapiens.) If there isn't much genetic variation they can't be considered separate species. Within a species there is variation. Some people have dark hair some light. Same can be said of eyes, skin etc. So how much variation to say it's a different race? From what I see in birds and other animals (I'm no expert) is that there doesn't have to be any more variation than is already within the species. In other words although many people have dark hair. Many people have dark skin. But if you can put together traits and say this person has ancestors from that part of the globe, you can specify the race. Rigorous definitions apply to species but not to race. That is true of humans and true of birds. Here's another example of race. Near my home we have the Steller's Jay. They also exist on the west cost but the Steller's jay here in Colorado has white lines over the eyes and over the beaks. These birds are very genetically similar. Ornithologist don't argue "There must be more genetic variation before you call that a different race." They rightfully say that about species but not races. It can be called a race if they can simply say that sue to the white lines this Jay probably came from the interior of North America. What I'm saying is you no longer need as rigorous definitions when it comes to race. Because of the race you can say this bird most likely came from the west coast. I don't care how much genetic variation there is within a race and I don't think the biologist care either. A biologist never says there is not enough genetic variation to call that a separate race UNLESS we are talking about humans. How much genetic variation does it take to create the white line over the eyes of the Steller's Jay? Not much at all. THere is more genetic variation within the species. But that white line can tell us where the bird came from (or at least where the ancestors came from).

No. Your example is trying to split hairs. When talking about races I have brought up the fact that it can be hard to distinguish between similar races. This is especially since we can so easily travel the world. I don't want to get into details about very similar people. In asking if there are human races I would rather take two extremes: two people whos ancestors were from different parts of the world and look much different. By taking extreme differences I want to point out that there are more than one race. Anyone can confuse the issue by pointing out two people that arguably the same race.

I have read that there simply isn't enough genetic variation within humans to designate separate races. Genetic variation is definitely necessary to designate separate species but it seems to me that if a superficial trait such as color can be used to explain variations within a species at different geographical locations. These variations can be used to specify races within the animal world but if we are talking about humans it is no longer acceptable to refer to them as separate races. With advancements in genetics we have decided that birds that previously were considered separate species are now considered to be different races within one species. One example is Rufous Sided Towhees. Towhees are large sparrows. I have an old bird guide book that shows the Rufous Sided Towhees has an eastern race and a western race. I also have a new bird book that says the Eastern Towhee is a separate species from the Spotted Towhee which was previously called the western race of the Rufous Sided Towhee. So if biologists want to designate a plant or animal as a separate species they need to show there is enough genetic variation for such a designation. If there isn't much genetic variation they can designate races that originate from separate geographical locations. Sorry if I have offended anyone I firmly believe and made it clear that human races are all the same except for superficial differences. The same is true for races of birds and other species. No one says the Oregon race of Juncos are better flyers or better adapted to cold. To make such a distinction would mean they would have to be different species. To say two specimens are so similar to be the same species but different races is to say the differences are superficial.

No there are many people with similar traits that are not from the same race. Also it is now very easy to travel the whole world. Races are mixing. It's getting harder and harder to tell the races apart. There are people of African decent that have blue eyes. By pointing out the rare exceptions does not mean there are no human races. Genetics has advanced to the point that anyone can get their DNA analyzed. Take your example of ginger hair and blue eyes. It is extremely unlikely that DNA tests would say such a person is from central Africa. Would such testing say that no one in that person's lineage ever lived in Europe but instead all ancestors lived in Central Africa? Here is my main point: humans should be held to the same standards of classification as other species. I am sure there are Dark Eyed Juncos with very dark heads that are not of the Oregon Race but they are rare. Should we then say that there are no bird races? Saying the Juncos from the NW are a different race is not controversial. Saying humans that are from a certain part of the globe are of a different race is extremely controversial.

It is becoming more common for people, even scientist to say there are no human races, that we are all of the same race. I think even scientists can be ideological. I say there most definitely are separate races. This is an extremely controversial topic. I say the differences in the races are superficial, visual differences such as skin color, hair, eyes etc. PLEASE NO REPLIES that say there are any more differences between the races besides these superficial differences. This thread will probably be closed by one person making one remark that offends a moderator. Please think before posting. In the past some people have said races have more than visual differences. This has produced hatred. In many examples such as Nazis, racism as also gone as far as genocide. Now I think some have gone to the opposite extreme. The two issues I'd like to discuss are: 1. Are there different Human races? 2. Can science be diverted by the ideology of some scientists? Here in Colorado my bird feeders are often visited by Dark Eyed Juncos. These are small grey sparrows. When winter arrives I notice some of these Juncos have very dark, almost black heads. This is the Oregon race of Dark Eyed Juncos. They come from the north-western US. Because of the color and darkness of these birds I can tell that they originally came from another geographic area from the Juncos I'm used to. If we can use color to say these birds are of a different race of Juncos can't we say the same about humans that have different skin colors.